Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Pink Floyd/Archive 3

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3

May 2010 - February 2013

"What Do You Want From Me?"

Whilst a number of Division Bell songs were redirected, the article for this song no longer exists. Did someone delete it?Mk5384 (talk) 05:23, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

The article was called What Do You Want from Me? (Pink Floyd song), which I found by going to an old version of The Division Bell. --A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 12:34, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
Thanks. For some reason it continues to say "page does not exist".Mk5384 (talk) 15:51, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
Where are you seeing that? It's a blue link, so it exists. It's now a disambiguation page. (You probably know this, but in case anyone here doesn't...) When you click the link, you get redirected to the album, but there is a link at the top which says "redirected from..." and the link again. If you click that, you get to the disambiguation page. From there, you can click the history tab and find an old version when it used to be an article. --A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 21:16, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
At the article for The Division Bell. The track listing has (only) track 2 in red. "What Do You Want From Me?" says, "page does not exist. I tried to fix it, thinking that it might have been from the missing question mark, but it remained in red. Not sure what happened.Mk5384 (talk) 23:10, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
Fixed; the word "song" shouldn't have been capitalized. --A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 23:37, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
Thanks. No one ever accused me of being the brightest person here.Mk5384 (talk) 04:39, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Example of a bad article

Can anyone hand-on-heart defend having an article like One of the Few on the encyclopedia? --John (talk) 13:54, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

I can't imagine anyone finding good sources or notability to flesh that one out. It was hard enough finding reliable sources to complete the album article. I wouldnt complain if it went. Parrot of Doom 14:26, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
You really need to give it a rest. I never said that "One of the Few" needs an article. I objected to you deciding for the entire community that it doesn't. You decided that Final Cut songs weren't notable, and received minor opposition. You decided that Division Bell songs weren't notable, and received minor opposition. Then you decided that Dark Side of the Moon songs weren't notable, and received major opposition. All I'm saying, and all I've been saying, is that instaed of John making decisions for thousands of users by himself, the community should decide what should happen with each of these articles.Mk5384 (talk) 21:04, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
And you need to tone down the rhetoric a notch or two. Your edit here restored the article I redirected according to what I saw as a consensus, and one that clearly agrees with NSONG's recommendation (which is how the community generally decides these things). If you don't think the song needs an article, why undo my redirect? Why not redo it then? --John (talk) 07:25, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
I truly am at a loss for what I have to do to explain myself. I did not say that I think the song doesn't need an article, nor did I say that it does. All I have said, again and again, is that one user should not decide the matter for the entire community. I'm also at a loss about the "rhetoric". Please remember, that on your talk page, I said that I find you to be "a fine editor, a competent admin, and a nice guy". I continue to stand by that. I also stated that I disagreed with what you did, which I stand by, as well. Mk5384 (talk) 16:17, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
Undoing redirects for articles that clearly fail WP:NSONGS without explanation can certainly be considered tendentious editing if you keep it up. WP:NSONGS does represent community consensus. If you undo a redirect based on it, you need to at least be able to make a good-faith argument that the article in question does meet the guideline. I eagerly await hearing your argument.—Kww(talk) 16:34, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
If you look at the edit summaries, you'll see that each one was explained. The reason was that there was no consensus to redirect, and numerous objections were made. I reverted many of them per those objections.Mk5384 (talk) 16:51, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for the compliments. We aren't stupid. If you weren't just undoing those edits to make a point, there should be a proper justification for it. If you're unable to state that reason, I'm inclined to agree with Kww that this would be seen as tendentious editing. Please don't. --John (talk) 16:55, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for the compliments; we aren't stupid? Unfortunately, I do seem to be. Perhaps you could explain that to me. I just gave proper justification for it above. If you disagree, so be it. That doesn't give you the right to accuse me of tendentious editing. It may do the both of you a lot of good to reread WP:AGF.Mk5384 (talk) 17:02, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
I'm asking quite specifically about One of the Few. "No consensus to redirect" is certainly not a valid argument because, as stated above, WP:NSONGS indicates that the consensus is to redirect such articles. John is most emphatically not required to seek consensus for each and every redirect he performs, and people that undo his redirects should be able to explain why his reasoning was invalid. So, I ask again: what reasoning do you have that would indicate that One of the Few actually passes WP:NSONGS. BTW, I am assuming good faith: I think you believe it to be reasonable to undo John's redirects, and that you don't believe yourself to be acting in a manner that harms the encyclopedia. I also believe you to be wrong, but that doesn't mean that I'm not assuming good faith.—Kww(talk) 17:04, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
Perhaps I wasn't explicitly clear when I said, "no consensus to redirect". What I should have said, is that objections have been made, after the redirect took place. Another user noted that "One of the Few" was covered by a notable band, as well as its ties to the Wall movie. It seems contradictory to accuse me of tendentious editing, and AGF at the same time. Also, when John used the word "we" above, I doubt that he was assuming the majestic plural. The two of you are ganging up on me here, and it's not cool.Mk5384 (talk) 17:12, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
John and I have not communicated outside of this talk page and one AFD talk page. We just happen to agree with each other.—Kww(talk) 18:06, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes, yes. Are you going to answer the question at the top? Do you honestly, hand on heart, believe it's important to have this as a stand-alone article on Wikipedia? If yes, why? If no, why did you restore it? If you're unable or unwilling to answer, please don't make any more edits like this. It cuts both ways you know; you're contending that I did not enjoy consensus for my redirects (although, per NSONGS and the discussion here, that seems untenable to me); I am very clearly stating that there is no consensus whatsoever for you to undo them. I hope that's clear. --John (talk) 17:20, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

