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 |
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)
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:
--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)
Other suggestions?
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)
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)
Oh.... haha.... that's a good reason --IAMTHEEGGMAN 20:44, 26 November 2005 (UTC) Talk
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. plattopustalk 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 IAMTHEEGGMANtalk 23:44, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
huzzah!!! for I have made a new version of it... see User:IAMTHEEGGMAN/Pink Floyd--IAMTHEEGGMANtalk 23:50, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
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)
I've gone ahead and added them, if anyone objects reverting won't hurt my feelings. :) - dharmabum 00:13, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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.
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)
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)
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)
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)
Snowy White? A long time band associate, touring musician, studio contributor (both band and solo) etc. Does he merit inclusion as a related article? Just curious as to other editor opinions. Thanks and have a nice day. Libs (talk) 19:49, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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? --WillMak050389 01:45, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
I've linked these other language templates together but can't find where to copy them in English. It was a lot easier in Basque and Bulgarian, let me tell you.
[[bg:Шаблон:Пинк Флойд]] [[cs:Šablona:Pink Floyd]] [[el:Πρότυπο:Pink Floyd]] [[es:Plantilla:Pink Floyd]] [[et:Mall:Pink Floyd]] [[eu:Txantiloi:Pink Floyd]] [[fi:Malline:Pink Floyd]] [[fr:Modèle:Pink Floyd]] [[he:תבנית:פינק פלויד]] [[hr:Predložak:Pink Floyd]] [[hu:Sablon:Pink Floyd]] [[id:Templat:Pink Floyd]] [[it:Template:Pink Floyd]] [[lt:Šablonas:Pink Floyd]] [[nl:Sjabloon:Navigatie Pink Floyd]] [[nn:Mal:Pink Floyd]] [[no:Mal:Pink Floyd]] [[pl:Szablon:Pink Floyd]] [[pt:Predefinição:Pink Floyd]] [[ro:Format:Pink Floyd]] [[ru:Шаблон:Pink Floyd]] [[simple:Template:Pink Floyd]] [[sk:Šablóna:Pink Floyd]] [[sl:Predloga:Pink Floyd]] [[tr:Şablon:Pink Floyd]] [[uk:Шаблон:Pink Floyd]] [[vi:Bản mẫu:Pink Floyd]]
Please set this up somewhere. Thanks a lot, Varlaam (talk) 00:29, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
P.S. Chinese (zh:) is not working.
[[ka:თარგი:პინკ ფლოიდი]]
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
I believe I am using a Yahoo! browser, but unfortunately, I cannot provide screenshots. - Cartoon Boy (talk) 21:13, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
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)
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)
Perhaps Bob Klose should be added to the Former Members section, as he was a member in 1965, the year Pink Floyd formed?
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)
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)