Template talk:Pink Floyd/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

What to do with albums

Does anyone else think categorizing "important albums" is not the best thing to do? I think having a full list as it was is too bulky, but promoting certain albums over others seems silly. IanMcGreene 00:13, May 13, 2005 (UTC)

Fair enough. What I've done for the latest iteration is to list all albums but without including their covers. This ensures that no album is promoted over others while keeping the template to a reasonable size. --Jacj 11:08, 13 May 2005 (UTC)
following the consensus and the removal of the album covers, I've added Syd.

Too bulky?

I agree that the template as it stands now is really too big and bulky. The only real ways I can see for cutting it down to size are:

Getting rid of the album covers
Getting rid of the less important albums from the list

--Jacj 14:40, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

I think the template as it is now is fine, giving a clear yet concise overview of Pink Floyd's discography. --Mmatin 17:08, 15 May 2005 (UTC)

Two things. I don't think the album images add much to the overall look of the template. They add a lot of clutter. And where's Syd? Surely he deserves an icon? Compared to The Beatles, this template is a mess. -- Longhair | Talk 15:34, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I agree wholeheartedly. This template is far too big and messy, and the only way I can see to clean it up is to remove the album images. As for putting Syd as a tiny link down the bottom, that's just disgraceful. the wub (talk) 08:14, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Does anyone here agree with a slim line Beatles style template, including Syd, minus the album images? -- Longhair | Talk 08:27, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Proposal to modify the Pink Floyd template style

Include Syd and remove the album images

Support -- Longhair | Talk 08:27, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Support --the wub (talk) 14:16, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Support RedWolf 06:13, Jun 10, 2005 (UTC)
Support -- --Jacj 02:59, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Support - criminal that the template ranks him at the same level as Bob Klose. --High ^(Hopes) 20:22, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Support - ^wS 28 June 2005 20:33 (UTC)
Support - Hughcharlesparker 16:54:27, 2005-08-19 (UTC)

Don't include Syd and remove the album images

Keep the template as is

Other suggestions?

Questionable use of fair use images

I question the use of the images in the template for the member photos. Currently, all four are "fair use" and therefore I don't think the images can be placed into the template as they end up on any page that uses the template. I think the images could be used on the Pink Floyd and each individual article about the member but not on every album page. RedWolf 01:04, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

What's happened to all the pictures of Syd?

No Syd on the template nor on his page. Is there a reason why they have all been deleted? KrisW6 16:40, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

Probably because who ever uploaded them did not provide source and copyright info which is required within 7 days of upload. RedWolf 01:04, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

I have added a piture of Syd... I added souce stuff... I think It's good--IAMTHEEGGMAN 22:18, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

Proposal to modify the Pink Floyd template style even more

Include images of ban members (including Syd)

Support --IAMTHEEGGMAN 20:44, 26 November 2005 (UTC) Talk

Comments

Don't include Syd and remove the album images

This is not permitted under Wikipedia's policy on "fair use". See Wikipedia:Fair use, in particular the parts about not using non-free images for decoration, and not using non-free images outside of individual articles. --Carnildo 23:37, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

Comments

Oh.... haha.... that's a good reason --IAMTHEEGGMAN 20:44, 26 November 2005 (UTC) Talk

Keep the template as is

Yet another modification proposal

Normally I would just go ahead and change the template (like I did with the others), but due to the history of this template I thought I would put it to a vote first.
I've been slowly (and sporadically) editing all band-related navigational templates so they conform to some kind of standard style - currently I've done Dream Theater, Iron Maiden, Rush, Nirvana, and Soundgarden; and I hope that eventually all similar templates will look the same. The Pink Floyd template is very similar in content to these other templates, so it would be a perfect candidate for this modification. I've already made the changes and saved them to a page under my user space (User:Plattopus/Pink Floyd), so please check it out and let me know your thoughts. plattopus^talk 05:54, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Normally I'd say good idea... up till the Syd Barrett being at the bottom... surely he deserves to be at the top.... AND WILL SOMEONE TELL ME HOW!!! HOW!!! TO GET A DIFFERENT SIGNATURE... I JUST MADE THE ONE IM USING NOW IAMTHEEGGMAN^talk 23:44, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

huzzah!!! for I have made a new version of it... see User:IAMTHEEGGMAN/Pink Floyd--IAMTHEEGGMAN^talk 23:50, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