You're just being argumentative. I have said, numerous times, and I'll say it yet again, I have no opinion on the question at the top. I hope that's clear. And whilst I still stand by the first two parts of the compliment I gave you, I now see fit to retract the third. Good day, sir.Mk5384 (talk) 17:52, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
Very good. So I take it that if I reinstate these redirects having been properly tagged, you won't undo them again? That would be great. Good day to you too. --John (talk) 18:01, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
After being tagged for a reasonable amount of time, absolutely. Certainly not after two days.Mk5384 (talk) 18:07, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
Whether an individual song merits an article depends on the information that can be gathered. One of the Few currently doesn't contain anything of interest about the song, except that there's a coversion (one could easily create a cover version section in the album article). Furthermore, Final Cut is certainly not the most notable Floyd album.
However, song articles should not be redirected to the album (unless there is a near identity between song and album), as this will only lead to hundreds of links on the album page redirecting back to the album. If I read the album article, a blue wikilink for a song leading me back to the article I am reading at the time is a waste of time.
If anything, pointless song articles should be deleted. But that's a big step and should be done unilaterally. I see no problem is letting empty articles like One of the Few stand. After all, who can tell whether they will not flesh out in the end?
Str1977 (talk) 08:57, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Ian Emes

FYI, I have just created Ian Emes. Oh, and my new book is out (in the UK; September for USA, not sure when, elsewhere) ;-) Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 16:39, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Pink Floyd articles have been selected for the Wikipedia 0.8 release

Version 0.8 is a collection of Wikipedia articles selected by the Wikipedia 1.0 team for offline release on USB key, DVD and mobile phone. Articles were selected based on their assessed importance and quality, then article versions (revisionIDs) were chosen for trustworthiness (freedom from vandalism) using an adaptation of the WikiTrust algorithm.

We would like to ask you to review the Pink Floyd articles and revisionIDs we have chosen. Selected articles are marked with a diamond symbol (♦) to the right of each article, and this symbol links to the selected version of each article. If you believe we have included or excluded articles inappropriately, please contact us at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.8 with the details. You may wish to look at your WikiProject's articles with cleanup tags and try to improve any that need work; if you do, please give us the new revisionID at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.8. We would like to complete this consultation period by midnight UTC on Monday, October 11th.

We have greatly streamlined the process since the Version 0.7 release, so we aim to have the collection ready for distribution by the end of October, 2010. As a result, we are planning to distribute the collection much more widely, while continuing to work with groups such as One Laptop per Child and Wikipedia for Schools to extend the reach of Wikipedia worldwide. Please help us, with your WikiProject's feedback!

