Talk:Pink Floyd

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

↓    Skip to table of contents    ↓
This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:
Featured article star 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 Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do.
Main Page trophy This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on May 9, 2006.
This article was the featured article of the Music Portal in July 2006.
Pink Floyd is included in the 2007 Wikipedia for Schools, or is a candidate for inclusion in future versions. Please maintain high quality standards, and make an extra effort to include free images, because non-free images cannot be used on the CDs.
Peer review This Arts article has been selected for Version 0.5 and subsequent release versions of Wikipedia. It has been rated FA-Class on the assessment scale (comments).
FAQ


Contents

[edit] Worldwide Sales

The lead said they have sold over 250 million albums worldwide but the cite for that claim says 200 million. I changed the number to correspond with the citation used. I also changed the hyperlink linking the phrase "most successful and influential" to the list of Best Selling Music Artists to be only the words "most successful," since record sales have little to do with influence, as evidenced by comparing the record sales of, say, Matchbox 20 and the Velvet Underground, among a host of other examples. 74.77.208.52 17:27, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

DO NOT REVERT. The cite says 200 million, not 250 million. 74.77.208.52 21:05, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

My edit is continuously being reverted for no good reason and with no commentary to provide a rationale. This is completely inappropriate. There is zero justification for claiming 250 million albums sold when the cite used to back it up claims 200 million. Stop reverting. 74.77.208.52 21:36, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Changed this back to 200 million as the citation still shows this figure and not 250m Deckchair 14:36, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

300 million has now been claimed, with a single citation (last.fm) - do we accept this? They in turn do not justify it[1] --C Hawke 19:49, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

No, we don't accept it. It's circular linking. Stick with what is verifiable, which is USA sales. 74.77.222.188 (talk) 07:47, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
I've added verified UK sales figures from the BPI site - it is a frames based site so I can't link to the actual figure, you need to do a search for them, and it is based on their awards of Platinum, Gold and Silver. I think this adds weight to the dubious nature of the 250/300 Million figure, as they would have to gain another 200 million worldwide outside what is probably their biggest two markets (US and UK)--C Hawke (talk) 13:56, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
Bit of a shame that this British band is quoted for its sales "in the US alone." Who cares about the US?!--218.223.193.144 (talk) 03:40, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
Find an RIAA equivalent for other nations. We did that for the UK and it was deleted. Probably because it was "only" six million or so which pointed up how laughable these inflated "250 million" worldwide figures are. 74.77.222.188 (talk) 05:58, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Wikiproject Pink Floyd

Is there anybody out there interested in re-launching the whole project? Doktor Who 02:16, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Yeah im interested what would that involve though? and do we need to relaunch it? Ummagumma23 04:02 23 August 2007 (UTC)
I am also interested. Finally I actually have time to do it. Coq Rouge 23:19, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
Thank you Ummagumma23 and Coq Rouge. Most of Pink Floyd-related articles have been written without, or just with little, involvment of the Wikiproject, nevertheless further goals can be reached. Soon I'm going to post some short msgs, and, within some days, new proposals at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Pink Floyd. Any question posted at my talk page would be very welcome.Doktor Who 00:09, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
Maybe we can get a lead that doesn't look like it was written by Roger Waters. 74.77.208.52 03:11, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
What exactly is wrong with the lead? Zazaban 05:54, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
I think the lead is fine although id like to see the other members of the band prehaps recognised in the lead but i understand that most people feel that Waters is the leader and so should have priority.Ummagumma23 08:54 24 August 2007 (UTC)
I can agree that to a certain degree, the lead is to focused on Waters. But, as Waters was the leader of the band in their most influencal period, it is also wrong not to have focus on him. As long as the rest of the article is balanced, there is nothing wrong with the lead focusing slightly more on Waters than the rest. The final line of the lead could probably be changed slightly to balance it. The classical lineup played together for the first time in 24 years on 2005-07-02 at the London Live 8 concert, playing to Pink Floyd's biggest audience ever. might be better than the one currently there. Coq Rouge 13:29, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Millenium?

