Talk:Pink Floyd/Archive 1

message: I've brought in Wikipedia:WikiProject Songs to Pink Floyd. Lets see if we can even further Pink Floyd as the most comprehensive set of artist articles. I've started off with Wish You Were Here (Due to its nature of being the only song page for Pink Floyd to be released as both a single and on an album). - Fizscy46 01:05, 7 Mar 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: WikiProject Song format

message: We should also make note that Dark Side also has The preceding it (On the front of the cover). - Fizscy46 19:44, 24 Mar 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  DSOTM 

message: Does anybody else think that the long references to The Simpsons and South Park devalue this article? There are 101 more relevant and interesting things that could be written about Pink Floyd. --Auximines 07:41, 2 Jun 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Very much so; I'd be happy to see it go (or at least, go to Pink Floyd trivia or some such). Andy Mabbett 09:17, 2 Jun 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: There's no harm in moving it, might as well. - Fizscy46 21:41, 3 Jun 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Simpsons and South Park 

message: 2004 in music states Pink Floyd has re-joined and plans to release another studio album. Is this true or is it a falsehood inserted by the banned Michael user? RedWolf 00:44, Sep 3, 2004 (UTC)
Given that Roger Waters has been kicked out, Nick Mason very much gone by now, and Rick Wright having launched a solo career, and the obvious tours that've been done under the name of 'David Gilmour', I doubt that 'Pink Floyd' exists much any more - Brother Dysk.
Roger Waters is supposedly working on a new album, scheduled for released in 2005. You can listen to two new tracks of his: . Checking other Pink Floyd news sites, there is no mention of a Pink Floyd reunion. RedWolf 18:59, Sep 6, 2004 (UTC)
:Nick Mason, Rick Wright, and David Gilmour are still in close contact, its possible for another release sometime... They are all under 60 still.
:The new Roger Waters album is confirmed. - Floydian 03:49, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recent activity? 

message: This article is of great value, but I think that one or two images of the band would be great! Is anyone know where can I find such images? 84.94.5.232 23:44, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Lots of them on the songs at http://www.pinkfloyd.co.uk/echoes (Just check the images tile on each song for band images) - Floydian 02:38, 25 Sep 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: That site looks liks an official band site - what's the license on the pictures? (That's the important point.) Dan | Talk 02:42, 25 Sep 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Images of pink floyd 

message: Does anyone think it would be a good idea to get an article on the Publius Enigma? -- IanMcGreene 09:04, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It was an interesing event. For sure. Did it ever have a conclusion? -- Longhair | Talk 09:17, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: There was a very vague response by someone claiming they had solved the puzzle and they had found that life was beautiful, and there is so much humans are unable to see, or something like that.  I also believe Publius came out and said that someone had solved the Enigma, and received the reward, but I don't know of any full explanations of the puzzle available. -- IanMcGreene 09:24, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: That said, it was truly a significant event in the fandom of Pink Floyd. Whatever the answer, it surely deserves some exposure? -- Longhair | Talk 06:51, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Add article about the Publius Enigma? 

message: This article is on VfD as its content is on this page does anyone want to keep it? TAS 15:00, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mr. Screen 

message: Peter Wynne Willson has been credited with building the light machines;as Nick Mason says in his book The Inside-Out.The Daleks ;as the machine was dubbed by Roger Waters and Nick Mason,in tribute to their robotic nature and obivious hostility to humans.Peter began experimenting with different ways of treating light,by putting it through polarisers and sretched membrane of latex.He found that the best polarised light patterns were created using condoms.Peter would set a mirror at an angle of 45 degrees in front of the end of a long lens.The mirror was then vibrated to create Lissajou patterns.Later he would insert copper and colour wheels into the path and altering the speed of the wheels to create "worms of colour".The Daleks consisted of a movie light,ignited at extreme temprature to achieve maximum brightness.A coloured glass wheel spinning at extremely high speed was placed in front of this.Then the whole apparatus was put atop a box of two to three feet wide and angled up at the band on a rubber insulation.The spinning wheels with adjustable speed the colours produced were amazing.But the only problem was that the high speed of wheels in motion and exremly high temperature would result in loud shattering of glass,sending shards of glass flying at the band.The Daleks used in the P*U*L*S*E* tour however were much safer and unbreakable.--asydwaters 14:11, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Daleks 

