| Revision as of 22:55, 25 November 2023 editTSP (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers9,718 edits →Dates active: ReplyTag: Reply← Previous edit |
Latest revision as of 11:43, 26 December 2024 edit undoDimadick (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers803,364 edits From London, not from England |
| (42 intermediate revisions by 19 users not shown) |
| Line 1: |
Line 1: |
|
{{Talk header|search=y|archive_age=30|archive_bot=lowercase sigmabot III}} |
|
{{Talk header|search=y}} |
|
{{ArticleHistory |
|
{{ArticleHistory |
|
|action1=PR |
|
|action1=PR |
| Line 57: |
Line 57: |
|
}} |
|
}} |
|
{{British English|date=September 2010}} |
|
{{British English|date=September 2010}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject banner shell|class=FA|blp=yes|vital=yes|listas=Pink Floyd|1= |
|
{{Vital article|level=4|topic=People|class=FA}} |
|
|
|
{{WikiProject Biography|musician-priority=Top|musician-work-group=yes}} |
|
{{WikiProjectBannerShell|blp=yes|1= |
|
|
{{WikiProject Biography|living=yes|class=FA|musician-priority=Top|musician-work-group=yes|listas=Pink Floyd}} |
|
{{WikiProject Pink Floyd|importance=Top|barrett=yes|gilmour=yes|waters=yes|wright=yes|mason=yes}} |
|
{{WikiProject Pink Floyd|class=FA|importance=Top|barrett=yes|gilmour=yes|waters=yes|wright=yes|mason=yes|display=Pink Floyd}} |
|
{{WikiProject Rock music|importance=Top}} |
|
{{WikiProject Rock music|class=FA|importance=Top}} |
|
{{WikiProject Progressive Rock|importance=Top}} |
|
{{WikiProject Progressive Rock|class=FA|importance=Top}} |
|
{{WikiProject England|importance=Top}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject London|importance=Top}} |
|
}} |
|
}} |
|
{{User:HBC Archive Indexerbot/OptIn |
|
{{User:HBC Archive Indexerbot/OptIn |
| Line 79: |
Line 80: |
|
}} |
|
}} |
|
|
|
|
|
|
== Jere O'Neill Surber Overdrive == |
| ⚫ |
== Semi-protected edit request on 22 September 2023 == |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
There are a suspiciously large number of references to this person's solitary article on the band (which, judging by the quotations, is utter twaddle). ] (]) 00:31, 17 April 2024 (UTC) |
|
{{edit semi-protected|Pink Floyd|answered=yes}} |
|
|
Change are to was at the beginning of the article as David Gilmour has stated the band will never continue ] (]) 13:50, 22 September 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
: Agreed, I've taken out some of the more extensive references to O'Neill Surber's article, some of the others could also potentially be looked at. ] (]) 00:48, 11 September 2024 (UTC) |
|
:@], is there a source? ] <sup>''(])''</sup> 14:02, 22 September 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
::Well, DG did confirm it to the NME... in 2015! *facepalm* the OP is a bit behind the times. ] 14:30, 22 September 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
:::This was discussed at length in April/May 2022 see ] and ] and again in October 2022 see ]. These discussions were shortly after the March 2022 release of "Hey, Hey, Rise Up!" which was issued under the name Pink Floyd.<br>Personally I would agree with the past tense, but it would have to be "were", not "was", as per the hidden note in the lead. - ] (]) 14:54, 22 September 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
⚫ |
== Semi-protected edit request on 1 November 2024 == |
|
] '''Not done for now:''' please establish a ] for this alteration ''']''' using the {{Tlx|Edit semi-protected}} template.<!-- Template:ESp --> Definitely not an uncontroversial change, almost certainly requires a new RFC. ] (]) 20:30, 22 September 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Semi-protected edit request on 4 October 2023 == |
|
|
|
|
|
|
{{edit semi-protected|Pink Floyd|answered=yes}} |
|
{{edit semi-protected|Pink Floyd|answered=yes}} |
|
|
] (]) 23:02, 1 November 2024 (UTC) |
|
The first line should read Pink Floyd IS, not Pink Floyd ARE. ] (]) 20:42, 4 October 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
: ] '''Not done:'''. {{REPLY|Maximum757}} This article is written in British English because Pink Floyd are a British band. "Pink Floyd are an English rock band" is correct. For American and Canadian bands, we would say " is an American rock band". Different types of English treat bands/groups differently. ] (]) 21:11, 4 October 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Were vs Are == |
|
|
|
|
|
The band hasn’t released any new material since April of 2022, and they’ve made no indication that they are still together and intend to release more music. This question was asked about a year ago when it was still somewhat unclear if Hey Hey Rise Up was a one-off single or the first of many, but a year and a half later I think it’s clear the single was a one time thing, and not an indication of a continuation of the band. The consensus in mid 2022 was to keep the header as “Pink Floyd are an English band”, but now as we’re entering 2024 with still no music from them, I think it’s wise to change the header to “Pink Floyd were an English band”. I mean how long are we going to keep the header in the present tense if we don’t change it now, even in late 2024, there are still people saying that Pink Floyd is an active band. ] (]) 15:15, 24 November 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:'''Present tense.''' |