Forgive my ignorance, but I recently saw someone with a Pink Floyd "Millenium" t-shirt. I had heard something about it before, but I don't know what "Millenium" is. It's not listed under Wikipedia's PF discography or live shows... could someone tell me what it is? And to help out ignorant people like me, possibly stick in some information in Wikipedia? Thanks- Gerafin 02:47, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Is it this t-shirt your talking about? My guesses would go to either a cover band, unlicensed stuff, official merchendice either in connection with a tour or other, or just fan stuff. There are bunches of stuff out there. I have never heard of any PF album named Millenium, or refered to as such, so it's not that. Might be some commercial stuff with a millenium re-release. Not worthy of mentioning in the article anyhow. Coq Rouge 06:30, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Missing images/audio?

The top of the page proudly announces the fact that "This article includes inline links to audio files". How many are there now? One. I noticed on one of the archives that the uploader had neglected to include fair use rationales.

But I can live without sample audio. The thing which confuses me now is that there are now no album covers. The main body of text now looks profoundly dull. Is there any reason, other than the fact that we'd need to go through and add a second (very similar) fair use rationale to each image, why we shouldn't re-add the images to the article? Una LagunaTalk 10:24, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Copyrighted images cannot be used for decoration, even in (for instance) discographies. There is even some controversy about whether album covers can be used on album pages if the cover art itself is not a subject discussed in the article (cf. Sgt. Pepper). Relevant linkage:
We'd probably have better luck with audio samples. All that was needed were good fair-use rationales. / edg ☺ ★ 10:44, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
Quick response! That makes sense, thanks. Una LagunaTalk 10:55, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Pictures

Haven't checked this article in a while. When I last did it, I'm sure there were lots more pictures. The article looks dull and boring without anything nice to look at. What happened to them all?

Given the beauty of their art work, I agree some more should be included--Jacobwilliamson 17:38, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Sure, as soon as someone convinces the owners of Pink Floyd art to license it for GFDL-compatible free use. Until then, we have to work within fair use restrictions. / edg ☺ ★ 18:44, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Zabriskae point

Why is this missing from the lsit of Albums (albeit perhaps caveated by someone who knows more than I about the band)?

See http://www.pinkfloyd.net/albums/?album=50 where it's clearly a Pink Floyd album as I recalled —Preceding unsigned comment added by SimonMWatts (talk • contribs) 15:24, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

There is a discography on the bottom of the page that includes Zabriskie Point (album) under "soundtracks", along with Obscured by Clouds and Music from the Film More. Zabriskie Point is a multi-artist soundtrack/collection, and is as much a Jerry Garcia album as a Pink Floyd album. / edg ☺ ★ 16:49, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
Yes. It's not entirely a PF album, as over half of it is by other artists. Doc Strange 18:47, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Animals bass

I heard from an unreliable source that David Gilmour played all the bass parts on Animals. If this is true it should be included in both articles. 75pickup (talk · contribs) 02:26, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

The Pink Floyd Encyclopedia by Vernon Fitch says Gilmour played bass on "Sheep" and "Pigs (Three Different Ones)", but Waters provided bass on "Dogs". --Bongwarrior 02:41, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Pictures

Haven't checked this article in a while. When I last did it, I'm sure there were lots more pictures. The article looks dull and boring without anything nice to look at. What happened to them all?

