| Revision as of 23:19, 1 November 2024 edit2601:197:e00:fc0:883b:2ac9:66eb:e645 (talk) →Semi-protected edit request on 1 November 2024: ReplyTags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit 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 |
| (3 intermediate revisions by 2 users not shown) |
| Line 63: |
Line 63: |
|
{{WikiProject Progressive Rock|importance=Top}} |
|
{{WikiProject Progressive Rock|importance=Top}} |
|
{{WikiProject England|importance=Top}} |
|
{{WikiProject England|importance=Top}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject London|importance=Top}} |
|
}} |
|
}} |
|
{{User:HBC Archive Indexerbot/OptIn |
|
{{User:HBC Archive Indexerbot/OptIn |
| Line 78: |
Line 79: |
|
|archive = Talk:Pink Floyd/Archive %(counter)d |
|
|archive = Talk:Pink Floyd/Archive %(counter)d |
|
}} |
|
}} |
|
|
|
|
== 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) |
|
|
::Is Guy Pratt considered an official member? ] (]) 17:24, 14 February 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
:At this point, with David Gilmour still producing great music, and Nick Mason doing some great jams with his wonderful spacey jam band, and Roger Waters keeping his rhythm going, as well, that as long as these great musicians are putting out that Floyd heartbeat, would you really lose sleep if we all said "Are"? This time is short. I find it enlightening when I think about it, that we still can say "are" about the Pink Floyd. Richard Wright lives on because of this. Even if you were to demand "were" it's still "are" to many of us, on principal! |
|
|
:It really isnt like calling the earth flat. Let it go. We've got this brother... ] (]) 22:58, 25 November 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
::Buddy that’s not at all how that works. You can’t just use the present tense because you feel like it. Like what even are you saying with “Even if you were to demand "were" it's still "are" to many of us, on principal!”? I love the band, but I’m not going to use the present tense just because I love them, it doesn’t work like that. If the members are active separately and doing their own thing, that doesn’t equate to their band being active. Others disagree with me in this discussion and I’m fine with that, but at least I understood their argument. ] (]) 01:04, 29 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) |
|
|
|
|
|
: {{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. The relevant section seems to be: |
|
|
::: {{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.}} |
|
|
::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). |
|
|
::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."}} |
|
|
::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) |
|
|
|
|
|
=== Dispute tags === |
|
|
''Broken out into a separate section to make it easier to find, because it's not in the main flow of the conversation above ] (]) 09:28, 28 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) |
|
|
::I'm digging the Pompeii version this evening. The deepest version. ] (]) 23:03, 25 November 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
:::I've removed the dispute tags, per this conversation. As I said in my edit summary, it's not really accurate to say "The factual accuracy of part of this article is disputed." The facts aren't at issue, the dispute is one of definitions - what constitutes "active" for a rock band? - and it's not helpful to casual readers to suggest the article might contain significant factual errors. ] (]) 09:23, 28 November 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Noble and Metcalfe left in 63 or 64? == |
|
|
|
|
|
In '''Preceding the band''' we have: "In 1964, as Metcalfe and Noble left to form their own band..." and "Noble and Metcalfe left the Tea Set in late 1963...". Both statements are cited to the same source - Mark Blake's Comfortably Numb. One of the statements is likely to be a typing error. ] (]) 11:55, 14 April 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:Blake, page 41: "The arrival of guitarist Bob Klose in the summer of 1964 proved timely. His arrival prompted Clive Metcalfe and Keith Noble to return to working as a duo." Noble and Metcalfe are not mentioned on pages 42-44. (ISBN 978 0306 81752 6) ] (]) 12:02, 14 April 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::I've gone with Nick Mason who says Sept 1963. ] (]) 12:36, 14 April 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
Another date issue. Our article, citing Povey, says: " Syd Barrett, two years younger than the rest of the band, who had moved to London in 1962 to study at the Camberwell College of Arts." But Barrett was studying in Cambridge at that time, and didn't moved to London and enrol until 1964. ] (]) 12:46, 14 April 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:Fixed. Povey says 1964. I think there was a misreading of the source, because Barrett started studying in Cambridge in 1962. ] (]) 12:50, 14 April 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
== Jere O'Neill Surber Overdrive == |
|
== Jere O'Neill Surber Overdrive == |
| Line 172: |
Line 101: |
|
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 |
|
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 |
|
:{{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) |
|
:{{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) |
|
|
|
|
|
== dumb idea I had.. == |
|
|
|
|
|
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) |
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)