User talk:A Knight Who Says Ni/Archive 2: January to December 2009

• Previous archive: March to December 2008
• Next archive: January 2010 to December 2021

Wright and Stockhausen

Just saw this. Schaffner would be a source. Sorry, don't have an English version to cite but it states something like "Stockhausen-influenced" (didn't find the exact page, think it's in the 2. part of the book) and "he was interested in Karlheinz Stockhausen" (2. chapter, same page as entry Bob Close [sic] and Wright's College of Music days).--Avant-garde a clue-hexaChord² 16:26, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the info. The same editor claimed a Stockhausen influence on Cirrus Minor (song) along with something else which seemed to require a fact tag. It's a bit ironic that the edit to Wright's arcticle was made in a section that already has a box at the top about original research, "please help improve this article", and these edits appear to be adding more uncited info. I haven't contacted the editor yet, but now I will, and pass on your info. --A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 13:21, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

"Cirrus Minor" is a bit strange for a Stockhausen reference. Ummagumma would be a better target - or even Saucerful - Atom Heart. The "Stockhausen-influenced" section went something like "Gilmour (or Waters? Barrett? Man, my brains...) put the band in [one] direction, increasingly supported by the Stockhausen-influenced Wright." I can't find it in the book anymore... :-( --Avant-garde a clue-hexaChord² 13:39, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree, and have posted a note on his page. --A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 13:44, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Thank you

Very decent of you, a rare commodity here. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 18:08, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

RCSS/Loblaws

I don't think there really is a point of talking any sense into this person who keeps on changing things on those pages. If anything, their previous edits to such articles as CHRO-TV and A (TV system) show that they are not willing to work with the Wikipedia community. I am going to request protection for those two articles, if they show up again without working towards making those articles better, an admin who has delt with him in the past is more than willing to help resolve this. Thanks for your great work. єmarsee ^(Discuss) 01:06, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

No problem. :) --єmarsee ^(Discuss) 04:24, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Re Richard/Rick Wright

Last edit only because revision at the time had him back to "Rick"; trying to avoid endless back and forth revisions. I don't dare attempt to change "Eddie Van Halen" to the correct "Edward Van Halen" for fear of an edit war. (To my knowledge, nobody who knows him calls him "Eddie".) What a WikiWorld...

Cheers!, Rico402 (talk) 09:25, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Checked the Eddie van Halen Talk page - no comments on the proposed title change, so I executed. But I screwed it up somehow, and the redirects were going in circles. Too tired maybe; 5:15 am here. REVERT :D Rico402 (talk) 10:16, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for the cleanup good Sir Knight. I have commented ( in my typical polite fashion :-D ) at the wp:music page re: "the field." After 5+ years and 600000+ edits ( I sometimes wonder why I am so attached to this hopelessly annoying little hobby ;-) ... I just want to see some peace and quiet on one little snippet of this goofy project :-D . The Real Libs-speak politely 15:30, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Mojo (magazine)

I have been going through the Rolling Stone archive and adding references to the other PF articles, and finding a lot of incorrect information. People tend to write personal essays based on their memory, which is usually wrong, or they come to their own conclusions. Sadly RS only goes back to The Wall. I will see if I can find the Mojo (magazine) article, or ask the person to post it online. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 16:32, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

GONG/ECHOES (potential) similarities

Response to Knight: Knight, I do not want to engage in a confrontational conversation about this Gong song issue, and I regret if I gave this impression. The reference I added and was mentioning (don't know why you did not see it) was a reference to the Gong's song entry on Wikipedia. I admit it would be circular referencing and hence I can not claim it as fulfilling the verifiability criteria. The reason I added back this section was that you originally removed this section without first asking for a reference - which I found to be non courteous. I added the deleted part back with the "if you delete it again I will add it again" comment, after which you indeed asked for a reference - which I admit I cannot provide beside the circular pointing to the Gong's page. There was no ill intent from me.