For the Wikipedia 1.0 editorial team, SelectionBot 23:28, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Careful with That Axe, Eugene

If this project is active, could someone please source Careful with That Axe, Eugene. There are zero sources in the article. If this project is not active, forgive the request. Viriditas (talk) 18:57, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Nick's Boogie

The article Nick's Boogie has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Singles generally do not meet WP:V and WP:N, no mention of notability no references.

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. JeepdaySock (AKA, Jeepday) 16:33, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

I have added a merge suggestion on Nick's Boogie. Discuss. Careful With That Axe, Eugene Hello... 11:36, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Tree Full of Secrets

There is a new article for the obscure outtakes box set Tree Full of Secrets. Does anyone know if this is a legitimate release? Should it have its own article? --DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 18:02, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

It's not a legitimate release. It's a fan-created compilation of outtakes and alternate versions that was originally seeded on either the Echoes mailing list or one of the Pink Floyd trading forums circa 2000 or 2001. Interesting compilation to have if you're a Floyd nerd like me, but not notable. --Bongwarrior (talk) 18:58, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
I figured it was something like that. Although non-notable is not the same as non-legitimate. In fact, Tree Full of Secrets is being sold as a "used" item at some big-time retailers, meaning that it's out of the realm of underground bootleggers. Also there have occasionally been some Pink Floyd live bootlegs from the 70s that had their own articles on Wikipedia because they've been talked enough to confer notability, but these tend to get deleted over time. We could probably to take action to have this new article deleted. I'll see if anyone else has anything to add. Thanks, --DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 14:10, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

FA candidate copyedit Pink Floyd

Hi all

The article is to be put up for FA nomination by User:TGilmour who requested a copyedit by GOCE.

Just to let you know the copyedit is finished. There are some notes on the talk page which could do with being addressed though.

Good luck with the FA! Chaosdruid (talk) 23:11, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Project banner template

There's something wrong with {{WikiProject Pink Floyd}}. Regardless of the setting of the |class= parameter, setting one or more of |barrett=yes |gilmour=yes |waters=yes |wright=yes |mason=yes will attempt to put the page into the matching (but non-existent) Category:¬-Class Syd Barrett articles Category:¬-Class David Gilmour articles Category:¬-Class Roger Waters articles Category:¬-Class Richard Wright articles Category:¬-Class Nick Mason articles. Click any of those redlinks, you'll see that they're all well populated, so it's not a case where there's error of usage on one or two talk pages, but a general problem with Template:WikiProject Pink Floyd. These parameters also cause the little portal box upper right to be misdisplayed. --Redrose64 (talk) 18:44, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

I think, I've fixed it. However, the categories won't be fixed till the User:WP 1.0 bot does its round. yeepsi (Time for a chat?) 15:49, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
That's better: the five cats are now completely empty, and e.g. Talk:The Madcap Laughs is correctly in Category:Start-Class Syd Barrett articles. However, some cats now need to be created: see the redlinks in these coloured strips:
 FA A GABCStartStub FLListCategoryDisambigFileRedirectTemplateNA???Total
2071333411802591300179
 FA A GABCStartStub FLListCategoryFileRedirectTemplateNA???Total
101141430192970200135
 FA A GABCStartStub FLListCategoryFileRedirectTemplateNA???Total
10104600064210025
 FA A GABCStartStub FLListCategoryDisambigFileRedirectTemplateNA???Total
100361950111173134100255
 FA A GABCStartStub FLListCategoryFileRedirectTemplateNA???Total
103014000753910061
Alternatively, if these cats are not required, there are also methods by which e.g. a template will show as Template-class for the Pink Floyd project, but NA-class for the subprojects. --Redrose64 (talk) 17:07, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for those tables/strips, you've saved me quite some time now. I'll make those cats now (some will be in use later on). yeepsi (Time for a chat?) 17:25, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Syd Barrett, GA

For anyone reading this, Syd Barrett has now become GA. yeepsi (Time for a chat?) 14:14, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Ummagumma