|
|
:Since the last RfC (which @] noted was "properly announced on the appropriate forums"), Pink Floyd has released: |
|
|
:* a physical version of "Hey, Hey, Rise Up" that included a new version of "A Great Day For Freedom" () |
|
|
:* a new remix of an album, Animals: Deluxe Addition. It took years to complete that project, in part, because of disagreements between current and past band members. () |
|
|
:* a Dark Side of the Moon 50th Anniversary set, which included previously unreleased material and involved planetarium shows around the world () |
|
|
:* various social media contributions |
|
|
:If the concern is that readers might be confused about the band actively touring or that there is evidence that they are producing new music at the moment, the "Years active" section of the infobox should be sufficient to accurately inform the reader. |
|
|
:Otherwise, I agree with the previous RfC discussion that bands don't only exist when they're actively touring and then break up. Pink Floyd is an ongoing concern that has released new material recently, and may release new material in the future. Until there's a evidence of a permanent dissolution of the band, the present tense should remain. |
|
|
:In fact, it's more accurate and informative for the article to distinguish between the current members, Gilmour and Mason, and the past members, Barrett, Waters, and Wright. |
|
|
:“''It’s Pink Floyd if it’s me and Nick.''" — |
|
|
:@], 13 months ago you opened a discussion on this very topic. The consensus was to disagree with you and you were asked that if you wanted to change that consensus, you should either reopen the RfC or properly create a new one. Rather than do that, you've taken to editing the page directly. That's not a constructive path forward. ] (]) 18:38, 24 November 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
:::: A deluxe version and remix version of an album is not new material. Thats like saying The Jimi Hendrix Experience is still an active band because a 50th anniversary version of Electric Ladyland came out. Pink Floyd has been radio silent regarding new releases since 2022. If they announce new music then we will say they are active again, but as it stands, they’ve been inactive for a year and a half, the band is no longer active. ] (]) 20:29, 24 November 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::I disagree with your edit to the Band Members section, for two reasons: |
|
|
:::::1. Roger Waters has not been a member of the band since 1985. His guest appearance with the band at Live8 did not make him part of the band. "We made suggestions and Roger made suggestions, and I didn’t care for Roger’s suggestions. In the end, I thought, Actually, we’re Pink Floyd and he’s our guest, and he can just do what we tell him to do or fuck off." |
|
|
:::::2. The members of the band remain members of the band, even when they are not actively touring or producing music. |
|
|
:::::3. It adds no helpful information to a reader. If a reader wants to understand when the band has been active, it's in the info box. |
|
|
:::::I've added the disputed tag, rather than reverting your repeated addition to the article. ] (]) 20:43, 24 November 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::I see that you've gone ahead and proceeded with your change, despite the conclusion of the previous RfC and request that you proceed with the change only after a new consensus with a new RfC. |
|
|
:::::I don't think your editing strategy is constructive, but rather than reverting, I put a disputed tag on the article and directed discussion here. ] (]) 20:47, 24 November 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::1. The band reformed with Roger in 2005, even though it was for one night only, he did rejoin for that one night. It wasn’t just billed as a performance by members of Pink Floyd, it was billed as a Pink Floyd performance. In most cases even for just reunion concerts, members who previously left but participated in said reunion concerts are listed as having rejoined the band, even for a short period of time. |
|
|
::::::2. They do not remain members of the band if there is no band. From 94 to 05, there was no Pink Floyd. Having the specific years when the band was active and when the members were in the band is the most informative way of writing this. Plus it fits with the timeline that is displayed on the page as well. |
|
|