OK I've used your version for the actual template - no one had any objections so I take that as a yes.

plattopus^talk 14:26, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Compilation Albums

Do you think that we should include compilation albums on this template (such as Relics and Works)? I think that this might be a good idea considering that some songs are only officially released on these albums ("Embryo", "Biding My Time", etc.). InTheFlesh? 08:00, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

===>Certainly They are Pink Floyd albums, as well as a Collection of Dance Songs. 134.68.43.192 15:58, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Support, I wouldn't mind seeing a subsection of the template called "Compilations", which would include Relics (only source for "Biding My Time"), A Nice Pair (great Hipgnosis cover), Works (only source for "Embryo"), A Collection of Great Dance Songs ("Money" re-recording with Gilmour on all instruments but sax), Shine On (first official release of early singles), and Echoes: The Best of Pink Floyd (first time all 4 "classic line-up" members worked together since 1979).

Support It IS a good idea. --S iva1979^{Talk to me}09:09, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and added them, if anyone objects reverting won't hurt my feelings. :) - dharmabum 00:13, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

DVDs and videos

I'm not sure that we need to have Zabriskie Point or More listed as Floyd movies. Wouldn't it make more sense to just have the films they were responsible for producing, instead of just soundtracking (Pompeii, The Wall, etc.)? The films themselves are of little interest to Floyd fans (unless they're also fans of the directors' work, which is irrelevant to a Floyd template), just the soundtracks, which are released already in the template. If not, then La Vallée should probably be created as a stub and added for the sake of completeness. - dharmabum 21:09, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

===>Good point. I second that. Also, if people read the articles on the soundtracks, they can find out about the films. No need to put them here. Floyd is actually heard in several movies. -Justin (koavf), talk 21:27, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree, especially considering that More is already listed in studio albums, and many other artists (such as the Grateful Dead) contributed to Zabriskie Point. InTheFlesh? 21:32, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Should we include Tonite Let's All Make Love in London? I'm not sure how a documentary focused more on the people attending a Floyd performance than the band themselves is relevant enough for a template, and once again, they weren't the only musicians involved. - dharmabum 21:59, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

I went ahead and removed the Zabriskie Point, More and Tonite... links, as I think Tonite... comes under the same criteria. If you think it should be added, feel free to do so, but the template look much tighter now after Justin (koavf)'s tightning up of the bottom section and the DVD/Video removals. - dharmabum 07:46, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Subheadings

Currently, the template has subheadings like "Live Albums" and "Compilations" that link to the Wiki articles that define Live album and Compilation album. Does anyone else think that it would be more useful to link them to the relevant sections of the Pink Floyd discography, such as Pink Floyd discography#Live albums and Pink Floyd discography#Major compilations? It seems that linking to the definition of what a "live album" or "compilation" is is a little redundant, while the latter choice would allow removing the "Discography" wikilink from the "Related articles" section, tightening it up just a bit. - dharmabum 10:59, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Since there's been no objection, I'm going to go ahead and do this; if the silence means lack of assent, feel free to revert me. - dharmabum 23:59, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Unreleased Works

How about a new section under discography, something like Unreleased Works, for things like The Man And The Journey (which I'm going to rewrite to make it fit the entire concept), the Zabriskie Point sessions, The Committee soundtrack, and the Household Objects project? Seems like there's enough to warrent a new section, even though a few pages will have to be (re)written. RttlesnkeWhiskey 13:41, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

I think that's a bit of overkill for the template, and indeed Zabriskie Point used to be part of the template but there was a discussion resulting in its removal. I certainly would like to see those things in the Pink Floyd discography, though. - dharm a bum 20:05, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Added The Man and the Journey to Pink Floyd discography. Not technically an album or anything close, but still notable. --Alcuin 17:29, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

90% font size in template

Instead of an edit war about using 90%-size text in the article, could we have a discussion about it?