Ummagumma has been nominated as a Good Article. Your assistance in either reviewing or improving the article would be welcome. --Ritchie333 (talk) 13:04, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Collaboration of the Month (COTM)

Similar to WPBeatles, I've started Collaboration of the Month (COTM). The first COTM, is "Nobody Home". Currently, it's a Start. yeepsi (Time for a chat?) 12:56, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

See here, for more info. yeepsi (Time for a chat?) 12:57, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

GA review passed for The Madcap Laughs

The Madcap Laughs is now a Good Article. Many thanks to those who helped in improving in the article to get it to GA status. --Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:26, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Breathe page move

Please see the discussion here. Thanks. Lugnuts And the horse 16:56, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Pink Floyd/FA2

User:GabeMc has nom'd Pink Floyd for Featured Article status. Feel free to leave comments here. yeepsi (Time for a chat?) 12:55, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Several alternate album covers nominated for deletion

Thought I'd bring this to the group's attention. Several alternate covers for Masters of Rock and Relics have been nominated for deletion. Your input is welcome. - Floydian τ ¢ 00:29, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

  • The rationale of "superfluous" isn't a very strong argument for deletion. The alternate Relics cover is worth keeping, as if policy forced us to choose the original LP or remastered CD cover to put on the infobox, I'm not sure I could definitively choose over the other. (PS: You could have called this "Several species of small album cover thumbnails gathered together in a WP:FfD and grooving with a" ... maybe not, actually) --Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:02, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Atom Heart Mother

Atom Heart Mother has been nominated as a Good Article. If you can help reviewing the article, or further improving it, it would be most welcome. --Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:46, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Ummagumma

Ummagumma's GA review is now on hold. The one remaining issue is I cannot find a reliable source that says the band claimed that the album's title is "totally made up and means nothing at all". It is currently cited to a fansite and Schaffner - the former is probably unreliable and I can't ever remember seeing that specific quote in the latter. Can anyone else cite this quote to a reliable source? --Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 12:08, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

This appears to have been fixed. :-) See Ummagumma#Title. - theFace 20:24, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Album cover nominated for deletion

The Crazy Diamond version of the cover of Barret has been put on Ffd. The alternative covers of The Madcap Laughs and Opel are also on Wikipedia, but at this time not nominated. Input is appreciated. Cheers, theFace 20:20, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

The Dark Side of the Moo

The Dark Side of the Moo has been nominated for deletion. The article currently has significant coverage in three reliable sources, but if you can find any more, and reference them in the article, it would be appreciated. --Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 07:49, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Chronology in infoboxes

Do we have a consensus on what albums should appear in the "Pink Floyd chronology" section of album infoboxes? For example, Meddle currently has Atom Heart Mother as its previous album, but Atom Heart Mother has The Best of the Pink Floyd / Masters of Rock. Which is right? --Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 15:24, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

I was looking over Template:Infobox album, noticed the Chronology guidelines had changed: "In general, all albums and EPs should be placed in a single, chronological chain in order of release date". I decided to be bold and put the compilations into a single chronology, I did change the chronology to fit the compilations for every album from Meddle onwards, but my edits were reverted. yeepsi (Time for a chat?) 17:10, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
I think that the problem is that The Best of the Pink Floyd / Masters of Rock was not an official UK release (my copy is Dutch: Columbia 5C 058-04299 with this cover). If we tried to include all compilations, regardless of area of release, that would clutter up the chronology. --Redrose64 (talk) 17:38, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Piper

For anyone reading this, the Floyd's first album, The Piper at the Gates of Dawn has now passed GA review. yeepsi (Time for a chat?) 22:52, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Cleanup listing for WikiProject Pink Floyd

After a request, thanks to User:Svick, we have a Cleanup listing for WikiProject Pink Floyd. Of the 1245 articles in this project 200 or 16.1 % are marked for cleanup, with 319 issues in total.