Given the beauty of their art work, I agree some more should be included--Jacobwilliamson 17:38, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

I beat you to the asking of the question. Una LagunaTalk 18:41, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Pink Floyd's year of formation

There are a few sites on the web that state that Pink Floyd was formed in 1964, but most sites I have read state 1965. I put a weblink for All Music Guide, which states Floyd formed in 1965. To my knowledge, the band was known as Sigma 6/Screaming Abdabs, etc in 1964 and did not become Pink Floyd (The Pink Floyd sound, etc.) until 1965. Does anyone have proof (Nick Mason's book, perhaps) that states the year the group was formed? I would love to know so that we can keep this article as accurate as possible. Tkd73 22:36, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

You're right. The band itself formed in '64 or so as Sigma 6, then Screaming Abdads and became Tea Set in early '65. When the band discovered that another band had it (and they were OPENING for them), they changed their name to The Pink Floyd Sound after two obscure bluesman in 1965. Doc Strange 18:46, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

one Q. pink floyd wernt techniqly pink floyd as such untill after bob klose left, am i far off. i am not disputting the fact that bob klose may have been in a band with the other members of pink floyd. but that band and the one we knoe to day. was not the same. why then is he included in pink floyd band members then??? shouldnt it be band members in tea set, but then no include him in pink floyd sound. i have read nick mason's book "inside out" and it did not directly mention that bob was a member of said pink floyd sound. i am awear that this has been a continueing issue, but i would like to see some resolution otgher then a white wash by one person who canot accept otherwise that they could be wrong.????? blehhhh i had to say that hahaha :) Echoes000 (talk) 19:16, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

I was able to find a source from Nick Mason's book, stating that Pink Floyd formed in 1965. Tkd73 14:32, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

The Inside Cover of Nick Mason's book states: "Nick Mason first played with Roger Waters and Syd Barrett at the Regent Street Polytechnic in London in 1964, although they wouldn t become Pink Floyd until the following year. He lives in the UK." So there you have it. Pink Floyd formed in 1965, which evolved from a band formed in 1964. Any more questions? Tkd73 13:21 15 March 2008 (UTC)

All that says is that they changed their name. Does that make it a different band? Zazaban (talk) 00:32, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Actually, yes! Sigma 6, which formed in 1964, is a different band than the one that became Pink Floyd. As I'm sure you are aware, this was a rhythm and blues band formed in Cambridge that in addition to having Waters, Mason, and Wright, included Juliette Gale, Keith Noble, and Clive Metcalfe who of course were never in the band that became Pink Floyd. Whenever Sigma 6 officially broke up, and the lineup of Waters, Klose, Barrett, Wright and Mason formed (whether that be Tea Set, Screaming Abdabs, etc) is when you have the band that became Pink Floyd. It is very common for a band to dissolve, and members of that band form another band. (ex: What started as The Quarryman became The Beatles, The Detours became The Who, The Yardbirds, or New Yardbirds became Led Zeppelin, in all cases two different bands connected to one another). Tkd73 22:15, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Comment

This featured article needs images, and the references do not contain access dates. – Ilse@ 18:44, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

There used to be a ton of images, but they were all deleted. We really need to loosen up on image regulations. Zazaban (talk) 19:59, 24 November 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Main Picture

The main picture is a pig now? Whose idea was this? --86.143.153.13 (talk) 23:45, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Mine. The original picture was deleted for some unknown reason, so I used the best picture I could find in commons. I would upload something myself, but it would probably get deleted. For now, the pig is the best we have. I'm not happy with it either. Zazaban (talk) 04:51, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
I tried looking for a free image with no luck, but I'm not particularly adept at finding them. If someone else wants to have a look, it would be appreciated. A picture from the Live 8 show, with the four of them holding hands at the end, would be a nice choice. But, if no free images can be found, they might possibly be considered inactive enough as a band for something to qualify under fair use. --Bongwarrior (talk) 05:16, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
Yes, that is a pretty good picture. I personally liked the one we had though, because it showed all five members. Zazaban (talk) 05:21, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
That's an excellent choice also, and because it's one of the few pictures to feature all five members, the historical aspect may strengthen any fair use claim. --Bongwarrior (talk) 05:35, 29 November 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Influenced

Pink Floyd has influenced rock music artists of the 1970s such as David Bowie[6], Genesis and Yes[7];