While I know that many other band templates use the 90% text size, there isn't a general project I know of that has dictated this (if there is, maybe this should be discussed there as well), but it has simply sort of evolved over time. There's no reason all band templates have to look exactly consistent anyway.

I feel that the 90% size is not ideal. It's hard to read, aesthetically unpleasing, tends to make the text run into the pipe divisions more noticably, and shrinks the overall size of the template almost imperceptably while merely increasing whitespace within the template, making its value very questionable.

Can we hear some other arguments so we can reach a consensus about this? - dharmabum 08:30, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

A vast majority of Navigational footers on wikipedia use 90%, as do every single other template of category:band templates, and so far I have never seen anybody complain. It's called consistency, and visual consistency is good in a visual environment. Unless you consider it necessary to remove the use of that font size in each and all templates that use it? Circeus 00:23, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

I've only posted here because it's on my watchlist along with many other Pink Floyd articles, and I saw a minor revert war a few days ago over the issue and hoped to prevent any futher undiscussed changes. I'd never seen the template without the 90% size before and was surprised how similar in size it was and how much better it looked. By extension, if it looks as much better in all the other articles that use it, I suppose I would advocate changing them all. I don't really care enough to launch a campaign to do so, so we'll continue to have ugly band templates, but I guess they'll at least be consistently ugly. - dharmabum 02:17, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

tree full of secrets and man & the journey

i think there's a subtle difference between the two. The Man and the Journey article discusses a live show they toured with and performed multiple times. A Tree Full of Secrets is a specific bootleg collection of outtakes. Sure, the outtakes themselves are notable, but that particular compilation and title are not. Change the name of the article to "Unreleased Pink Floyd recordings" or something similar and change the focus of the article to the recordings themselves and their collective history and away from one bootlegger's work, and then I think it would be worthy of inclusion on the template. --Alcuin 00:02, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

For the record, most of Tree Full of Secrets is officially released. Why don't you create the article then. As it stands, much of the recordings on Tree is notable, so why don't you create the article. Until that article is made, I see no problem having it in the template -- after all, it's not like it's listed in official catalogue - it's in the related topics section.

Children of Men?

Because the pigs in it for a few minutes? Pfft. I'm taking it out unless anyone has a good reason otherwise M.C. Brown Shoes 04:37, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Films

I think the films should be in date order, like the albums, rather than alphabetical. Perhaps the third-arty documentaries should be removed, too? Andy Mabbett 20:27, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

The new order sounds pretty good, but I think those documentaries should be kept. I'll change it now. --ASDFGHJKL=Greatest Person Ever+Coolest Person Ever 22:35, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Should Dick Parry be on the template

Dick Parry was the saxaphonist for Pink Floyd on The Dark Side of the Moon, Wish You Were Here, and has been touring with them since 1972. Should he be included with the Pink Floyd band? Just a thought...--ASDFGHJKL=Greatest Person Ever+Coolest Person Ever 16:19, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

I wonder why Alan Parsons is in the template, when Bob Ezrin is not. Parsons was engineer on two albums (Dark Side of the Moon and Atom Heart Mother), while Ezrin was co-producer on three of the albums (The Wall, AMLOR and Division Bell). I will say it's more remarkable to be a co-producer than beeing an engineer. Floyd(Norway) 18:53, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps an "associates" section, above "other articles", to include Parsons, Ezrin, Michael Kamen, Sam Brown, Clare Torry et al? Andy Mabbett 20:25, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

I've removed Alan Parsons and Hipgnosis/Storm Thorgerson, since they're mentioned in the contributors article. Floyd(Norway) 20:13, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

What Shall We Do Now?