::::::3. It does help by being as informative as possible. Nick Mason was on every PF release, but he wasn’t doing anything in the band between the years of 2007 and 2012, or 2014 and 2022, save for maybe interviews and deluxe material. Point is it is the most descriptive way of listing the years the members were members. |
|
|
::::::Once again I have to add, the band has essentially ceased all operations. There are still deluxe and remix releases for albums, but the last new piece of material was in 2022, and before that was 2014, and before that was 1994, if they are active, then they are the most inactive active band out there. A one off single back in 2022 at the time raised the question if they had truly reformed, but after more than a year and a half of no further announcements, it’s clear it was a one time thing. If not now, when do we finally list them as inactive, because as it stands right now there is nothing alluding to further NEWLY RECORDED (not deluxes or remixes) material. ] (]) 23:14, 24 November 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
I find that I can simply quote myself from a year ago, because the situation is identical: |
|
|
: "The May 2022 discussion was a request for comments, properly announced on the appropriate forums, with 11 people taking part, and made a unanimous decision for present tense. If you want to change that, I'd suggest re-opening that RFC or starting a new one. I don't think it makes sense that a decision made by 11 editors through a properly-publicised process can then be reversed by two editors without announcement in the same forums. (And, in fact, even this discussion is now majority in favour of present tense, if I correctly interpret Floydian's view.) TSP (talk) 17:50, 25 October 2022 (UTC)" |
|
|
Nothing has changed. A decision was made through a properly-advertised RFC, unanimously, with 11 editors. You tried to change it unilaterally a year ago without an RFC, and most people who commented disagreed with you. It can't be reasonable to say that people who disagree with you have to go through weeks of effort holding an RFC, then you can change it to your preferred version with no consensus whenever you feel like it and we have to keep holding more RFCs to be allowed to disagree with you. And once again, you are now in a minority even in this discussion section. |
|
|
|
|
|
Please leave it at the version established by RFC consensus, or hold another RFC to change it. ] (]) 01:27, 25 November 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
: I've restored present tense per ] and particularly ] - "in most cases, an editor who knows a proposed change will modify a matter resolved by past discussion should propose that change by discussion". I don't see any new consensus here to overturn the previous well-established one. |
|
|
: For what it's worth: '''Present tense'''. ] (]) 01:35, 25 November 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
I have no opinion on this matter, * but I will say that putting gigantic orange tags on what's supposed to be a ] makes Misplaced Pages look amateurish and a bit of a laughing stock. I could understand if this was a major point of contention about the proportion of contributions Waters and Gilmour gave to the band, or how much due weight the article should spend covering all of the group's history. But it's trivial spat over a minor wording issue. ] comes to mind. ] ] ] 10:44, 25 November 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
:<small>* While I ''have'' expressed views on this before, I am bored of the subject now, have said everything I want to, and would rather look at more interesting things such as just what exactly is my favourite live version of "]". ] ] ] 10:49, 25 November 2023 (UTC)</small> |
|
|
::Yes, I agree, I don't think there is any significant accuracy dispute here. The question is basically just one of interpretation - exactly what does "active" mean for a band? We don't need an article tag every time there is a talk page discussion. ] (]) 17:20, 25 November 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
: {{Reply|TSP}} In the "Hey, Hey, Rise Up!" and conflicts section of this article it says: "Hey, Hey, Rise Up!" was a "one-off for charity" and that Pink Floyd had no plans to reform." And this is supported by a source. David Gilmour said this himself. The lead and infobox should reflect this. The article itself says they are not active and that song was just a one-off. So this shouldn't even be a discussion. I suggest changing it to past tense until they release anything else. If they announce a true reunion later on, then we can change it to present tense. Leaving the article in present tense right now is assuming they are active and will release new material in the future when a band member himself said this isn't happening. ] (]) 17:29, 25 November 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
