Talk:Pink Floyd/Archive 2

message: There are actually sound samples for "On the Run" and "Eclipse" on the DSotM page that we might use; does anyone have samples from other albums? InTheFlesh? 16:35, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll be glad to make some (from The Wall, Meddle, WYWH, or Echoes -- these are what I have in digital); suggestions of what songs to choose?Rotring 20:16, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I made and added about 30 clips (two songs from each album, although DSotM has 4 with the two above) since he last posted; take a look here and see if you think any others need adding. - dharmabum 21:07, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

text: We're getting out of my comfort zone regarding the specifics of grammar, but I would think Pink Floyd or The Floyd would be considered singular, as its a proper noun which refers to a group of people. If they were called "The Pink Floyds", it would be plural, with the term "a Pink Floyd," referring to a single member of the band. But part of the issue is just convention; we don't refer to Keith Richards as "a Rolling Stone", but we do refer to Mickey Dolenz as "a Monkee". - dharmabum 21:15, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Featured Music Project evaluation 

message: Do you think we should add albums such as "Relics," "Works," etc. to the box on the bottom of the page? InTheFlesh? 04:16, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The box on the bottom of the page is actually this template, with its own talk page. It's worth noting that people had agreed earlier to remove "less important" albums from the list, and generally people like there to be a talk page consensus before modifying a template as a single change to that template affects dozens of other pages. Take the suggestion over that way and set up a proposal. I personally think a sub-section for "Compilations" wouldn't be bad, especially considering how unique a couple of them are in being the only official source for some songs ("Embryo", "Biding My Time") - dharmabum 07:04, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Compilation Albums

message: http://www.sydbarrett.org/vicsinghinterview.htm --asydwaters 08:19, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for that! - dharmabum 08:23, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vic Singh 

message: According to Mason's book - and the photos of things like setlists therein - the early proto-Floyd was called Tea Set, not T-Set. PurplePlatypus 02:06, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Schaffner (evidently erroneously) had them as T-Set, so that's why I changed it when I was going through and referencing the article. I don't have Mason's book yet... can you give me a page number from his book so the correct name can have a proper citation? - dharmabum 02:30, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry for taking a while to get back to you. There's an early logo that clearly spells out "Tea" on page 20 and the running order for a multi-act bill that included them on page 30. I haven't checked the text in detail (the book doesn't have an index, which would be very nice for stuff like this) as the first reference to the name would be ideal, but the name change also takes place on page 30, and is as the article describes it (it better be - I'm the one who added that bit in its current form, and that's what I was going by). PurplePlatypus 19:37, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll go with the p. 30 reference, as the name change is the most important bit. Thanks a bunch. - dharmabum 22:40, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tea, not T 

message: I've been toying with the idea of removing the album title subheadings from the article, for a few reasons: I think it would flow better, it would really shorten the rather ungainly table of contents, and I'm not sure they're necessary since a picture of the album cover (with a link to the article about the album) appears next to each chunk talking about it. What do you think? You can take a peek at what it would look like in my sandbox. - dharmabum 20:49, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with that. Even some details about the albums could be spared for the Pink Floyd discography and/or each albums article, to try and lighten our 54kB article. ;) — Rotring 22:28, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll go ahead and do it then... as for removing some details about the albums, all that really might need to go is specifics about the album, as opposed to how the music of a given album fits into their style, sound and evolution. Since one of the biggest criticisms on the FA review is not enough description of their sound, we need to be careful about removing anything along those lines. - dharmabum 23:18, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Exactly, it's "specifics about the album" that I'm talking about, nothing more — like the extensive list of what each one of DSoTM's songs is about (that's a bit beyond describing their sound), or whose dog was Seamus. —Rotring 23:24, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I was thinking about removing the stuff on DSoTM's songs, so you made up my mind. :) And the "Seamus" one is great, the lack of reference for that statement was bugging me anyway. - dharmabum 23:46, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removing album titles as subheadings 

message: There seems to be a nasty quarrel over which fan sites should be listed and which should not. Well, a simple solution is to list none! I deleted the fan site list and I invite you to keep it off the article until you stop quarreling and removing links to rival sites. Thanks. David.Monniaux 16:20, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't see any quarrelling between rival sites in the last several months, just a minor one about WP:EL suitability of "Another Link on the Wall" and a large quarrel about a site administrator who was blocked indefinitely for linkspamming this and other articles with a clearly unsuitable site according to WP:EL. As most or all of the links removed are either long-established sources or top 20 Google hits, I'm restoring them. There's always going to be arguments about external links on any article about a subject with a large following, but removing established resources like the Echoes mailing list, which has been around for 20 years, doesn't improve the article. - dharmabum 23:48, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

text: With this latest debacle, I'm reversing my earlier position and agree. WP:EL makes it clear that fan sites are sometimes tolerated, but not necessary. It would be fine to have a few if it didn't lead to any disruption, but these silly revert wars about external links just take time away from actually making an encyclopedia and take up the talk page with a bunch of meaningless nonsense. I've re-removed all of the external links (except the official websites), and I regret not seeing your point to begin with. - dharmabum 22:29, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I am contacting a admin, your out of control at the very least the page that held all the links should be present. IE a list of links to fansites like Another link in the WallOnanisland 23:20, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fan site quarrels 