In my opinion it's wrong to describe this song as unreleased since a live version is released. Floyd(Norway) (talk) 18:55, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

London '66-'67

What should be done with it? Should it be regarded as a film, a compilation, an EP or even a studio album? Zazaban (talk) 03:13, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

It's definitely not a compilation, especially as it only contains 2 tracks taken from 1 session. This title was originally a EP-length CD, and the article was probably written for that, although a film with the same title existed in the 1960s. In 2005 a DVD of the film was issued, and the article was probably modified to cover both film and CD.

The article says that in 2005 it was re-issued as "a remastered CD and a DVD featuring the entire film plus excerpts from the original movie.". I find that confusing; does it mean the CD and DVD were issued together in one package? If the DVD contains the entire film (London 66-67), why does it also contain "excerpts from the original movie" - does this refer to Tonite...? Does the 2005 edition of the CD contain just the 2 tracks, or some of this additional material? Was it really remastered? (It's just a mono recording after all, and one would think the 1990s master was good enough.) I'd like to see some of these questions answered, and then, maybe the article should be split. But right now it's so short, there isn't much there to split.

Another question I'd ask: Is London 66-67 really a Pink Floyd film, or is it about other music groups as well? If so, the article is misleading.

As long as it remains 1 article, "film" is probably the best place for it on the template, since for consumers it's available on DVD and is probably the most popular format. But this is not a permanent solution. --A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 03:36, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

I have it, the DVD is a bonus disc with the music CD. In fact, I don't recall ever realizing it was included until after I bought it. No, I don't believe the DVD is just Pink Floyd. It had an interview with Mick Jaggar if I remember. I'll go check though. Zazaban (talk) 03:39, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

The article mentions the Jagger interview as an extra item. But is the film itself just about Pink Floyd? The article describes the film as "the original film with the full length video of "Interstellar Overdrive" and "Nick's Boogie".". "Video" is misleading; it's a film. But is it just a camera shot of the group recording in the studio, and is this the focus of the film? I had always imagined the film as a documentary about the London scene, using Pink Floyd's music in the background, but the article suggests that's not right. Since you have the DVD, maybe you could expand the article to explain what the film is about. --A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 04:00, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

I've never watched the DVD, only got it for the music. I'll watch it tomorrow. Zazaban (talk) 05:08, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Richard Wright

With the recent passing of Pink Floyd's longtime keyboardist, I believe it would be appropriate to remove him from the template's current band members portion and put him on the same line with Bob Klose.

On a similar note, why is it that Syd Barrett & Roger Waters are highlighted as current members? Syd's been dead for a while and Roger hasn't been an official band member since the 80s. It makes sense to put them on that line as well if I follow my logic properly. Who would be in favor of this suggestion?

68.76.217.20 (talk) 00:33, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

This has been discussed to death. The band is no longer active, so we follow the same rules as on The Beatles. The most significant members go in 'members', like John Lennon or Roger Waters, while the lesser known members go under 'former members', like Pete Best or Bob Klose. Zazaban (talk) 02:19, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

In the previous discussion, I noted that the above rationale is completely different from the infobox instructions, which say nothing about distinguishing "significant" vs. "lesser" members. Template:Infobox Musical artist says:

~~Current_members~~

~~This field is only relevant for groups. Current members of the group, listed in order of joining with no other notation than names.~~

~~Past_members~~

This field is only relevant for groups. Past members of the group, listed in order of joining with no other notation than names. If a group is inactive, all members should be listed here, and none in the "Current_members" field.

~~It is my opinion that we should follow the instructions, regardless of what is done on the Beatles page. --A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 14:19, 5 October 2008 (UTC)~~

Man, I need to check what page I'm posting on! I really goofed! I thought we were talking about the infobox on the Pink Floyd article - where, in fact, this very discussion did take place, and we ended up using the standards that match the instructions. It's also true that the Beatles article's infobox is contrary to the infobox instructions, as griped about above. So that's why I was confused!

The instructions for formatting a NAVBOX are at Template:Navbox Musical artist, and have nothing to say about how names should be listed, nor state that the navbox should match the article's infobox. (And there are no fields labelled "members" and "former members", which is another reason I got confused; there is no explicit labelling or explanation as to why the list of members is in two parts.) So we have made our own decisions about how to format this box, as explained by Zazaban, and I have no objections to it.