message: The article here calls this a Pink Floyd album, and I agree that this is largely true. However, I do think that some mention of the fact that it is, according to the sleeve, "The Final Cut - Performed by Pink Floyd" and considered by the rest of the band to be a Roger Waters solo album. Would this be considered a breach of NPOV? I'll make it happen if there are no objections. Brother Dysk 05:43, Apr 5, 2005 (UTC)
The article currently says re: this album: "the front cover displayed no title". However, the picture displayed alongside clearly shows a title on the front cover. Is this a reissue or something? In any case, the two things look a bit silly side-by-side. Maybe someone can upload an earlier picture, or the text could be modified to say "early versions of", if indeed this is the reason for the confusion. Pelago 16:56, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Final Cut 

message: A month ago this page said a few very different things.  For example,
* The article seems to ramble on a lot and is choppy and sometimes inaccurate in it wording.
* Music From the Film More says that it was the last time they were "The Pink Floyd" while the article says they dropped "the" by their debut album, which would be Piper.
* The short interpretations of different songs in Dark Side are inaccurate:
** To say that On the Run is about travel doesn't accurately describe the piece.
** Money is not about the money associated with fame so much as a critique of people's obsession with money.
* When describing songs, I think it would be better to use to the present tense since they still exist.
There is nothing majorly inaccurate, but the pace and wording is screwed up in many places and needs to be fixed up.Boothinator 16:47, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Contradictory changes? 

message: For the record -- Apparently, the webmaster of www.pinkfloydz.com and www.rogerwatersontour.com thinks he can massively spam at least 7 PF-related pages, performing one or many of:
* Adding or moving his site on top of external links sections (while he's way down on Google's 3rd page for "pink-floyd", way after most other links he bypasses).
 
* Deleting at least two external links to www.pinkfloyd-co.com (a Google's 1st page link...)
 
* In the body of articles, disguising notelinks [www.pinkfloydz.com] (to his sites) into [www.pinkfloydz.com apparent wikilinks]. Or simply adding external wikilinks to his site at the top of multiple sections.
I've mass-reverted the changes. Check his rampage for yourself. 
←<SUP>#6</SUP><SUB>talk</SUB> 12:57, 1 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: "On the run" is described as Roger Water's code word for paranoia in the Nicholas Schaeffner bio. Endomion 05:00, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  2005.05.01 mass-spamming by pinkfloydz.com 

message: Please see Template_talk:Pink_Floyd for discussion and a vote to hopefully improve the Pink Floyd template. -- Longhair | Talk 00:30, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Pink Floyd template changes

message: I didn't see anything about the supposed connection between DSOTM and it's relation, and subsequent cult fans, to The Wizard of Oz.
I've never checked it out myself, but I've seen pre-arranged sets for sale where the album has been dubbed over the movie and supplied a long list of 'noticable conicendces' involving both rhythm, beat, lyrical content, and atmosphere.
Googling for info on the matter resulted with the following link on top:
I think you are referring to Synchronocities.Here are the basic facts on pink floyd and synchronocities.
What is it? One day, someone found out that a movie/video, when played with a different soundtrack (an unrelated song or piece of music), seemed extraordinarily good, as if that piece of music was made specifically for that video.Little by little, a lot of people started talking about these synchronicities (or synch, for short), because they generated a completely new experience than the video by itself. And people started experiencing different combinations of music and video, to see if they fit. The lyrics (although some pieces may be instrumental) and music join in a fantastic synch with the action, revealing a lot of coincidences. The first synch I ever heard of was the Dark Side of the Rainbow, and I was amazed at the results. 
What do I need?:
*A stereo (preferably a CD player) for the audio parts.
*A VCR or preferably a DVD player(in this case you can have the     subtitles or closed caption on and turn the stereo volume all way up, and you'll still be able to follow the plot and dialogues) for the video portion.
*A television (preferably a big screen or a projector,for a bigger impact).
*The VCR tape or DVD for the selected film.
*The tape, vinyl or CD for the selected soundtrack.
*A little imagination and good mood.
Here are some links which can be verified:
1) The Synchronicity Arkive
2)AllPinkFloydFans Network Archives.--asydwaters 16:37, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Dark Side of the Moon meets the Wizard of Oz

