Talk:Pink Floyd: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively ← Previous edit Next edit →Content deleted Content addedVisual WikitextInline

Revision as of 04:46, 5 July 2024 edit2409:408a:1d14:fc94:cf17:cc6d:248c:fa34 (talk) →Hindi: new sectionTags: Reverted Mobile edit Mobile web edit New topic ← Previous edit		Revision as of 04:47, 5 July 2024 edit undoGilliam (talk \| contribs)Administrators497,031 editsm Reverted edit by 2409:408A:1D14:FC94:CF17:CC6D:248C:FA34 (talk) to last version by Lowercase sigmabot IIITag: Rollback Next edit →
Line 154:		Line 154:

	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)		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)

	== Hindi ==

	4अपने शिष्यों को दे रहे थे उपदेश, तभी एक व्यक्ति को बुद्ध की बातें अच्छी नहीं लगी, वह उठा और बुद्ध का अपमान कर दिया
	बुरी बातों को बार-बार याद करने से हमारी परेशानियां बढ़ती हैं, मन अशांत होता है। इसीलिए दुख देने वाली बातों को भूलकर आगे बढ़ना चाहिए। इस संबंध में गौतम बुद्ध का एक प्रसंग प्रचलित है... गौतम बुद्ध अलग-अलग क्षेत्रों में भ्रमण करते और अपने शिष्यों को उपदेश देते थे। एक गांव में वे उपदेश दे रहे थे। बुद्ध ने कहा कि क्रोध ऐसी अग्नि है, जिसमें क्रोध करने वाला खुद भी जलता है और दूसरों को भी जलाता है। बुद्ध के प्रवचन सुनने के लिए बड़ी संख्या में लोग वहां बैठे थे। उन लोगों में बहुत गुस्से वाला एक व्यक्ति भी बैठा हुआ था। उसे ये बातें पसंद नहीं आई। वह अचानक उठा और बोलने लगा कि बुद्ध तुम पाखंडी हो। बड़ी-बड़ी बातें करना ही तुम्हारा काम है। तुम लोगों को भ्रमित कर रहे हो, तुम्हारी ये बातें आज कोई मायने नहीं रखती हैं। व्यक्ति लगातार बुद्ध को अपमानजनक बातें सुना रहा था। वहां बैठे सभी लोग ये देखकर हैरान थे कि बुद्ध ये सब शांति से सुन रहे थे, लेकिन कुछ बोल नहीं रहे थे। क्रोधी व्यक्ति बुद्ध को शांत देखकर और ज्यादा क्रोधित हो गया। वह बुद्ध के पास गया और उनके मुंह पर थूककर वहां से चला गया। घर पहुंचकर क्रोधी व्यक्ति का मन शांत हुआ तो उसे अपने किए पर बहुत पछतावा हुआ। वह बुद्ध से क्षमा मांगने पहुंचा, लेकिन उस गांव से बुद्ध पड़ोस के गांव के लिए निकल चुके थे। वह व्यक्ति बुद्ध को खोजते हुए दूसरे गांव में पहुंच गया। वहां व्यक्ति को जैसे ही बुद्ध दिखाई दिए, वह उनके चरणों में गिर गया और क्षमा मांगने लगा। बुद्ध ने उस व्यक्ति से पूछा तुम कौन हो और क्षमा क्यों मांग रहे हो? उस व्यक्ति ने कहा क्या आप भूल गए? मैंने कल आपके साथ बुरा व्यवहार किया था। आपका अपमान किया था। बुद्ध ने कहा बीता हुआ कल मैं वहीं छोड़ आया हूं और तुम अभी भी वहीं रुके हुए हो। तुम्हें गलती पर पछतावा है, तुमने पश्चाताप कर लिया। अब तुम निष्पाप हो गए हो। बुरी बातें याद करते रहने से हमारा आज बर्बाद हो जाता है। इस आदत की वजह से भविष्य भी बिगड़ सकता है। इसीलिए बीते हुए कल की बातों को भूलकर आगे बढ़ना चाहिए ] (]) 04:46, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

Revision as of 04:47, 5 July 2024

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Pink Floyd article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12Auto-archiving period: 30 days

Pink Floyd is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Misplaced Pages community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.