This page is quoted as the source:

http://classicrock.about.com/od/bandsandartists/p/pink_floyd.htm


while it is most likely that these bands would have heard pink floyd, to say that they were directly influenced by them is innacurate and misleading. i dont think that the About.com article is very informative, and unless a better source (such as direct quotes from the artists) can be found, this sentence should be removed, or at least edited.

david bowie was a fan of syd barrett era floyd, having covered 'see emily play', but it is too general to say he was influenced by a large body of floyds work. Vivisquallcloud (talk) 08:53, 19 December 2007 (UTC)


Agreed. Fairly certain Yes and Genesis weren't influenced by Floyd. Citing about.com is about as verifiable as citing wiki.Breadfap (talk) 09:10, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
Also regarding influence in first section of article: "Pink Floyd have influenced ... various modern artists such as ... Radiohead ... ."
The source cited for Radiohead is [2]. This is just a customer comment on Amazon. Blibbka (talk) 13:34, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] To Present?

Why does it still list the band as being together? Gilmoure has said himself that there are no plans of touring or recording?Hoponpop69 (talk) 01:23, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

See previous discussion:
/ edg ☺ ☭ 01:47, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Reading over all that I didn't see much consensus that towards listing 1964-present.Hoponpop69 (talk) 05:30, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

It should list 1965-1996. On indefinite hiatus. One off reunion in 2005 61.213.76.87 (talk) 16:47, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Interstellar Overdrive.ogg

Image:Interstellar Overdrive.ogg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 18:33, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Whatever happened to the "250 million album sale" claime?

just google 'pink floyd 250 million' and you'll get pages of results, you have one week to include this in or I will. Radiohumor (talk) 03:33, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Nice threat. Now find a reliable source for the statement. FYI, it's been discussed before - see [3]. --Alvestrand (talk) 04:20, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
Those "pages of results" got the figure from Wikipedia itself. It's called circular linking. We're supposed to document history here, not change it. See WP:RS. 74.77.222.188 (talk) 05:55, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] References in intro

The references relating to the "artists Pink Floyd has influenced" are all very iffy-they link to fan reviews, amazon user-created content, secondhand ticket sellers, and individual Geocities pages. I'm not saying that the assertions in and of themselves are incorrect, but these references do need to be removed from an otherwise well-cited article. Atlantik (talk) 22:08, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

The references in that section are embarrassing, except for the Nine Inch Nails one. I recommend deleting the whole thing. 74.77.222.188 (talk) 08:22, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
A list every single notable artist influenced by Pink Floyd would take up most of the article. Zazaban (talk) 06:37, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
Probably. I moved them towards the end of the article, they're better off there. I won't object if they're removed. They do look like a gathering of fans, rather than an encyclopedia article. --Blechnic (talk) 20:11, 13 April 2008 (UTC)


[edit] Subject/Verb Agreement

Are the words "group" and "band" in British English (BrE) plural? If so, what is the singular of "group"? Because in some of these articles, we have constructions like "the group have sold." It seems like it should be "Pink Floyd is an English rock band" and "the group has sold . . . ." The word "group" is not like the word "media," which is the plural of "medium." I know of several differences in AmE and BrE, and if this is one of them, fine, but it will be difficult to keep it consistent (for example, in the opening of the Led Zeppelin article, the band's name is treated both as singular and as plural in different sentences). Can someone provide some clarification, or at least cite to some rule of construction in which names of rock bands, unlike names of companies or governments or other collectives, are treated as plural? Judicata (talk) 20:48, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

British English treats band names as plural, so "Pink Floyd are an English rock band" is correct. I think that the words "group" and "band" would usually be treated as singular in both British and American English, though I could be wrong about that. I agree that a phrase like "the group have sold" is a little strange. There is some information regarding this at American and British English differences. --Bongwarrior (talk) 21:21, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the clarification. So the band's name is plural by BrE convention, but the pronouns are not? Fair enough. Unless we get more input on this soon, I'll start conforming the article to that. Judicata (talk) 02:25, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

