Talk:Pink Floyd trivia

message: What is:
:Over the years, Pink Floyd's large reputation have cause it to make guest appearences in many places. Because Pink Floyd have never released their songs to the media (although cover versions of Floyd songs by other bands have), many of these references are obscure and hidden.
supposed to mean? Andy Mabbett 18:20, 12 Jun 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: It means that because movie and television producers can't actually use Pink Floyd songs, they place references into the shows, many of which are hard to see. - Fizscy46 20:12, 12 Jun 2004 (UTC)

message: Pinfloy is a Spanish slang word whose meaning I never understood clearly.
It is an insult or term of addreess or something.
Have you heard it?
:I haven't heard of it, but it doesn't seem likely to be a naming influence as PF are British.  I could be wrong, it just doesn't seem likely to me.  Rob 12:44, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Despite the band's popularity, it's name is difficult to pronounce in spanish.  PinFloy is a written approximation of what a native speaker saying the band's name typically sounds like.  What does this have to do with the article?  Alcuin 23:14, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Yes, I have heard it, from two different sources, both of them Spanish. It is a slightly insulting description for a long-haired, lazy no-gooder, a hippie or a beatnik, probably dating from the early seventies. One can compare it with the term 'beatle' that in the Dutch part of Belgium was used to describe the same type of person. Felix Atagong (talk) 09:32, 25 July 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pinfloy 

message: In June of 2002, Bill Clinton replaced his previous dog Buddy with a chocolate Labrador retriever puppy which he named Seamus. </I>
What exactly is the relevance of this?  Someone want to clue me in?  Rob 19:43, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The song "Seamus," from the album Meddle, is about a dog named Seamus (I was in the kitchen / Seamus, that's the dog, was outside / Well I was in the kitchen / Seamus, my old hound, was outside / [...]).  I made the connection clearer in the article. Drew 05:06, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Aha, okay, gotcha.  Makes a little more sense.  You might want to add that clarification in the article.  Are we sure Clinton named his dog specifically because of the PF song? Rob 12:43, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I doubt it; Seamus is a common Irish name, and Clinton has strong ties to Ireland. I wouldn't mind seeing the reference go, as without any source that they're connected it's just likely coincidence. - dharmabum 02:50, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  I Don't Get It 

message: The page references this Franz Ferdinand video: http://www.virgin.net/music/musicvideos/franzferdinand_doyouwantto_hi.html saying that there is a clear allusion to the Wish You Were Here cover that I was not able to find after two viewings of the msuic video.
:Almost halfway through the video, there's a shot of two men shaking hands in stances reminiscient of the Wish You Were Here cover.  The guy on the right is blurred out from the waist up; I think the video implies that the magnifying glass from the previous scene is being used to incinerate him.  Alcuin 23:26, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is the Franz Ferdinand bit true 

message: So someone (anonymously) is objecting to the list of tribute bands because many of them do not have their own independent WP pages, and that some of those entries are linked directly to the tribute band's web page. So what is the story here? Can you only be listed as a tribute band if someone has taken the time to create a WP entry? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fizbin (talk • contribs) 
:I don't know if you should compain about anonymous users if you don't even sign your posts. :)
:That being said, Wikipedia is not a linkfarm. If the bands don't have articles, they probably aren't notable. I removed the redlinks. IrishGuy talk 00:46, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The unsigned statement was an overlook on my part - my apologies.--Fizbin 00:58, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I was just teasing about the unsigned comment. Most, if not all, of the tribute bands were added by anonymous users   who were simply using Wikipedia to garner publicity for their bands. Wikipedia isn't a venue for advertising. IrishGuy talk 01:02, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If a band is a tribute band, it is unlikely to be notable enough to have its own article, and if created, such an article is very likely to be deleted. However, the notability guideline is very clear that not everythign mentioned in an article about a notable topic need itself be notable. (Specifically it says: "Notability guidelines do not directly limit article-content. Notability guidelines determine whether a topic is sufficiently notable enough to be included as a separate article in Wikipedia. These guidelines do not specifically regulate the content of the articles which is governed by: reliable sources and trivia.") So if there is to be a section on tribute bands at all (and this seems reasonable to me) then it is IMO better if having a separate article is not a criterion for inclusiuon, and certianly if bands are not red-linked. Whether there is tom be such a list is up to teh relevant editors, but unless you call it "notable trivial bands" and are willign for it to be empty or near-empty, the "separate article" criterion makes no sense. i am about to remove the html comment that attempts to mandate this. DES (talk) 23:50, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Wikipedia may not be a linkfarm, but references are an acceptable way to include external links, and if an external link in the form of a reference is necessary in order to prove the veracity of a statement, it should be included. Anchoress 00:23, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: So can I read from all of this that the list of tribute bands that existed previous to the purge can be added back if they are supported by an external link (probably to the band's website)? Or is a reference to some other site required? Or is any reference required?? --Fizbin 01:31, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: A reference is definitely required. I don't know the conditions surrounding information of this nature; a good read of WP:NOT, WP:BAND and WP:LIST might provide some clues. The thing is, I agree fully with the guideline that secondary figures mentioned in an article about a notable topic don't themselves need to be notable, BUT Wikipedia is not an indescriminate collection of information, and not every single provable fact is encyclopedic. I think the tribute bands list and the article itself have a better chance of long-term survival if the list is kept lean and relevant. Anchoress 01:36, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Generally speaking tribute bands, by their very nature, do not elicit a lot of ‘news’ that may end up in published articles somewhere. They usually have a website, and their upcoming appearances may generate a listing in a ‘coming attractions’ section of an external site, maybe with some explanatory text, often copied directly off their website. I suggest that for the purposes of authenticating online the existence of a tribute band that their own website can be the defining source.--Fizbin 01:44, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: My gut response is that the mere existence of a web site is too low a threshold, but that's just me. Does WP:BAND have anything to say about it? Anchoress 01:48, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tribute Bands 