message: Do we need the track list for every album on this page; when they're already on the individual albums' pages? Andy Mabbett 17:58, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: With the track lists gone, the article size is now 33K. Gbeeker 19:52, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Album track lists

message: added the following to the article, which I copied here.
"can sombody put somthing about the album - 'Just Warmin' Up'- 1994 Tampa Rehersal? It's not in here, im sure it exists - im a little confused... :-("
I've never heard of the album myself. Bootleg perhaps? -- Longhair | Talk 11:43, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Comment added to article

message: ... whoever the anonymous editor is who just did a pass over the whole article. Much improved; bravo. I was thinking about doing something like that myself, as I recently did over at Asperger's Syndrome, but there is basically no need now. PurplePlatypus 21:23, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  In praise of.... 

message: Unless someone can cite evidence that PF ceased to exist, legally in 2000, will users please desist from changing band membership dates from nnnn-present to the ludicrous nnnn-2000, 2005?  Andy Mabbett 10:30, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: agreed, nnnn-present is the proper one until the band is officially over (which isn't likely to happen even if they don't record anything). Fbergo 18:29, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Membership dates

message: I don't have that much experience with featured articles, but I think this article looks pretty good - does anyone think it's worth trying for featured status? I would list this on peer review but I don't trust my judgement as to whether or not it's good enough yet. If enough people agree that this is looking good, I'll get it listed for PR. Thanks! --High(Hopes)[ (+)] 17:35, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Go for it! (but please remove the deprecated HTML "font" tag from your sig!). Andy Mabbett 17:42, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: i have reread this article and have no objections to its nomination for featured article...the author worked effectively to respond to my commentsAnlace 04:37, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Featured? 

message: Dark Side of the Moon was on Billboard 200 for 591 consecutive weeks, and that is 11 years. According to what I've found, the album stayed on the chart from March 17th, 1973, to October 19th, 1974 (84 weeks), and dropped off for 24 weeks. In April 12th, 1975, the album returned to the charts and would stay another 48 weeks, until March 6th, 1976. The album would stay 40 weeks out of the charts and would return in December 18th, 1976. It would then stay 591 consecutive weeks, until April 23rd, 1988, when it dropped off for good. As Billboard changed its charts methodology, Dark Side of the Moon is never going to return to the Top 200 and it is unlikely another album will break its record. According to this data, Dark Side of the Moon remained 723 weeks on the charts, but I've read somewhere else that it spent 724 or 741 weeks on the charts. I don't know which is the exact number, but I hope I've clarified a few points.
How long was Dark Side on the charts?  The article says "The critically-acclaimed album stayed on the Billboard Top 200 for 741 weeks (including 591 consecutive weeks from 1973 to 1988)", but 591 weeks would be only 11 years and some months.  741 weeks would be 14+ years, but I don't know the facts.  Someone who knows what's right needs to clarify this.  Unschool 04:39, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Math error on the Dark Side 

message: The new "Live performances" section should be merged into the band history, I feel. What do others think? Andy Mabbett 17:53, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm in two minds. Certainly some of it seems redundant, and that should be fixed no matter what. As for the organization, part of me agrees with you and part of me thinks that the stuff about the concerts would sort of disrupt the narrative flow (such as it is) of the History section. I'm leaning slightly toward keeping it as is, if for no other reason than because it's less work, but I would not be upset if someone boldly decided to change it. PurplePlatypus 19:25, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Live performances

message: "It also featured high technology special effects, inflatable puppies, four backup singers and 100 tons of equipment. "
The 'Wall'-specific article seems to say it's puppets, but I wasn't there so I don't want to just change it.--Anchoress 14:24, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  'puppies' or 'puppets'? 