Move along, nothing to see here... :) --A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 15:23, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Proposal include Tours

The list of Pink Floyd Tours should be added, there are some tours page made —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alberto077 (talk • contribs) 14:59, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

(Please remember to add new sections to the bottom of talk pages, not the top, and sign your name.)

I see you have created 2 new articles with long lists of concert dates:

There are several problems with this:

From WP:INFO: "Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information." Long lists are often too detailed for WP.
Pages should not be created which copy information from other WP pages. It appears that the paragraphs which precede your lists are just copied from sections of the existing article, Pink Floyd live performances.
The lists of dates are copied from the "Brain Damage" website, which you have cited as a reference at the bottom of each page. Are you associated with that website? It may be better to just put a link to that site on the existing article about live performances.
The over-use of flag icons is considered problematic at WP. WP:MOSICON recommends against using the same icon multiple times on a page, as in a chart, and points to examples of pages which where flag icons have been over-used, similar to the way they are used in these articles.
The date format you are using is confusing (day vs. month) and is not a WP standard.

These articles do not stand a good chance of staying at WP.

--A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 17:40, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

List of member names, revisited

I've asked for a discussion of the list of names at the top of the template, to forestall an edit war. What's happened so far, is a user has changed the list several times and been reverted. The first revert had edit summary (from me), "no reason given for change". The second change had this explanation in the edit summary: "THIS is what most people know as Pink Floyd; Barrett's place in history notwithstanding. A bit possessive re: Floyd articles, yes?"

First of all, the comment about "bit possissive" seems a little premature on the first revert. We frequently revert trivial changes (I call them "fiddles"), and an edit which changes no information, just the order of names, with no initial explanation, certainly qualifies as a fiddle. There is nothing possessive about reverting in this case. Pointless changes should be reverted.

Next, please read the section titled "Richard Wright" earlier on this page, where the list of names was discussed before. But keep in mind that several of us were confused because we thought the discussion was about the infobox, not the bottom-of-article navbox, going by the original post to this section, and replies about infobox rules. In the end, we decided there are no rules or guidelines about the order to list names in a navbox, and chose to keep the list as it was. The navbox instructions page does not even state that there should be a list of names, although it shows one as an example.

The problem with changing the list, is that with no instructions, someone could come along and say that the list should be in the order that members joined the group (which is what the infobox instructions say, and it would make sense to have the two lists follow the same rule). Then someone else could come along and say that he thinks the names should be in alphabetical order. Then someone else might change it to reflect the current line-up. Then someone else could say, no, they should be in the order that the group is "best known" as, which was the basis of the recent change, and also a very POV approach, as not everyone may regard this as the line-up they "know". The line-up with Syd Barrett is certainly not merely historical; Pink Floyd were a prominent band in the psychedelic music scene of 1967, and received quite a bit of public attention at the time. For those who remember those days, this may be the classic Pink Floyd line-up that they prefer to remember.

Another concern is that the recent change may be an attempt to list Roger Waters' name before Gilmour's, which would be part of recurring POV problem with Pink Floyd articles on Wikipedia, where some editors want to change articles so that either Waters or Gilmour comes across as the more "important" of the two. (I was concerned this might be what was going on, because the same editor made this change on the same day.)

I'm not against reviewing the list order, because the current version is not the current line-up, nor the most "classic" line-up, nor in the order of members joining, nor a match of the infobox list, nor is it alphabetical! It's a real none-of-the-above choice. But when a change is challenged, the thing to do is to stop trying to put it in, and discuss it on the talk page.