British English accepts group names and group pronouns as plural. In fact every English speaking country outside of the U.S. considers this correct English form. Only in the U.S. would someone say "They is a band". Pink Floyd are an English band. They are a "they" and not an "it". "The group have sold" = "they have sold" not "they has sold". The UK, NZ, Aus, Canada all treat this as "textbook" proper English. Hope that helps. Anger22 (Talk 2 22) 02:45, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Not really. "They" is obviously plural, so not even us dumb Americans would say something like "They is a band." A word like "group" can refer to either a single unit or to the individual members of that unit, and can be safely treated as singular or plural as needed. Your claim that they are always treated as plural is false. Don't take my word for it, see for yourself. --Bongwarrior (talk) 03:14, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
Anger22, there is no such thing as "proper English". The correct terms are "standard" and "non-standard". Basically, BongWarrior is correct, Judicata. "Pink Floyd are an English rock band" and "the group have sold" would be the standard way of writing it in a BrE orientated article. ScarianCall me Pat! 10:44, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
I learned something today. For the record, "they" in AmE is always plural, and "group" is always singular. But a sentence would read "Members of the group are" because "are" refers to "members," not "group." I now know this is not the case in BrE. Thanks for the link regarding formal and notional agreement. I'll note that difference between BrE and AmE in the future. Judicata (talk) 19:52, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

"Pink Floyd" is a proper noun that refers to "A group" and is, in both ArE and BrE grammatically equivalent to the phrase "a group." "A group" is a singular noun that would result in the conjugation of the verb "to be" as "is;" and because they are grammatically equivalent, "Pink Floyd" would lead to an identical conjugation of the word. Even if some people's incorrect convention of notions of how verbs should be conjugated is that it would be conjugated as if "Pink Floyd" was plural, it is not, and respectively "to be" should not conjugated as such, according to both American AND British standard English. Conventions of how British music culture uses incorrect grammar (while American music culture uses correct grammar, this should be as much of a determinant if either would have any say, which they do not) is no determinant of how English should be used in a strictly grammatically correct encyclopedia. The answer is "Pink Floyd is," end of story. Andrew Nutter (talk) 16:56, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Whoa! When a proposed edit is controversial, and advice is given to discuss it on the talk page, that doesn't invite you to declare everyone else is wrong, conclude with "end of story", and make the changes immediately while (incompletely and inconsistently) removing the warning comments from the article. I see Andrew's change has already been reverted.
To address Andrew's arguments: as Scarian pointed out, "proper English" is a misnomer; language is a product of convention. The logic Andrew describes, explains the probable reasons for American usage, but British English is an equally consistent system. Andrew's claim that established rules of grammar disagree with Wikipedia's style guide on this matter, cries out for a "citation needed" tag. And there is nothing in the style guide, or any previous discussion, that suggests this issue is limited to "British music culture"; on the contrary, it is universal regarding subject matter, and as was stated previously, used throughout the English speaking world.
Looking at previous comments in this section, it seems that not only concensus, but complete agreement was reached. Please do not make this change again. --A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 06:40, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
Not challenging anything said here, just clarifying for documentary purposes, that per WP:ENGVAR it is appropriate that this article use the British variant of English, because it covers a British band, and also because the article is consistently using this form already. Wellspring (talk) 17:49, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Music Video

Do any of you know how many music videos Pink Floyd has made. I need this on the Pink Floyd discography or a place where i can find the facts. --Freedom (song) (talk) 19:20, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Do you mean promotional support type videos, or live concert type videos? I would have thought (assuming you mean the former) that all of their singles did, not that they released that many. Certainly some are on Youtube, though that's obviously not a reliable source Ged UK (talk) 19:37, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes i mean promotional support type videos for singles not the live singles. --Freedom (song) (talk) 19:46, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

[4] might be a place to start Ged UK (talk) 19:51, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you very much Ged UK. --Freedom (song) (talk) 19:59, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] featured Article

Pink Floyd discography has been nominated for featured article. Is it possible i can get som help with the article. --Freedom (song) (talk) 05:29, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Dave asking Roger to join on stage rumour

On #67 it links to, a now defunct, website stating that Nick Mason in his interview claimed that Roger Waters was asked to jion them on stage. Dave Gilmour never asked Roger Waters to join him on stage. In the interview Nick Mason said it would be nice if Roger could join them on stage. But Dave NEVER asked him, nor would he ever allow Roger to be on stage with him on his On An Island tour.