Let's see if we can chip away at that number. Best, yeepsi (Talk tonight) 15:57, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

"One of the Few" / "The Hero's Return"

"One of the Few" is potentially a good article (if not a Good Article; I don't care about that). Much was written about it in musicologist Phil Rose's Which One's Pink? (highly recommendeded). I added a little material to it, until I realized I was up against two things.

a. The lack of an article for "The Hero's Return". Of all songs, why not this one? The song is even a PF curiosity for having a "Part 2", which is a rarity (essentially a third verse).

b. My lack of a source on this . . . but I believe I've read that these two songs are about the same man who became The Teacher in "Another Brick in the Wall, Part 2", and that they came up against Gilmour's ignorant (but persuasive) criticism that "They weren't good enough for The Wall; what makes them so good now?" (Well, it's called a "narrative", dumbfuck.) These two were the specific songs. I can't think of any other songs on the album more likely.

So, for those following from Archive 3, yeah, this song's article should definitely be kept, and "The Hero's Return" should have an article. Just glancing at the article for The Final Cut, it's EXTREMELY long and it looks like a MESS, so we definitely need song articles to pan the material out to.

--Ben Culture (talk) 07:24, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Piero Scaruffi

You may have noticed a number of Floyd album articles have recently had reviews by this guy attached. I've started a conversation at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Albums#Piero Scaruffi reviews (again) as it seems to be controversial, or at least without a clear consensus. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 09:56, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

FYI

Just thought I'd point out this edit to the project (I could be wrong ) Thanx, Mlpearc (open channel) 22:45, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

While multiple sources document some band members' origins in Cambridge, it's really only an ancillary point. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 08:01, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Comment on the WikiProject X proposal

Hello there! As you may already know, most WikiProjects here on Wikipedia struggle to stay active after they've been founded. I believe there is a lot of potential for WikiProjects to facilitate collaboration across subject areas, so I have submitted a grant proposal with the Wikimedia Foundation for the "WikiProject X" project. WikiProject X will study what makes WikiProjects succeed in retaining editors and then design a prototype WikiProject system that will recruit contributors to WikiProjects and help them run effectively. Please review the proposal here and leave feedback. If you have any questions, you can ask on the proposal page or leave a message on my talk page. Thank you for your time! (Also, sorry about the posting mistake earlier. If someone already moved my message to the talk page, feel free to remove this posting.) Harej (talk) 22:47, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

WikiProject X is live!

Hello everyone!

You may have received a message from me earlier asking you to comment on my WikiProject X proposal. The good news is that WikiProject X is now live! In our first phase, we are focusing on research. At this time, we are looking for people to share their experiences with WikiProjects: good, bad, or neutral. We are also looking for WikiProjects that may be interested in trying out new tools and layouts that will make participating easier and projects easier to maintain. If you or your WikiProject are interested, check us out! Note that this is an opt-in program; no WikiProject will be required to change anything against its wishes. Please let me know if you have any questions. Thank you!

Note: To receive additional notifications about WikiProject X on this talk page, please add this page to Wikipedia:WikiProject X/Newsletter. Otherwise, this will be the last notification sent about WikiProject X.

Harej (talk) 16:56, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

I put a proposal of what a Pink Floyd good topic might look like at Wikipedia talk:Featured topic questions#Pink Floyd some time back. Does anyone else have any thoughts on it? Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 09:39, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

WikiProject collaboration notice from the Portals WikiProject

The reason I am contacting you is because there are one or more portals that fall under this subject, and the Portals WikiProject is currently undertaking a major drive to automate portals that may affect them.

Portals are being redesigned.

The new design features are being applied to existing portals.

At present, we are gearing up for a maintenance pass of portals in which the introduction section will be upgraded to no longer need a subpage. In place of static copied and pasted excerpts will be self-updating excerpts displayed through selective transclusion, using the template {{Transclude lead excerpt}}.

The discussion about this can be found here.

Maintainers of specific portals are encouraged to sign up as project members here, noting the portals they maintain, so that those portals are skipped by the maintenance pass. Currently, we are interested in upgrading neglected and abandoned portals. There will be opportunity for maintained portals to opt-in later, or the portal maintainers can handle upgrading (the portals they maintain) personally at any time.