::Honestly, having read the source, I think that part of our article is somewhat putting words into Gilmour's mouth. |
|
|
::: {{tq|'''Are you considering more Pink Floyd music? How did this fit into the rest of the music you’re working on?''' This is a one-off for Pink Floyd. I’m casually working away all the time. I’m hoping to get an album finished at some point, but my focus at this very moment is just on this.}} |
|
|
::He also says, talking about the band in the present tense: |
|
|
::: {{tq|"It just struck me that here we are, with our name and this platform, and we could use it more."}} |
|
|
::And, as has been quoted elsewhere, |
|
|
::: {{tq|“It’s Pink Floyd if it’s me and Nick."}} |
|
|
::Linking his statement on whether this release is a one-off to whether the band is "reforming" is inference on the part of the editor. The band existing is different to the band actively putting out music; compare to the hiatus after 1983 ("they had had several hiatuses before", our article says). |
|
|
::My view is that the band still has a present-tense concept of itself; it has a clearly-defined membership; and it is capable of releasing new music; therefore it is a band that currently exists, just like it did in 1985, even if there are no specific plans to record or tour. ] (]) 22:05, 25 November 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Dates active == |
|
|
|
|
|
''(This is referred to in the section above, but in my view is a separate issue - or should be - so I'm creating a new section for it.)'' |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
:Syd Barrett – lead and rhythm guitars, vocals (1965–1968) (died 2006) |
|
Dates active have recently been changed from a format of broad ranges during which band members took part in all band activities, e.g. (1967–present), to ones highlighting each individual occasion the band has been actively recording or gigging, e.g. (1967–1994, 2005, 2007, 2013-2014, 2022). |
|
|
|
:David Gilmour – lead and rhythm guitars, vocals, bass, keyboards, synthesisers (1967-2022) |
|
|
:Nick Mason – drums, percussion (1965–2022) |
|
⚫ |
:Roger Waters – bass, vocals, rhythm guitar, synthesisers (1965–1985; guest in 2005) |
|
|
:Richard Wright – keyboards, piano, organ, synthesisers, vocals (1965–1981, 1987–2008; session musician earlier in 1987)(died 2008) ] (]) 23:19, 1 November 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
Thoughts? To me, this is far less helpful to the reader - the dates the band was active are already listed in the infobox, so there is no new information in laboriously repeating them for every band member, and it makes it pretty much impossible at a glance to see the difference between, say, Gilmour (active in all Pink Floyd activities since 1967) and Wright (left the band from 1981-1987, died in 2008). (I'm also not sure it's really accurate - if you were going to mark out periods when no-one was performing as Pink Floyd, what about the periods between 1983-7 when they stopped touring, Gilmour was still planning for Momentary Lapse of Reason to be his solo album and no-one even agreed who owned the name?) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
To me, the proposed format is unreadable, and verging on breaching ]. ] (]) 01:49, 25 November 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The band is no longer playing so they should put the end date and last line up of the band when it says to present |
|
:I agree that showing dates that show the intersection of band membership and when the band was actively performing is less readable and less informative. If you wish to see when the band was actively performing, that's available under "Years active." If you want to see who was a member of the band throughout its history, you look to the "Band members" section. |
|
|
|
:{{not done}}:<!-- Template:ESp --> There has been many discussions (in the archives), Here's just ] - <span style="font-family:Trebuchet MS">] <small>(])</small></span> 23:19, 1 November 2024 (UTC) |
|
:I would also point out that the current revision is inaccurate with regard to Roger Waters. Waters was not a member of the band in 2005. He was invited to perform as a guest with the band, but was not invited to rejoin the band. "''We made suggestions and Roger made suggestions, and I didn’t care for Roger’s suggestions. In the end, I thought, Actually, we’re Pink Floyd and he’s our guest, and he can just do what we tell him to do or fuck off.''" ] The membership of Pink Floyd is something that's clearly defined and was even tested in a court of law based on legal action initiated by Waters. ] (]) 02:04, 25 November 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
== dumb idea I had.. == |
|