I think that #67 should be removed, and the text be altered to show what really was said.

Well yes, I was revering in last few days number of worldwide sales into 300 million. It is not big mistake after all if it writes over 200 million, but I saw a lot websites where they put over 300 million. I would point out last.fm. And if you calculate rewards and worldwide sales of each album, it appears that number of sold albums is really over 300 million. Thank you for your help and I hope that you will consider situation. L —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lpavleti (talk • contribs) 17:11, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Reviews being removed, does anyone care?

Yesterday one editor removed reviews from 5 different Pink Floyd album articles. Each article's infobox contained multiple ratings and links to reviews. The deleted review was not always for the same site. In one article, a Rolling Stone review was removed, while a Yahoo review remained. In another, only a Yahoo review was removed, etc. In each case, the common factor is the removed review was negative. The edits contained no edit summary, and that being the case, I am presuming the editor is just trying to be a "fan" by censoring negative reviews. Personally I don't care if reviews stay or go, but it does seem to me that this particular activity violates neutral POV, and is undoing someone else's work for no good reason. If nobody else cares, I won't bother to revert, but if you agree these changes should be reverted, please post here. --A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 14:32, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Smells like vandalism. Revert it. But which articles? indopug (talk) 14:40, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
Thanks, I went ahead and reverted. I didn't want to point to the articles or tattle on the editor because s/he has done constructive work before, and it's not outright vandalism. If the editor had a good reason for these edits, it should have been in the edit summary. --A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 15:12, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] My Two Edits

First Edit: Changing the period that Roger became dominant in from "mid-1970's" to "late-1970's." Their release that was most squarely in the mid-70's was "Wish You Were Here," which all four members have regarded as a more egalitarian, collaborative effort in the vein of "Meddle" or "Dark Side of the Moon." The first studio album release that was a product of Roger's dominance in the band was "Animals," which was released in 1977. Now, I personally consider '77 to be late-70's, so I feel it's more accurate to say that Waters became the dominant force in the band during the late-70s as opposed to "mid-70s," when the band was still more collaborative

Second Edit: In "Future Directions," I added after [[[Wright stated that he "wouldn't mind playing the Pink Floyd 'music' again,"]]] the line "but said nothing solid about reuniting with the actual members." This is to prevent the misconception that has already spread (http://youtube.com/watch?v=7CQXv, http://www.contactmusic.com/news.nsf/article/gilmour%20holding%20back%20pink%20floyd%20reunion_1002034EJyfIs) that Wright is publicly gung-ho for a Pink Floyd reunion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by CinnamonCinder (talk • contribs) 23:09, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

All I can say about your first edit, is I've always seen "The Dark Side of the Moon" as the start of Waters' dominance of the band. I realize the others made significant contributions, but that's also true of later works. Over half of it, in composition and concept, is the work of Waters. I definitely regard it as the time the "shift" occurred. Does anyone else want to weigh in?
As for the second edit, it's already a bit exasperating that we have 9 paragraphs of speculation about future reunions. All these quotes look like excuses for "free use" copying from interviews. Maybe you agree, because you seem to think the quote is taken out of context, and is a misrepresentation, which you are trying to correct with a clarification. I am tempted to replace the whole section with one short paragraph, and no quotes, but of course leave in the references so readers can go see the whole interviews if they choose to. I'll bet this suggestion meets with objections. --A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 00:37, 10 June 2008 (UTC)