Background

On April 8th, 2018, an RfC ("Request for comment") proposal was made to eliminate all portals and the portal namespace. On April 17th, the Portals WikiProject was rebooted to handle the revitalization of the portal system. On May 12th, the RfC was closed with the result to keep portals, by a margin of about 2 to 1 in favor of keeping portals.

There's an article in the current edition of the Signpost interviewing project members about the RfC and the Portals WikiProject.

Since the reboot, the Portals WikiProject has been busy building tools and components to upgrade portals.

So far, 84 editors have joined.

If you would like to keep abreast of what is happening with portals, see the newsletter archive.

If you have any questions about what is happening with portals or the Portals WikiProject, please post them on the WikiProject's talk page.

Thank you.    — The Transhumanist   07:51, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

Request for information on WP1.0 web tool

Hello and greetings from the maintainers of the WP 1.0 Bot! As you may or may not know, we are currently involved in an overhaul of the bot, in order to make it more modern and maintainable. As part of this process, we will be rewriting the web tool that is part of the project. You might have noticed this tool if you click through the links on the project assessment summary tables.

We'd like to collect information on how the current tool is used by....you! How do you yourself and the other maintainers of your project use the web tool? Which of its features do you need? How frequently do you use these features? And what features is the tool missing that would be useful to you? We have collected all of these questions at this Google form where you can leave your response. Walkerma (talk) 04:24, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

Hello? Is there anybody in there?

This project seems to have ground to a halt. I do still mean to get all of the remaining Floyd studio albums to GA (which I think is just the More soundtrack and Endless River) but it's never quite got high enough up my list of priorities. Also, the other album articles have a tendency to deteriorate into genre wars and other random hit and run stuff, and I think the majority of my contributions to Ummagumma and Atom Heart Mother are probably reverts instead of actually contributing content. Is anyone else planning anything? Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 18:35, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

RfC on proposed creation of "Pink Floyd songs" navbox

Can there be a navbox entitled "Pink Floyd songs", a navbox that contains all of the Pink Floyd songs that have an article on Wikipedia? X-ma998 (talk) 12:32, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

As I advised you at Talk:Pink Floyd#RfC on proposed creation of "Pink Floyd songs" navbox, please observe WP:RFCBEFORE. That is, discuss it here by all means: but don't go straight for the {{rfc}} tag until other avenues are exhausted. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 21:34, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

Creation of "Pink Floyd songs" template

Can there be a template that contains all Pink Floyd songs that have an article on Wikipedia, which includes singles and non-singles? X-ma998 (talk) 19:25, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

How does this differ from your request above? --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 23:19, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

Proposed page for the band ‘Unicorn’

Can you help? I’ve drafted a page for Unicorn (English band), which has now been rejected twice. They were the group David Gilmour produced 2.5 albums for (he played pedal steel guitar on Blue Pine Trees) and he also covered their song "No Way Out of Here" for his solo album.

I believe they qualify as being notable according to at least one of the criteria in WP:NBAND. They certainly ‘released two or more albums on a major record label’ - Too Many Crooks and One More Tomorrow were both EMI (Harvest Recorrds).

However, the available sources tend to be either fan blog sites or shorter passages in works about other artists. I’d therefore be grateful for advice or contributions from more experienced wikipedians that might help get this page published. Many thanks. (MarkInOxford talk) — Preceding undated comment added 08:46, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

@MarkInOxford: It's the sort of thing that would have been covered by Record Collector at least once in their 500+ issues - they have run several articles on Pink Floyd, Pink Floyd solo projects, Pink Floyd member's collaborations, etc. Judging by the back issues index, try hunting down issues 132 (August 1990) and 285 (May 2003). Record Fairs usually have some traders selling back issues. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 09:06, 14 August 2021 (UTC)
@Redrose64: That's a great tip. Thanks very much for your help and for looking up those back issues. Hopefully I'll be able to track down something useful. (MarkInOxford talk) 07:14, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

Current activity

I recently discussed with zmbro (whose work on David Bowie-related articles has been nothing short of amazing) about we can do about putting a little more work into this project and tidying up odds and ends.