It is indeed a a guessing by analysis. We clearly disagree on the coincidental or voluntary nature of the similarity between the finale in these two things - and about the very existence of this similarity. The only version of "Est-ce que je suis" that I know (Live at the Fridge) does not contain anything like this final glissando, but I do not know the very version you are mentioning. I maintain my analysis, we could go on on the discussion - and it could actually be interesting - but in the absence of a verifiable link I again admit that the Wikipedia's criteria were not met originally.

67.187.83.159 (talk) 14:05, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Personal Attacks

What if I want you advised as well, Knight, how do I get underway? Revan ltrl (talk) 19:24, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Pink Floyd

Regarding this edit: I'd prefer the other version because a) it looks better b) the place is there anyway. --Avant-garde a clue-hexaChord² 01:13, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Some infobox instructions say that only commas should be used in a list; others say to use one or the other if the list reaches a certain length, i.e. more than 3 items (commas for longer lists, I think?). But in this case the infobox says nothing about which to use for this field. If you want to change it, go ahead. (I still think paragraph form looks better, because an encyclopedia is mostly composed of paragraphs, but I'll consider myself outvoted.) --A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 01:25, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, I don't care much about that, just wanted to note. BTW: The Floyd WikiProject is in really bad shape. Lots of articles are not even tagged for the project, not talking about being assessed correctly. Dozens of articles would hardly stand a thorough AfD (see User:HexaChord/AfD). Who's the main person behind the project? Is there any? I may spend some time if WP:BH does not evolve as I wish. --Avant-garde a clue-hexaChord² 01:32, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Josh Rosenthal (singer/songwriter)

I left you a response on my talk page here. OlYeller^Talktome 00:40, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Re: info on additional CD-release of Isle of Wight

Hello A Knight Who Says Ni, In reply to your message:

I am not sure where to put it: 1 whether to put this CD (1991), released between the album 1971 and the 2-CD set (2002). I could put it in the Isle of Wight (album)-article under the album 2 sides-chapters. 2 On the other hand, it is a precursor to Blue Wild Angel: Live at the Isle of Wight. I could therefore also put it between the 2-CD description and the higlights-chapter or under the highlights-chapter. 3 the final solution is to make an new entry: Isle of Wight (CD). Can you suggest the best way to add this?

By the way, it is not an essential ground-breaking album, so: is it worth the trouble?

Nescioooh (talk) 09:15, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

You wrote: Hello Nescioooh, it appears you are trying to create some articles that already exist; see Isle of Wight (album) and Blue Wild Angel: Live at the Isle of Wight. You may want to see if these articles can be improved. Let me know if you need any help. I am putting a list of helpful links on your talk page, which should help you learn about using Wikipedia.

pink floyd far

I have nominated Pink Floyd 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 "Remove" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Parrot of Doom (talk) 20:40, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

dsom

I just wanted to thank you for a balanced and honest reply. It contrasts sharply with what has been said by others. I'm rather biased on this article, its one of my favourite albums (Along with The Wall mf disc, I bought the mobile fidelity gold cd release years back when they were first pressed, and will likely add an image of the disc to illustrate), and I badly want to see it get to GAC at the least, and FAC if possible. It isn't a hunt for glory; I enjoy editing, but true satisfaction comes from making a subject interesting enough for anyone - even a person not interested in the subject - find it engaging enough to read and learn something. There's enough material in print and online to easily get this to FAC, and almost certainly on the front page - which would only benefit the PF WP.

Anyway, despite what has been said, I'm quite willing to engage in any discussions on the content, structure, etc. In actuality very little of what was there before I began editing has been deleted - although some text will have been substituted by text from more reliable sources on the content. Parrot of Doom (talk) 23:30, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Removal of what you claim was spam.

At any rate, you removed my comment on the user talk page of Dark Side of the Rainbow, with two cited reasons. First off that it was spam, which I take offensively, because I typically think of spam as something you click that brings you to something else entirely unrelated and attempts to make you pay for something, etc. Which is simply not true, I provided a link to relevent content. Furthermore, there were copyright violations on the other videos. Not the one that I provided the link to. I provided a link to a video that is not in copyright violation. (At least from what I can tell, they took the other two down immediately over copyright violation, and they let me play the one I provided a link to.) I can repost if you like, remove the link, and just recomend people to search for "The Wizard of Waits" on Youtube, I don't know what your standards for spam are.