I really see no reason why the list shouldn't be the same as what we use on the infobox. There are clear instructions for that list, which we follow, and the navbox template is basically trying to show the same information. So why not use the same rules? --A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 15:41, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Jugband Blues

According to this template, Jugband Blues is a single, but I can't find any source that says that it was released as a single, except NorwegianCharts. I can't find any information on a b-side either. Does anyone have any information about it as a single? --Will Mak 050389 01:45, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

For many EMI artists of the day, countries around the world were allowed to make their own single release schedules, and just about any song could have been on a single. But since the article for the song does not document any single releases, it should probably be removed from the template. --A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 02:23, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

If you are looking into removing that from the template, you may want to also consider these: "Your Possible Pasts", "The Dogs of War", "Time" (Live), "Comfortably Numb" (Live), "Keep Talking" (should be a double A-side with "High Hopes"), "What Do You Want from Me?", "Lost for Words", "What Do You Want from Me?" (Live), "Young Lust" (Live). These all seem to be unreleased (or radio-only singles), except in the case of "Keep Talking" which according to [http://lyricwiki.org/images/8/86/Pink_Floyd_-_High_Hopes-Keep_Talking.jpg this cover] is the other A-side of "High Hopes". I don't know what the requirements (if there are any) of listing singles on the template, but these were the one for which I could not find an actual public release. Plus, the above releases use {{Song infobox}} rather than {{Single infobox}} (except for the live tracks, for which there was a single released for the studio version). --Will Mak 050389 04:49, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree. Delete away! :) --A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 08:30, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Bootlegs

I don't think we should include individual bootleg albums in this template. The unreleased material is already included, adding all the bootlegs would be redundant, IMO. Also, there are TONS of PF bootlegs out there and there's no way we could add them all or determine which ones are notable and which ones aren't. Nobody of consequence 18:09, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Redundancy in this case is your opinion. As far as using the sheer quantity of ROIOs as an excuse not to include them is simply unacceptable, the ROIO catalog needs to start somewhere. --Duder. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.171.88.122 (talk) 05:57, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

You realize you're replying to a post made in 2007? According to Wikipedia's notability guidelines for albums, "Unreleased material (including ...bootlegs...) is in general not notable; however, it may be notable if it has significant independent coverage in reliable sources", which I doubt could apply to any Pink Floyd bootleg. You have to remember that bootlegs rarely receive mainstream coverage (and therefore do not qualify for notability); there are only a very few exceptions where certain bootlegs have historical importance for their effect on the music industry. There have been several attempts to create articles for non-notable Pink Floyd bootlegs over the years, and they always get deleted. The template should not be used to list albums that do not have articles. The purpose of the template is as a navigation tool to point to articles. On the other hand, if bootleg articles have withstood a deletion review, they should be in the template. Hopefully someone has not wasted their time creating non-notable bootleg articles (again). --A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 13:33, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

The order doesn't make sence

I seem to have found a lot of mysterious "mistakes" as I've tried to translate a lot of the articles to stubs to the danish encyclopedia, and just to take a simple example, the single Apples and Oranges... The after-single is Flaming and the before is See Emily Play, but somehow it's still placed between Flaming and It Would Be So Nice. Taking that as one fact, the article about It Would Be So Nice says that the single is the fourth released single, and well, there seem to be a single more in between. Also the studioalbums, the next and last album, this seem to have been made from the pink floyd box set, since there's a mysterious combo of all the studioalbums and SOME of the soundtracks. Maybe this should be given a checkthrough with fixes, otherwise I need some sort of explanation so I can formulate this better than the english encyclopedia has done it. --Dooba (talk) 15:59, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Soundtracks

We should really just have More and Obscured by Clouds in the soundtracks because the rest of the albums only have one pink floyd song on them and are essentially Various Artists releases. I say More and Obscured stay. The rest: go. --77.99.231.37 (talk) 19:27, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Tree Full of Secrets

Someone recently created a new article for Tree Full of Secrets, the rare international outtakes collection. I added the link to the Compilations section of the template. As a lifelong fan and member of the WP Pink Floyd project, even I'm not completely sure it that box set is legit, but it has an article now and I'm categorizing it appropriately. Actions can be undone if necessary. --DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 17:58, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Flatlist

Cartoon Boy just reverted a bunch of edits I made to this template, apparently not liking the first; that's not the way to do things.