message: I started a thread on the WP music notability talkpage, hopefully there will be guidance coming from that quarter. Anchoress 01:58, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Help is hopefully on the way

message: I added the fact tags and the unsourced template, because these facts need to have references. Unreferenced information should be removed. Anchoress 01:09, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Surely citing the episodes themselves constitutes a citation? Artiste-extraordinaire 05:42, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Nope. Anchoress 08:20, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Expand the statement. Artiste-extraordinaire 22:04, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's original research. Anchoress 22:26, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's citing primary sources. Are we not allowed to do that? For a lot of them it's like putting a  tag on "Moby Dick begins with the sentence 'Call me Ishmael.' " or "The Fighting Temeraire has a sunset in the background." These examples are in the same vein as, for example, the first reference for The Simpsons. Artiste-extraordinaire 09:29, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: In general, primary sources are discouraged. A source would be expected for both of the examples you gave. It's not enough to be obvious; it must be verifiable. For instance, I know that Moby Dick begins with 'Call me Ishmael', but I am completely unfamiliar with 'The Fighting Temeraire'. I would want a reliable, secondary or tertiary source to prove what you say about it, before I take it at face value. The fact that I could go and look for myself is a side issue. Anchoress 17:34, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  So where do plot summaries come into this? Surely we could go through every Simpsons episode article and whack a  tag on each plot summary that doesn't cite a reliable secondary source or two? To say that, for example, Homer's room at college has a Dark Side of the Moon poster is just taking the process a step further. So much of pop-culture doesn't have (reliable, as in, not fan sites or TV.com) secondary sources to back this up; so one has to use the episodes themselves. Artiste-extraordinaire 04:02, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The existence of a bunch of unsourced media-related stuff isn't justification for what's in the Pink Floyd Trivia article. There has been a great deal of discussion about this topic; Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and facts must be backed up by a suitable reference. Anchoress 04:05, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This tells me that "anyone ... who reads the primary source should be able to verify that the Wikipedia passage agrees with the primary source. Any interpretation of primary source material requires a secondary source. Examples of primary sources include ... television programs." Pointing out where some animators have put an album cover as a background Easter egg, or where Cartman says "Charade you are" is totally verifiable. Of course others are interpreted references, but many aren't. So, charade you are. Artiste-extraordinaire 23:00, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Citation tags and template 

message: From the Miscellaneous section:
On the song "Wish You Were Here", in the 43rd second, a small cough can be heard, followed by an even quieter sniff at the 48th second. There are reports that this cough was what led David Gilmour to quitting smoking during the recording of the album, but some think the cough could just as easily be just to add to the 'person listening to WYWH coming onto the radio' effect.
I have seen this unsourced "smoker's cough" claim before, but I can't understand why anybody would fall for it.  It's patently ridiculous.  
1.  Pink Floyd were studio perfectionists.  For example, they scrapped and re-recorded the entire 24-minute backing track for SOYCD because the drum mics picked up echoes of the other instruments. That's much less distracting than a big ol' cough at the start of a ballad, and yet they threw it away. There is no way in hell they would allow a cough they didn't want onto a record.  
2.  The cough's not even located at a point where it couldn't be edited out! Assuming -- because it's the only way this rumor makes sense -- the cough was recorded by the guitar mic while recording the first solo. The cough couldn't have been recorded with the rhythm guitar, or else it would have the "transistor radio" effect.  
3.  That guitar solo isn't remotely difficult to play; if a cough had ruined the take (which it didn't; the cough is early), it could be re-recorded in moments. 
4.  It was denied on Gilmour's web site. 
The cough was included deliberately.  Even if it was a genuine, spontaneous cough, it was deliberately mixed in.  It's not even notable as a rumor, so I'm removing it.  If somebody decides to restore it, please, at least switch the weasel words around ("there are reports" vs "some think"), because there aren't any credible reports of the cough being an accident -- whereas it's well known that Pink Floyd used various noises to create atmospheric effects.  --63.25.113.207 21:06, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Wish You Were Here" cough 

message: From the Miscellaneous section:  Drummer Nick Mason responded to Watts' review by sending him a gift box containing a boxing glove mounted on a spring. 
A citation-needed has been added. I can tell you this is in Nicholas Schaffner's A Saucerful Of Secrets, but I don't know how to add book citations properly, and don't have time to learn right now, sorry!  --63.25.113.207 21:15, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Boxing-glove-on-a-spring comes from Schaffner 

message: If this is true, why is there a whole article with it? --69.182.87.245 20:53, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Trivia