message: Say, ya know, Syd is in the picture. I don't think he should be though because One: he is an EX-member. And Two: when Pink Floyd really shined was when Syd made no contributions. Thoughts? TommyBoy76 22:41, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The article was lacking a fair-use picture when I started working on it for FAC, and I found that one and liked it precisely because Syd is in the picture, and it's a rare one with all 5 members. Syd is an ENORMOUS part of Pink Floyd's story, regardless of whether he's still wih them or not; an entire album was written about him, and Waters even dedicated their Live 8 appearance to him. Saying "Pink Floyd really shined" without him is only one opinion; there are many fans who were never interested in anything but the Barrett-era music. - dharmabum 23:24, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Actually, my wife would argue this; her favourite album is The Division Bell. I can't say I agree, but the point is made, that whether you favour The Piper at the Gates of Dawn, The Wall or Momentary Lapse of Reason, saying a band shined with such-and-such a lineup is entirely a matter of opinion. - dharmabum 08:32, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Current Image 

message: This is Anglo/American language difference, collective nouns like teams and bands are plural in English and singular in American. Since Pink Floyd were a British band British English should be used. Bob Palin 01:07, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I wish someone British had read the FAC... myself and another editor spent ages combing through the article changing plural to singular since that was a complaint from a couple people during the FAC. I'll work on changing them all at the same time this weekend to keep the article consistent. - dharmabum 02:30, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Actually, according to the Wikipedia article here, it's not a hard rule, and the singular form is acceptable in British English assuming usage is consistent. Is it really a big enough deal to justify the effort? I'll wait until we have some kind of consensus before I start changing. Personally, I'm indifferent as to which form is used (rather unsurprisingly for a Canadian), I just want consistency. - dharmabum 02:38, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You may notice that I didn't change the article back, I'm fairly indifferent myself though as a Brit I'm more comfortable with the plural version, consistency within an article is the most important thing I agree but not across articles (I'll resist changing all my soccer articles to US usage) What is a FAC? Bob Palin 04:04, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  The singular version is an affront to God. I'm so glad that the Floyd are British. I've gone through the article and pluralised it. Hopefully I haven't missed anything. Chris Cunningham 19:46, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Clearly you do feel strongly about it, so thanks for taking the bull by the horns. Good job. - dharmabum 20:29, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is vs Are 

message: Could we just block the users that vandelized the page rather than blocking use of the page? Tado 02:12, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The thing is that the people keep making new accounts. However, I wonder why they just don't block the IP... Someone should get a checkuser...—G.He 02:10, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmmmm... Maybe shared IPs?—G.He 02:23, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

text: This has been going on for a week now. See Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#Alkivar_phone_number_vandal. Cowman109Talk 02:15, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I know...unfortunately.—G.He 02:17, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This is indeed an unfortunate problem we have to deal with constantly in Wikipedia. --Siva1979Talk to me 09:07, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I can't stop wondering how much of a LOSER someone must be to keep vandalising entries. Elp gr 13:56, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Any other way? 

message: I think it's better to protect the article for a day or two rather than fight a pointless edit war with morons vandalising it. Registered users can still edit the article as before. Valenciano 13:20, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed.--Alabamaboy 13:38, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I semi-protected the article for about half an hour. You shouldn't protect the main page article for very long--Kungfu Adam (talk) 13:56, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Note caption under the first photo... it's still vandalized 70.235.126.6 17:09, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recent vandalism 

message: I know some of the categories overlap a bit, but doesn't it seem like Pink Floyd should probably be in the category "Musical groups?" Just thought I'd mention it, as I don't really know how to do that sort of thing.
129.237.90.24 14:56, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Category 

message: There is no saxophone on Atom Heart Mother, really... matter of fact, it's not even an orchestral instrument.
I have removed the superfluous reference to this. BotleySmith 19:58, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've reworded the statement for clarity, that the brass instrument experiment of AHM influenced DSotM and WYWH, simplified down to a single brass instrument (before, of course, being re-expanded to a full orchestra again by the time The Wall and The Final Cut came along). - dharmabum 20:20, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Although made of brass, saxes are actually woodwinds, not labrosones. Plus, Dick Parry used a completely different musical technique (jazz improvisation) from the written scores that the AHM players and the Floyd's later orchestras were working from. Also, considering that Rick played trombone onstage with the group in 1969, before they even recorded "Atom Heart Mother Suite", I think it's a mistake to draw this (as far as I know) unverified inference. I'll change my mind when someone produces a citation contradicting me. BotleySmith 20:32, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I get what you're saying now; I thought that you just thought that it was an incorrect statement about there being sax on AHM. I've just added a mention of Parry's sax being a big part of their sound in the era without any reference to AHM or brass instruments. - dharmabum 21:09, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dick Parry / Atom Heart Mother 

message: Okay, something really needs to be done about the length of this article. The Future Directions section alone is almost worthy of a whole article at the moment. The history section mixes album reviews with history: it's probably best to leave critical commentary to individual articles rather than having it all in here. And the reference music section is disproportionately large compared to that of most other bands. Chris Cunningham 16:18, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. Can we at least add some more subsections in the meantime? Or sub-sub-sections, as the case may be? BotleySmith 17:17, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Seems a good idea to me. I'd support someone giving it some thought and adding level 3 subsections... go for it! That would then suggest where possible subarticles might be broken out. (I agree, history and Discography should be kept separate. The Beatles is not perfect in this regard but may offer some ideas...) ++Lar: t/c 18:58, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Length 

message: Substituted at 21:54, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Assessment comment