This article appeared on Misplaced Pages's Main Page as Today's featured article on May 9, 2006.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
October 20, 2005	Peer review	Reviewed
February 15, 2006	Featured article candidate	Promoted
April 19, 2009	Featured article review	Demoted
December 4, 2009	Good article nominee	Listed
November 17, 2010	Good article reassessment	Kept
March 27, 2011	Peer review	Reviewed
June 4, 2011	Featured article candidate	Not promoted
October 2, 2012	Featured article candidate	Promoted
Facts from this article were featured on Misplaced Pages's Main Page in the "On this day..." column on March 10, 2019, March 10, 2020, March 10, 2022, and March 10, 2023.
Current status: Featured article

This article is written in British English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, defence, artefact, analyse) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.

This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.

This

level-4 vital article is rated FA-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Biography: Musicians

	Biography portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Misplaced Pages's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography
	This article is supported by WikiProject Musicians (assessed as Top-importance).

Pink Floyd Top‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Pink Floyd, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Pink Floyd on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Pink FloydWikipedia:WikiProject Pink FloydTemplate:WikiProject Pink FloydPink Floyd

Top

This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

This article was a past project collaboration.

To-do list:

Fair use

Add fair use rationale to all images and sound samples (all except images already labeled free use).
Re-size large images around to 300 pixels (all "fair use" images), other than album covers (already done).

Articles

Expand all articles to at least Start class. Some song stubs can't be expanded and should be redirected to the relevant album article. Use the "Interstellar Overdrive" article as an example when editing a song stub.
Expand all of the Floyd's studio album articles to at least GA status.
See COTM for monthly collabs.

Project building

Add WikiProject Pink Floyd banner {{WPFloyd}} to all appropriate Talk pages.
Personally invite quality editors working on Pink Floyd articles to join the project.

If you complete one of these tasks, please remove it from the list.

This article does not yet have a related to do list. If you can think of any ways to improve the article, why not create one?

Rock music Top‑importance

	Rock music portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Rock music, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Rock music on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Rock musicWikipedia:WikiProject Rock musicTemplate:WikiProject Rock musicRock music
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

Progressive Rock Top‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Progressive Rock, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Progressive rock on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Progressive RockWikipedia:WikiProject Progressive RockTemplate:WikiProject Progressive RockProgressive rock
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

England Top‑importance

	England portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject England, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of England on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EnglandWikipedia:WikiProject EnglandTemplate:WikiProject EnglandEngland-related
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

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. Zvig47 (talk) 15:15, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

Present tense.

Since the last RfC (which @TSP 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" (June 2022)
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. (September 2022)
a Dark Side of the Moon 50th Anniversary set, which included previously unreleased material and involved planetarium shows around the world (September 2023)
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." —David Gilmour, April 2022

@Zvig47, 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. Davidwbaker (talk) 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. Zvig47 (talk) 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." David Gilmour, May 2021

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. Davidwbaker (talk) 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. Davidwbaker (talk) 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. Zvig47 (talk) 23:14, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

Is Guy Pratt considered an official member? Plorangereal (talk) 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... 174.233.16.142 (talk) 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. Zvig47 (talk) 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. TSP (talk) 01:27, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

I've restored present tense per WP:CONSENSUS and particularly WP:CCC - "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. TSP (talk) 01:35, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

@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. Bowling is life (talk) 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:

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:

"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,

“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. TSP (talk) 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 TSP (talk) 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 featured article 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. Parkinson's bicycle shed comes to mind. Ritchie333 10:44, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

* 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 "Careful With That Axe, Eugene". Ritchie333 10:49, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

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. TSP (talk) 17:20, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

I'm digging the Pompeii version this evening. The deepest version. 174.233.16.142 (talk) 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. TSP (talk) 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. SilkTork (talk) 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) Mark in wiki (talk) 12:02, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

I've gone with Nick Mason who says Sept 1963. SilkTork (talk) 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. SilkTork (talk) 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. SilkTork (talk) 12:50, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

Jere O'Neill Surber Overdrive

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)

Categories: