Talk:Wish You Were Here (Pink Floyd album)/Archive 2
 | This is an archive of past discussions about Wish You Were Here (Pink Floyd album). Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 1 | Archive 2 |
Requested move 14 May 2019
- The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The result of the move request was: Not moved. Most people are unconvinced by the pageview statistics and think there is no primary topic — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 20:50, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
- Wish You Were Here (Pink Floyd album) → Wish You Were Here
- Wish You Were Here → Wish You Were Here (disambiguation)
– Per WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, a high pageviews difference. The views are honest as every article is disambiguated, unlike the subjects of the current discussion at Talk:Let It Be which enticed me to open a discussion here and come to a consensus, as moving this to primary has never been requested before. Per WP:NOTADICTIONARY the simple expression "wish you were here" is not factored into this (see also Meddle, which is primary despite being a common word). The title song is the second highest in pageviews, so I would additionally propose it being included in the hatnote, should this page be moved. Lazz_R 19:59, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
- Support. Getting three-fourths of all pageviews make this the clear primary topic. This album is also considered one of the greatest of all time, meeting the second criteria laid out at WP:PTOPIC. Calidum 03:34, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose. This continues to be best known as a very common phrase with 47 entries encompassing various topics listed at the Wish You Were Here disambiguation page. It seems too much of a stretch to contemplate that upon hearing the words "Wish you were here", the first thing that would come to the minds of denizens of the English-speaking world is the Pink Floyd album. —Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 04:48, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose per Roman. If there was only a few other articles with this title, then I'd support it, but that's not the case here. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 07:26, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose leave well alone. In ictu oculi (talk) 10:01, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose per Roman. Exceptionally common phrase with WP:NOPRIMARY. -- Netoholic @ 17:40, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
Weaksupport. When you consider pageviews for all entries on the dab page it works out at around 62% for the Pink Floyd album (revised graph for top 10), so that's less than two thirds (and less conclusive than I would prefer) but it's still clear that this is what a majority of readers are looking for. And you can throw in long-term significance as well: the album has enduring notability and only the 1950s musical and its title tune are significantly older, most of those other uses are much more recent. On that basis it fulfils the two main criteria of WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. PC78 (talk) 15:59, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
- How can you know that, it's physically impossible to put all the dozens of topics into the pageview form? And 62% is a fail. We'd normally be looking for 70% to justify a move on page views. In ictu oculi (talk) 10:07, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
- You can quite easily compare pageviews of more than ten articles by opening multiple tabs; it can be a little tedious if there are a lot but it's just basic maths. And 70% is an amount you've picked off the top of your head, the guideline actually says "more likely than all the other topics combined" so 62% is by no means a "fail". PC78 (talk) 15:31, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
- I question its long-term significance; at least its significance to the point of demanding the article space being advocated here. This is not an iconic album among general audiences, but more specific to rockist writers, listeners and musicians, and the article content shows only an enduring significance in critical retrospectives and reappraisals, accolades by music publications proclaiming it among the greatest (significant for eliciting kind opinions from a specific sector of the media?); nothing in terms of sales or public popularity like Thriller or Sgt. Pepper. As a piece of art, it's a minor masterpiece, and as an object of public consumption or as an encyclopedic topic, at best it is in the peripheral of the mainstream. Especially in the current era, where albums are an afterthought for the casual music listener. And personally, as a millennial exposed to music of all kinds, the phrase "wish you were here" resonates more clearly in my mind in the form of the refrain from the Incubus song, for better or for worse. Dan56 (talk) 17:07, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
- All of which is just your subjective opinion, which is fine of course. But on the other hand, the passage in the article beginning "Wish You Were Here has since been frequently regarded as one of the greatest albums..."' is rather well sourced. PC78 (talk) 17:12, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
- Is it regarded as one of the greatest albums by the public searching for articles on this website? Dan56 (talk) 17:16, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
- Why would it need to be? How do you propose we find out? What do you think that would prove? PC78 (talk) 17:38, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
- Why wouldn't it need to be? Dan56 (talk) 20:46, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
- Your question makes zero sense. Seems you want to ignore actual, published polls of critical and popular opinion simply because you don't agree with them or don't like what they say, but somehow think that an unknowable, hypothetical poll of Wikipedia readers (!) is evidence of... something? Sorry, but your above argument falls squarely into Wikipedia:NWFCTM. PC78 (talk) 23:29, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
- Why wouldn't it need to be? Dan56 (talk) 20:46, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
- Why would it need to be? How do you propose we find out? What do you think that would prove? PC78 (talk) 17:38, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
- Is it regarded as one of the greatest albums by the public searching for articles on this website? Dan56 (talk) 17:16, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
- All of which is just your subjective opinion, which is fine of course. But on the other hand, the passage in the article beginning "Wish You Were Here has since been frequently regarded as one of the greatest albums..."' is rather well sourced. PC78 (talk) 17:12, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
- I question its long-term significance; at least its significance to the point of demanding the article space being advocated here. This is not an iconic album among general audiences, but more specific to rockist writers, listeners and musicians, and the article content shows only an enduring significance in critical retrospectives and reappraisals, accolades by music publications proclaiming it among the greatest (significant for eliciting kind opinions from a specific sector of the media?); nothing in terms of sales or public popularity like Thriller or Sgt. Pepper. As a piece of art, it's a minor masterpiece, and as an object of public consumption or as an encyclopedic topic, at best it is in the peripheral of the mainstream. Especially in the current era, where albums are an afterthought for the casual music listener. And personally, as a millennial exposed to music of all kinds, the phrase "wish you were here" resonates more clearly in my mind in the form of the refrain from the Incubus song, for better or for worse. Dan56 (talk) 17:07, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
- You can quite easily compare pageviews of more than ten articles by opening multiple tabs; it can be a little tedious if there are a lot but it's just basic maths. And 70% is an amount you've picked off the top of your head, the guideline actually says "more likely than all the other topics combined" so 62% is by no means a "fail". PC78 (talk) 15:31, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
- How can you know that, it's physically impossible to put all the dozens of topics into the pageview form? And 62% is a fail. We'd normally be looking for 70% to justify a move on page views. In ictu oculi (talk) 10:07, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
- Comment - Apparently supporters are leaning heavily on only one metric suggested at WP:DETERMINEPRIMARY: page views. Here's another: "Usage in English reliable sources demonstrated with Google Ngram viewer, Books, Scholar, News, and Trends." Using the latter (Trends), the rapper Travis Scott's Astroworld – Wish You Were Here Tour is overwhelmingly the topic of greatest interest in searches for the phrase "wish you were here". Dan56 (talk) 17:23, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
- Google trends in the United States over the past twelve months? And the most popular topic is a recent North American tour by an American rapper? Heavy on the WP:RECENTISM, light on the long-term significance, methinks. PC78 (talk) 17:38, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
- Interesting, yet pageviews going back a month are being cited in this discussion... Yes, I'm noticing "light on the long-term significance" for this topic... Dan56 (talk) 20:46, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
- The pageviews I linked to in my comment go back four years if you care to look (which is as far back as the stats go), and are used to demonstrate usage not long-term significance. The latter is covered by our discussion above, so let's not repeat ourselves. PC78 (talk) 23:29, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
- Interesting, yet pageviews going back a month are being cited in this discussion... Yes, I'm noticing "light on the long-term significance" for this topic... Dan56 (talk) 20:46, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
- Google trends in the United States over the past twelve months? And the most popular topic is a recent North American tour by an American rapper? Heavy on the WP:RECENTISM, light on the long-term significance, methinks. PC78 (talk) 17:38, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose - article is clearly disambiguated without confusion now, and elevating this above the more than 2 dozen articles with "Wish You Were Here" in the name (as seen from the disambiguation page) seems like an extreme move to me, and one that could make it harder to reach one of the other articles. Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talk • contributions) 14:19, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose. Important album, but not overwhelming enough interest. --Quiz shows 21:55, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
- Support per WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, nom and Calidum. All of the opposition is either misinterpreting or dismissing WP:PRIMARYTOPIC and should be discounted accordingly for not being policy-based.
- The eminent Roman Spinner, whose reasoning is repeatedly relied upon here, should know better. He uses the "first thing that would come to mind" non-criteria that has no relevance to PRIMARYTOPIC. See Wikipedia:Disambiguation#Not_.22what_first_comes_to_.28your.29_mind.22.
- The number of other uses on the dab page doesn't matter (how relatively likely they are to being sought is what matters)
- How well-known the common phrase is and how well-used it is doesn't matter (again, how likely it is to being sought is what matters)
- Declaring NOPRIMARY with no basis is not an argument.
- Lack of confusion with the current structure is nice, but hardly reason enough to oppose.
- Yes, the move would make it one click harder to reach the other articles, but it makes it one click easier to reach the one article the majority are seeking. That's the point of primary topic.
- What does matter is relative likeilhood of being sought, and historical significance. As noted by the nom and confirmed by others and refuted by none, this album clearly meets both criteria.
- --В²C ☎ 22:40, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose - Getting three-fourths of all page views is not entirely an indication of readers seeking an article; could be that this article features in more links throughout the rest of Wikipedia, thus attracting people as clickbait and happening upon readers and views. Dan56 (talk) 23:04, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
- WP:PRIMARYTOPIC suggests looking at page views to assess likelihood of being sought because even if the reason many people are getting there is through having more links, that too is evidence people are more likely to be seeking that article relative to the others. In fact, looking at incoming wikilink counts is also explicitly mentioned at WP:DETERMINEPRIMARY as a tool to consider. It's not an exact science, but these are the best and only metrics we have. It's unreasonable to dismiss these tools because they're not perfect as a rationalization to go by WP:JDLI instead. --В²C ☎ 23:17, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
- Take it easy. Dan56 (talk) 23:52, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
- WP:PRIMARYTOPIC suggests looking at page views to assess likelihood of being sought because even if the reason many people are getting there is through having more links, that too is evidence people are more likely to be seeking that article relative to the others. In fact, looking at incoming wikilink counts is also explicitly mentioned at WP:DETERMINEPRIMARY as a tool to consider. It's not an exact science, but these are the best and only metrics we have. It's unreasonable to dismiss these tools because they're not perfect as a rationalization to go by WP:JDLI instead. --В²C ☎ 23:17, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose. Pink Floyd were quoting a very well-known British phrase, dating back to at least the 1950s and probably much earlier. "Wish you were here" was how you signed off holiday postcards to people at home. Despite the importance of the album, I cannot see that titling it with a commonplace expression makes the album the WP:PTOPIC. Narky Blert (talk) 18:07, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.
Track numbers in "Personnel" section
The track numbers in the Personnel section, e.g., David Gilmour – vocals (2, 4), don't match the track listings above them, which are divided into Side One and Side Two. I would say this is a problem. I mean, the reader can figure it out easily enough, but this inconsistency doesn't seem right for a Featured Article. Any ideas? -Jordgette [talk] 16:32, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
- Seeing no ideas/interest, I have removed the confusing track-number identifiers from the Personnel section and identified songs only in the case of Dick Parry and Roy Harper. This reflects the state of the article at the time of the Featured Article promotion. It is also consistent with the WikiProject/Albums article.[1] If readers want additional information on who played on what, they can consult the individual song articles. -Jordgette [talk] 19:08, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
UK chart debut
Schaffner, the source cited, wrote: "In America, the album hit number one in its second week on the Billboard charts; in Britain—where it went directly to the top on the strength of a quarter-million's advance sales ..." [Delta pressing p. 206, emphasis added] Featured article criteria 1c includes "claims are verifiable against high-quality reliable sources and are supported by inline citations where appropriate". Any changes need to provide a new reliable source. —Ojorojo (talk) 14:46, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
Extended content
|
|---|
|
- @IMW1974: See WP:BURDEN: "The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material, and it is satisfied by providing an inline citation to a reliable source that directly supports the contribution.". Then finish the job and add a proper source. It's not someone else's responsibility to do so. —Ojorojo (talk) 16:07, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
- It took some digging and figuring out officialcharts.com's awful interface, but I think this is what IMW1974 is referring to:
- Official Albums Chart Top 60 21 September 1975 - 27 September 1975, showing the album at #3 and "NEW"
- Official Albums Chart Top 60 28 September 1975 - 04 October 1975, showing the album at #1 and up 3 (which is an unusual way to calculate moving up 2 places)
- Now how to reconcile that with the Schaffner source and whether you use the first or last date of the week, I'll leave up to you! Woodroar (talk) 20:48, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
- Looks like Schaffner is wrong (I'm better at searching Billboard) and should be replaced with the new source(s). I'll try tomorrow if no one does it first. Apparently IMW1974 is gone for good.[2] —Ojorojo (talk) 20:59, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
- Done and added a footnote with the quote from Schaffner. Thanks to Woodroar for the links. —Ojorojo (talk) 14:18, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
- Looks like Schaffner is wrong (I'm better at searching Billboard) and should be replaced with the new source(s). I'll try tomorrow if no one does it first. Apparently IMW1974 is gone for good.[2] —Ojorojo (talk) 20:59, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
- It took some digging and figuring out officialcharts.com's awful interface, but I think this is what IMW1974 is referring to:
- @IMW1974: See WP:BURDEN: "The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material, and it is satisfied by providing an inline citation to a reliable source that directly supports the contribution.". Then finish the job and add a proper source. It's not someone else's responsibility to do so. —Ojorojo (talk) 16:07, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
Syd Barrett's visit and Rick Wright's See Emily Play keyboard refrain
Re this quote under the "Syd Barrett's visit" section:
Barrett's appearance may have influenced the final version of "Shine On You Crazy Diamond"; a subtle refrain performed by Wright from "See Emily Play" is audible towards the end
Listen to the track "Shine On you Crazy Diamond, Pts. 1-6 - Live At Wembley 1974 (2011 Mix)" on Spotify (and possibly elsewhere), and you can plainly hear Rick Wright playing the verse melody from 'See Emily Play' at the end of the song. It is louder and goes on for longer than the "subtle refrain" from the released album, in fact. And this is from the the year before Barrett's studio visit.