You probably didn't even look at the video before taking down my comment... but thanks.

Matthew Biebel (talk) 10:41, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with File:Int SC 3.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:Int SC 3.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by STBotI. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI (talk) 01:27, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Animals

[1]: Significant enough for Wright to state this in an interview with Schaffner (chapter 18 of Saucerful of Secrets) as the beginning of the end. Damn, I need an English copy of this book to quote from. It would be awkward to translate the translation. ;-) --Avant-garde a clue-hexaChord² 01:23, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Oh, and [2] is also taken from Schaffner, as is [3]. ;-) This is something I heard of, but I don't remember where. I have to listen to The Final Cutting again, to confirm this. But I guess it's true. --Avant-garde a clue-hexaChord² 01:31, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Banbury-Don Mills and city designated neighbourhoods

I noted your comment on the Don Mills page. We really shouldn't put much of any weight on the the city of Toronto neighbourhood profiles. These divisions are in no way official. This map was produced at the staff level, based on criteria such as census tracts and service boundaries of community agencies. It has never been adopted by city council and the divisions have little to no relevance outside of city agencies. You might be interested in the recent discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Canadian_Wikipedians'_notice_board#Toronto_neighbourhoods which discussed adopting the new Toronto Star map as a basic outline for Wikipedia Toronto neighbourhood coverage. - SimonP (talk) 15:18, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

I've started work on the neighbourhoods list. I don't think that will be too controversial. Most of the central city was already based around common usage, we don't even have articles on most of the central Toronto areas such as Church-Yonge Corridor and Waterfront Communities-The Island. So I've mostly just been bringing the suburbs in line with downtown and adding an extra table to the bottom. More controversial might be the next step of trying to split the category and infobox.

I saw your post on the Wikiproject, and one point of correction, the city neighbourhoods don't align with electoral boundaries. The Beaches, for instance, extends west of Coxwell so it includes part of Toronto-Danforth as well as Beaches-East York. Many other boundary crossings exist. In my experience even the city staff and politicians are more likely to use the common names. For instance, a search of toronto.ca for Leslieville gets more hits than a search for the designated name Greenwood-Coxwell - SimonP (talk) 17:53, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Re:RCSS

I've had to deal with worse with this user. Some notable ones would have been the reluctance to accept to use the SVG logo for the A (TV system article, he would insist the logo from CTV would be official, white background, shadow and all. I would try talking with him to see if it works, and if it doesn't, use good judgement to remove the offending edits. I will try to get the page protected if it turns out to become once again a full blown edit war. Thanks.  єmarsee  • Speak up! 22:57, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Judging by the user's edit history, yes.  єmarsee  • Speak up! 23:03, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Reply

thanks for your help with the pink floyd article.Chrisacc82 (talk) 00:48, 17 April 2009 (UTC)Chrisacc82

Formatting line breaks

You are missing one step of how page rendering works— Wikipedia runs the output through HTML Tidy to ensure the result is valid. No matter which break is used, it will be rendered as an XHTML <br />. --Gadget850 (talk) 15:15, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Ahh, btw...

If not done yet, you should add Wikipedia:WikiProject Pink Floyd/Article alerts to your watchlist. --Avant-garde a clue-hexaChord² 22:38, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Re:Your First Article

Thanks for your help, Knight. If you have a chance can you take another look and let me know what you think about the article. I've put in a couple of more facts. Thanks.William Mirglip (talk) 03:34, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks again for your suggestions. I think I'm just about there (let me know what you think), although I have to get the go ahead for a picture. I guess the most diffuclt part is the referencing and linking up to that reference. So I'm still not too sure about those. Anyway, if you get a chance, have another look and see if I'm on the right track. Thanks again. --67.193.76.52 (talk) 21:25, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for all your help and suggestions. I really appreciate it.--William Mirglip (talk) 04:30, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Re: Pink Floyd article - contentious word?