message: And the end of the section on The Wall film, there's this comment: ... "What Shall We Do Now?" which was cut out of the original album due to the constraints of gramophone records.
A recent edit removed the capitalization of "gramophone records", as the link goes to the article on the actual recording medium.
The confusion I have is this: The Wall was actually marketed and distributed by the Gramophone Record Co., which I think was the original editor capitalized the phrase. Since, AFAIK, the problem with "What Shall We Do Now?" was the physical constraits of the format rather than interference from the company, perhaps it should be changed to vinyl records for clarity? - dharmabum (talk) 23:46, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Gramophone records 

message: I'm not sure  is notable enough to keep in the resources links according to Wikipedia is not a link repository. It has a sub-900,000 Alexa rating and is currently a 4th page Google hit. It contains no original content, as it is a collection of external links. On the other hand, it is a very comprehensive one, although I haven't gone through to check the quality of the links themselves. The anonymous user who continually re-adds it is very persistent, and since I have no desire to engage in a revert war and I'm personally indifferent to whether it's there or not, but I want this article to be at its best, so I thought I'd put the question up to the community. - dharmabum 05:13, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Please see the Wikipedia policies on external links, especially #9 under "What should not be linked to": A website that you own or maintain (unless it is the official site of the subject of the article). If it is relevant and informative, mention it as a possible link on the talk page and wait for someone else to include it.  I have nothing against your site personally, I'm simply trying to maintain Wikipedia standards for quality articles. - dharmabum 21:14, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

text: I agree. Which is why, simply, I've been trying to follow Wikipedia's established policies on external links, which include not adding your own site to an article. I have not removed your site again, for that matter I will not, but others will read this discussion, discuss whether your link is worth keeping and act accordingly. - dharmabum 01:39, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Another Link in the Wall" 

message: I have not yet got any Full Confirmation of Pink Floyd's Reunion which obvisouly requires all the members to consent to.Only David Gilmour has said that He's not looking forward to any reunion,but Roger,Nick and Rick have still to comment.Hence I moved this here from main page:
On January 31, 2006, David Gilmour issued a joint statement on behalf of the group stating that they have no plans to reunite.
On February 3, 2006, Gilmour stated in an interview in "La República" that he is finished with Pink Floyd, as he wishes to focus on his solo projects and personal life. He said:
::"I think enough is enough. I am 60 years old. I don’t have the will to work as much anymore. Pink Floyd was an important part in my life, I have had a wonderful time, but it’s over. For me it’s much less complicated to work alone."
He mentions that he agreed to play Live 8 with Waters for three reasons.  First of all, he wanted to support the cause of Live 8.  Secondly, he did Live 8 to make peace with Waters so that they could put their twenty-year feud to rest. Finally, he agreed to do the concert feeling that he might have later regretted not participating in the event.   Major news outlets have not yet confirmed the details of the interview.  There is also no confirmation of this interview on Gilmour's website or Pink Floyd's website.--asydwaters 08:52, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The links above are wrong .... the magazine is supposedly the Italian magazine [], not the Peruvian one in the original Wiki link. Hindustan Times link is also now dead. Translation is on the Brain Damage website [] under "news". Strangely, no web address to that specific page. You have to hunt for it. And yeah, still no reference on other Floyd websites. Grimhim 00:07, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Note that the January 31 statement was issued, according to the official website, by "Roger Waters joining Pink Floyd's David Gilmour, Richard Wright and Nick Mason", making it clear that Roger did not officially rejoin the band for Live 8, and that the January 31 statement is unquestionably from all 4 individuals (I replaced the dead Hindustan Times link with one directly to the statement on their official page). The interview with Gilmour does not indicate that he is speaking on behalf of the whole band, but it is definitely worth having on the main page, as it's a well-cited and important statement. - dharmabum 00:26, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

text: I remember the statement... I don't think it's beyond the bounds of possibility that they might play together again, but if they do it'll be something like Live 8, a charity benefit one-time thing. - dharmabum 21:05, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pink Floyd Reunion of the 4 members ?