The contended edit was the application of {{Flatlist}}, the new way of making navboxes, so tthat they use semantically-meaningful and accessible HTML list markup. That's not supposed to change the appearance, so it it does, and in order to iron out any bugs, we need to see screenshots, or at least know what browser/ OS Cartoon Boy is using. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 18:40, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Again, this has been reverted, with no detail of what is supposedly looking different. We can't fix bugs, if any, if you don't tell us what they are. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 23:15, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

I am sorry about this. What I see on pratically all templates is this: · . What I'm seeing on this template is that the dots are pushed further down and are up close to the article links, and as a result, the article links are pushed further down. I don't know if that's how this new way of making navboxes is supposed to look, but I think the traditional version that I've seen is what templates should look like, or at the very least we can do this: •. I see that currently on the Tom Waits template, and that looks pratically identical to what I usually see, the only difference being that the dots in between the links are slightly larger. Does this help at all? - Cartoon Boy (talk) 23:59, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for responding - please can you tell us what browser and OS you're using? If you can provide "before and after" screenshots, that would be even better. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 09:30, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

I believe I am using a Yahoo! browser, but unfortunately, I cannot provide screenshots. - Cartoon Boy (talk) 21:13, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

That sounds like it might be a yahoo-branded version of a superseded generation of Internet Explorer. You may find this discussion and this other discussion informative. Short summary: we don't hold back development of Wikipedia for old, buggy browsers. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 13:11, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Why the slashes?

Why are there forward slashes between some of the singles (for example, "'Us and Them' / 'Time'")? They are on the same album, but not all the songs from the same album have this. InverseHypercube 21:33, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Double A-sides. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:15, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Ah, thanks. InverseHypercube 01:38, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Soundtracks

Why More and Obscured by Clouds are not in the Soundtracks section but in the albums section? They ARE soundtracks and putting them in the album category only because all of the songs were written by Pink Floyd is no too smart. Other bands on wikipedia which made some soundtracks have them in a different category (for example, Ulver, Nine Inch Nails) and I have no idea why it should be different with Pink Floyd. - 83.6.172.146 (talk) 12:45, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Strictly speaking, they're not, because the albums were recorded separately to, and differ from, the actual soundtracks. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:52, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Bob Klose

Perhaps Bob Klose should be added to the Former Members section, as he was a member in 1965, the year Pink Floyd formed?

Too big

Doesn't anyone else think that we need splits to {{Pink Floyd singles}} and {{People associated with Pink Floyd}}?--Ilovetopaint (talk) 04:40, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

Was split for a long time....they were merged after a small deletion talk. This happens alot with the entertainment templates .....that is template editors merging and deleting templates. Most times these talks go unnoticed and all is fine.--Moxy (talk) 07:18, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

Related people

These should not be re-added to this template, as these were split to another template, which was deleted for being "excessive" and borderline "fancruft". See this discussion where consensus was to delete, not merge this material. --Rob Sinden (talk) 14:58, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

There was no consensus to keep all the "related people" off this template. Occasional session musicians and other miscellaneous personnel should definitely not figure. However, I think exceptions can be made for Bob Klose, and uh... I'm not sure who else. --Ilovetopaint (talk) 17:31, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

What to do with albums

Too bulky?

Proposal to modify the Pink Floyd template style

Include Syd and remove the album images

Don't include Syd and remove the album images

Keep the template as is

Questionable use of fair use images

What's happened to all the pictures of Syd?

Proposal to modify the Pink Floyd template style even more

Include images of ban members (including Syd)

Comments

Don't include Syd and remove the album images

Comments

Keep the template as is

Yet another modification proposal

Compilation Albums

DVDs and videos

Subheadings

Unreleased Works

90% font size in template

tree full of secrets and man & the journey

Children of Men?

Films

Should Dick Parry be on the template

What Shall We Do Now?

Related articles?

London '66-'67

Richard Wright

Proposal include Tours

List of member names, revisited

Jugband Blues

Other language links for this template

Bootlegs

The order doesn't make sence

Soundtracks

Tree Full of Secrets

Flatlist

Why the slashes?

Soundtracks

Bob Klose

Too big

Related people