Hello. Regarding your recent edit of the above, please note this Wiktionary article. However, your wording makes no difference so there's no reason to change it back! Careful With That Axe, Eugene (talk) 11:09, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Soundtrack from the Film More

Hello friend, thank's for the reply in the More's songs pages. In first, I need to correct two things that I wrote. 1: I made a mistake, one of the songs isn't really "Syncopated Pandemonium", but "Sysyphus" from the album Ummagumma, so both "Sysyphus" and The Grand Vizier's Garden Party are as "avant-garde". "Syncopated Pandemonium" is a part of the song "A Saucerful of Secrets" from the same name album. "A Saucerful of Secrets" is such as "avant-garde" too. 2: I agree with you, "avant-garde" is realy an over used term. But what you think about put"Musique concrète" in the place of "[[avant-garde]"? For exemple in "Quicksilver"'s article says The song consists of eerie sound effects and other Musique concrète techniques, hallmarks of Pink Floyd's sound.. But in the "Soundtrack from the Film More"'s article is said and some instrumental tracks featuring their experimental (or avant-garde) approach and their trademark spacey/electronic sound (such as "Quicksilver" and "Main Theme").. In the album "Dark side of the Moon" some songs are listed as "electronic music", "musique concrète" and "song cycle". An exemple is "On the Run". In second place, if you thing is better don't put the genres "Psychedelic folk", "Progressive folk" and "Avant-garde", my second opinions is this:

Crying Song= Folk Rock. Up the Khyber = I don't know, maybe Progressive Rock or Musique concrète. Green Is the Colour = Folk Rock. Cymbaline = Psychedelic Rock. Party Sequence= Folk Rock. Main Theme = I'm not sure, maybe Musique concrète or Electronic music, in last case, Progressive Rock. Quicksilver = The same thing of "Main Theme". A Spanish Piece = Novelty song is realy a good one. Dramatic Theme = Progessive Rock.

You can answer me in my talk page, or in the songs pages. I will answer you in some songs pages. Sorry for my English, this isn't my primary language. See you.--Italodal (talk) 03:59, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Some advice for a sometimes adversary? ;)

Hi - I know we've disagreed in the past, but I hope the feeling has been somewhat civil on your side. I come to you, because you had said to me that you thought it was 'common wikipedia manners', or whatever, to not undo someone's revision of your change, but instead go to the TALK page. This makes sense. I've been on here a lot, but I've rarely ended up having disagreements before - I've just been content to add content.

I come to you now because I wanted to know what you think I should do in this situation: If you look at the page for Satori (album), a user (whose page I can't link to because it's Japanese text and I'm not sure how to do that) had been consistently removing almost the entire text of the page - including some very well referenced sections. The first time he did it, I thought it was vandalism, undid it, and said "please discuss on the talk page". He then came and undid my edit - without discussing on the talk page. I undid _this_ (maybe I was in the wrong here?), and mentioned in that edit comment, as well as on his talk page, that he should discuss on the Satori page why he wants to remove it all. He instead undid it AGAIN, saying it's all subjective (despite the fact that it is NOT subjective, and it is also referenced). He also posted on my talk page telling me not to touch his talk page again, and he actually deleted my comment off of his talk page. I am at a loss for what to do at this point, thanks for any suggestions you can offer. (you can reply here, i'm watching) Luminifer (talk) 02:24, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

• Thanks for your response. Actually, I am not sure if it WAS ever released worldwide. The Canadian version was released in the early 70s - that much is for sure, as I've seen it on ebay, and it is referenced in several discographies (I did reference one). It also is simply called "Satori".
• Regarding the problem - how do I get the things he has removed reinstated? He is just going to keep undoing them as far as I can see, and is not even willing to go onto the Talk page; and, he seems to get angry when I make changes to his talk page, so really, I can't communicate with him/her! What do you think, should I undo the changes again (he'll just revert THAT again, I'm sure), or just start something on Satori:Talk and see if he listens? Luminifer (talk) 02:50, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
  • (It really bothers me having the page so incomplete, like it is now). Luminifer (talk) 04:56, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

• Actually, I just looked at his contributions. He appears to go to a lot of pages and just remove information, saying it doesn't matter or isn't true - usually what he removes actually has references!! I have a feeling no one is really watching these pages. I'm not sure, but this doesn't seem to be proper wikipedia behavior, is it? Luminifer (talk) 04:40, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Ending the Genre Wars

We have had dealings in the past regarding one of our favorite bands, Pink Floyd. I recently posted the message below on the discussion page for the band, but since no one has answered it, I figured that I might as well post the message on your page, as you have done a lot of work with regards to rules about genres. Without further ado, here you have it.