:: {{Reply|TSP}} Changing it to 1967–present implies that the member has been active in the band that entire time which is not accurate. The current years active reflect the band member timeline at: ]. Changing this is pointless and will lead to inconsistencies. Every other article for a band that has reunions lists the year the band reformed in the band members section. Maybe we could change it to 1967–2022, not present because it actually says in the Pink Floyd article: "Hey, Hey, Rise Up!" was a "one-off for charity" and that Pink Floyd had no plans to reform." Adding a note next to 1967-2022 would be a nice compromise as it would clean the section up and the detail would only be revealed if you click on the note. It's hard to explain what I mean by adding a note so I'll provide an example. I know this example probably makes no sense in this discussion but I can't think of how else to describe it. See how the note organizes the mess in the genre section of ]. Something like this could be a nice compromise to resolve this dispute. Along with this, we should address the inaccuracies mentioned in this discussion. ] (]) 02:14, 25 November 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
So I've noticed that Pink Floyd's 'Lyrical themes' is probably the longest Lyrical themes section I've ever seen on a Misplaced Pages article, much too large to merge into the Artistry (In most articles I've seen since I started here, 'Lyrical themes' is usually either a subsection of 'Artistry' or merged with 'Musical style'). It has me wondering, that since ] is its own article, and ] is its own article, maybe ] or ] could be their own articles as well? Just my boring Saturday evening musings. Stay groovy! ] (]) 02:29, 17 November 2024 (UTC) |
|
::: "Changing it to 1967–present implies that the member has been active in the band that entire time" - no, it doesn't. It states that person has been a ''member'' of the band that entire time. To look at another example, Pink Floyd didn't record or perform between 1983 and 1985, but that didn't mean all the members left - then in 1985 Waters ''did'' leave. Following your model, his leaving was meaningless, because there was no band to leave. |
|
|
::: Right now, there is a clear difference between the status of Gilmour and Mason, and the status of Waters - as Gilmour says, "it's Pink Floyd if it's me and Nick". Listing their membership doesn't imply they are actively making music as Pink Floyd, but there is a clear position, both legally and in published statements from the band, about who is currently in the band and who is not. |
|
|
::: 1967-2022 is at least more concise, but I'm not sure it's much better for accuracy - Gilmour was ''much'' clearer that the band had broken up permanently before 2022 than he has been since. Nevertheless when they decided to record again, it was very clear who was a member and who was not. |
|
|
::: (I find it hard to have any strong feeling about Waters in 2005, in honesty. I think legally it was clear - Waters was not a member, the court case established that, just as Wright wasn't a member when playing on A Momentary Lapse of Reason and the following tour, even though the band was billed as "Pink Floyd" not "Pink Floyd and Richard Wright" - but I don't have a massive problem with him being listed as one given that was the popular perception and it's very notable that he rejoined the band on stage for that performance.) ] (]) 02:45, 25 November 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
::::On further thinking about this, we could do something like |
|
| ⚫ |
::::{{tq|Roger Waters – bass, vocals, rhythm guitar, synthesisers (1965–1985, ''2005 (guest)'')}} ? |
|
|
::::Thoughts? |
|
|
::::However, this has now got me thinking about how best to represent Wright's line. He left as a member some time during the Wall sessions <small>(do we actually know when? The lead says 1981 but it was clearly earlier given the need to rehire him for the tour)</small>; was hired as a session player for the tour from 1980-81; but, as I understand it, was not contractually a member any time after his initial departure - it's mentioned as a source of tension in our ] article. He was listed as a session musician on the cover of A Momentary Lapse of Reason (which even includes a band photo of just Gilmour and Mason), but as a member on The Division Bell. We probably need some kind of note on Wright's membership too, even if just a footnote - however, I'll leave it until we've addressed the more general question, lest we end up with dozens of versions of this section. ] (]) 22:55, 25 November 2023 (UTC) |
|
There are a suspiciously large number of references to this person's solitary article on the band (which, judging by the quotations, is utter twaddle). 176.85.135.155 (talk) 00:31, 17 April 2024 (UTC)
The band is no longer playing so they should put the end date and last line up of the band when it says to present
level-4 vital article is rated FA-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
Not done: There has been many discussions (in the archives), Here's just one of them - FlightTime (open channel) 23:19, 1 November 2024 (UTC)