At the moment, I'm continuing with trying to get Pink Floyd discography up to good topic status. The list article has a bunch of tags I've put on, mostly for obscure European-only EPs from the 60s, and more recent releases that aren't in my set of books I'm using as they're not up to date enough. I'm not sure how I can progress with those; maybe pigsonthewing has got the relevant sources. Once that's done, I need to fact-check all the other sources (which for things like chart positions and awards I think is about exciting as watching grass grow, but that's the price you pay for getting featured content on Wikipedia I guess).

For the good topic, I think we'd need all studio albums and all major singles and songs. As far as I know, every studio album is at least a GA, with the exception of The Endless River, and I'm making a start on the songs, so Echoes is now up to GA standard. The major writers of The Endless River are PhilipTerryGraham, who has retired, and Popcornfud, who has got fed up of the GA / FA process and doesn't want to do it anymore. I don't think it's going to spontaneously pass GA without some effort from other parties. On a superficial look, there doesn't look too much wrong with it bar a few questionable sources - I just don't think you should nominate an article for GA if you haven't done a significant amount of work on it first.

In terms of other songs, I'd probably be looking at "Arnold Layne", "See Emily Play", "Set the Controls for the Heart of the Sun", "Careful with that Axe, Eugene", "Echoes", "Money", "Shine On You Crazy Diamond", "Another Brick in the Wall" and "Comfortably Numb" for a good topic. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 14:57, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

I don't mind helping out improving any of these articles, but I can't commit to them, if you see what I mean. Sorry, probably not a helpful response... Popcornfud (talk) 14:18, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

Do we need an article for every single Division Bell song?

Because we have 'em. Is each of these songs really notable enough per WP:NSONG? Popcornfud (talk) 13:53, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

Let's take one specific example - track 1, "Cluster One". How does that fail NSONG? --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 16:26, 11 December 2021 (UTC)
Well, let's see. It has poor sourcing (eg some fansites, a YouTube video). The only actual reliable sources used in the article - as far as I can tell - are there to support the claim that it's a song by Pink Floyd on The Division Bell. In other words, I don't see evidence that the song is subject[1] of multiple, non-trivial published works, per NSONG.
Even if all the information in the article were reliably sourced, I see nothing that couldn't be covered in sufficient detail in the main Division Bell article, per NSONG: Notability aside, a standalone article is appropriate only when there is enough material to warrant a reasonably detailed article; articles unlikely ever to grow beyond stubs should be merged to articles about an artist or album. Popcornfud (talk) 16:41, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

General cover art query

Am I missing something? because I've seen this on, more than a few articles Why are we using Oriental covers on the English Wikipedia? - FlightTime (open channel) 23:18, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

Maybe because the single was released in japan but not the UK? --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 20:05, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

User script to detect unreliable sources

Main page: User:Headbomb/unreliable

I have (with the help of others) made a small user script to detect and highlight various links to unreliable sources and predatory journals. Some of you may already be familiar with it, given it is currently the 39th most imported script on Wikipedia. The idea is that it takes something like

  • John Smith "Article of things" Deprecated.com. Accessed 2020-02-14. (John Smith "[https://www.deprecated.com/article Article of things]" ''Deprecated.com''. Accessed 2020-02-14.)

and turns it into something like

It will work on a variety of links, including those from {{cite web}}, {{cite journal}} and {{doi}}.

The script is mostly based on WP:RSPSOURCES, WP:NPPSG and WP:CITEWATCH and a good dose of common sense. I'm always expanding coverage and tweaking the script's logic, so general feedback and suggestions to expand coverage to other unreliable sources are always welcomed.

Do note that this is not a script to be mindlessly used, and several caveats apply. Details and instructions are available at User:Headbomb/unreliable. Questions, comments and requests can be made at User talk:Headbomb/unreliable.

- Headbomb {t · c · p · b}

This is a one time notice and can't be unsubscribed from. Delivered by: MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:02, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

FAR for Roger Waters

I have nominated Roger Waters for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. (t · c) buidhe 03:10, 14 May 2022 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Pink_Floyd/Archive_3&oldid=1137369145"