The genre issue seems to be a point of great contention. We argue about genres so much that nothing gets done. I used to be what was considered a "genre troll", and I realized that it wasn't a productive role. So the question is this: what do we do to stop genre wars? This is my suggestion. allmusic cites every rock band under Pop/Rock as a genre. We could put Pop/Rock for the genre on every band infobox, and then create a sublist, titled "Styles", which would list progressive rock and psychedelic rock (and maybe hard rock) for Pink Floyd, for example. allmusic uses this strategy, and the website is the most commonly cited page when dealing with music Wiki articles. If we follow their process, a lot of the fighting could be ended. I would really like to hear what you have to say to my suggestion. Krobertj (talk) 18:45, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for responding. I guess you're right; there really is nothing that can be done about this except for explaining why we reverted something. The problem is that then we are accused of original research when we make changes; it is a vicious, never-ending cycle. Maybe soon we'll have an answer to this dilemma, but until then we just have to do whatever we can to keep Wikipedia unbiased and factual. Krobertj (talk) 16:18, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Might I add my opinion - that genres, are, essentially, nonfactual. To put it another way: they are descriptive, not definitive. They describe, they do not define. So, depending on your background on goals, many genres may or may not apply to various bands. Libraries have this problem, and they address it in various ways. Maybe we could learn something from them. (not necessarily what to do - maybe what NOT to do :). Luminifer (talk) 19:45, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Re: I have found that reverting and explaining why I'm reverting, does the trick 98% of the time, whether it's about genres or anything else.. This statement bothers me, because this means you still have a lot of undoing to do. Wouldn't it be better to not have to undo all of that? Luminifer (talk) 15:02, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

• What if wikipedia were to require a citation for genre from a notable, _grammatical_ source. I'm not sure how to say this - but what I mean is a NON list, so not from allmusic or anything like that... From a review which says "this is a purple metal album"... ? Luminifer (talk) 15:05, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

International Sound Communication

Thanks for checking up on that title! I agree with your conclusion: the track title should be transcribed into the article exactly as it is on the listing. -- KathrynLybarger (talk) 01:32, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

An Idea for Genre Troubles

I just had a thought. I know that whole pages can be locked, but what about individual sections? Because the genre of a band, album, or song is the most contested information on these articles, what if the infobox of each band, album, or song was locked? Any discussions/disagreements dealing with genres would be sorted out in the talk page, and if a change was decided on the infobox would be unlocked, the change would be made, and then the box would be locked again. It sounds complicated, but until a better solution is found this might help to stop the indiscriminate changes. Krobertj (talk) 19:36, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Talk:The_Dark_Side_of_the_Moon/Archive_2#Long_track_list_chart

A question has been raised at the FAC for DSotM, and I wondered if you could help. Firstly, where I might find a source for the original LP track timings, and secondly, if you had any thoughts about how best to summarise the different timings and track merges in the article? Parrot of Doom (talk) 21:28, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments. I wonder where the original track timings came from - perhaps someone timed them with a stopwatch :) I've copied the table into a FAQ on the article's talk page, which won't be archived. Hopefully that'll make things easier. Parrot of Doom (talk) 21:39, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Suffragan bishop

To the "Knight who said Ni" You seem to be a complete knucklehead but I like you anyway. (not like that!) You didn't answer the question completely. I was just wondering if the Wiki had the capacity or desire to preserve some of the cultured language of the early 20th century. Such as "she has no steadfastness of purpose; or from the George Washington listing. George grew up a planters son, that is to say, a gentleman. When not at school George was at liberty to ride, hunt, play or amuse himself as he pleased.To work or even to run errands would have been considered beneath his station in life. The suffragan entry I find a classic - Monty Python inspired - "there's a dead bishop on the verandah" "Is he a diocesan or a suffragan?" Perhaps I should bequeath the set of 1938 Encyclopaedias to our local library - think I just answered the question myself! Regards from Adelaide - keep up the good work!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jumbuckster (talk • contribs) 11:23, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Check your facts.

Disputed edits are settled by supporting citations. While eBay is not a reliable source due to changing URLs, this is very relevant to show you are not correct at [4] with this 1987 Columbia Canada 45 by Pink Floyd. Steelbeard1 (talk) 17:45, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Pink Floyd discography

Dear, is Pink Floyd a commercial band? No it's not a commercial band. Have they released almost 40 singles? No, they've not released so many singles. The live songs were not released as singles. Wish You were Here contained one official single: Have a Cigar. In the table was mentioned that all the tracks of WYWH were released as a single. Ridiculous. I've already discussed this matter on the talk page. And now we're a half year later and there's still nothing changed. There's nothing to discuss anymore.Christo jones (talk) 16:51, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Pink Floyd, singles discographies and such

I noticed the other changes but only changed those two particularly glaring errors. I see where the whole thing needs work now. The problem with many singles discographies in wikipedia is that they are part discography and part chart history and are incomplete in both regards. Most appear to have been created by copying info from allmusic.com which only provides a limited chart history and not a full discography. Consequently, non-charting singles are sometimes omitted and album tracks that appeared on airplay charts are listed as singles. Personally, I think discographies should be based on a reliable source such as The Essential Rock Discography by Strong or other published discographies rather than picking information here and there from different web sites. Hit Parade Italia and Norwegiancharts.com appear to contain some dubious data, I think you'll find that some of the songs listed on those sites were not singles. I've found the best way to confirm a single is with the label and catalog number rather than a chart position that appeared on some web site decades later. Piriczki (talk) 19:04, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Infobox musical artist/doc

I thought I should explain why I have reverted. Classical musicians are covered by exactly the same guidelines as composers etc. See Biographical infoboxes. (Whether composers are regarded as musicians needn't concern us.) Best. --Kleinzach 03:04, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Pink Floyd Album Genres

I've noticed that some users have gone against the essay you drafted up by giving each PF album more genres than agreed upon previously. I've reverted similar changes in the past and explained the reasons why, but obviously users still want to change it. Was it decided the genre slot should be more specific or are we still officially going with your idea? Krobertj (talk) 21:08, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the message. I might decide to make a link from the talk page or the main article to your essay. That way people understand why each album is given said genre. Krobertj (talk) 20:41, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

I will. Thanks. Krobertj (talk) 13:51, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Talk:Pink Floyd/GA1

Hi A Knight Who Says Ni. Pink Floyd has been nominated for GA status. As you are a significant contributor you may wish to take part. Regards SilkTork *^YES! 11:50, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Pink Floyd GA

This user helped promote Pink Floyd to good article status.

Well done! SilkTork *^YES! 16:13, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Cut-throat Records

Hello! Your submission of Cut-throat Records at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Orlady (talk) 19:56, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Re: Template:Pink Floyd

That is a navigation template. When you visit an article, which is featured on that template, the corresponding link is in bold text. For example, go to this article, see the Pink Floyd template at the bottom of the page, and you will get "what I mean". It seems more correct to me (Syd is in bold and unlinked, all other members are simply wlinks). Current members have the first line (not in this case), and they will be showed properly when the template is viewed on their own pages. –pjoef (talk • contribs) 12:24, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

The entire text within a table header cell appears in bold type by default. It is possible to modify it for example by using inline style declarations, but I think it is not the correct thing to do. –pjoef (talk • contribs) 13:57, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes, something like that :) –pjoef (talk • contribs) 14:01, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks

A Knight,

Thanks for your 11/30 advice about contacting others... very helpful! Flrdude (talk) 00:28, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

• Previous archive: March to December 2008
• Next archive: January 2010 to December 2021