Talk:Daft Punk

This article is written in British English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, defence, artefact, analyse) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.

	Daft Punk has been listed as one of the Music good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Article milestones Date Process Result September 7, 2006 Peer review Reviewed October 4, 2008 Good article nominee Listed May 5, 2013 Featured article candidate Not promoted
Current status: Good article

This  level-5 vital article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects.

Biography: Musicians This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography This article is supported by WikiProject Musicians (assessed as Mid-importance). France High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject France, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of France on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.FranceWikipedia:WikiProject FranceTemplate:WikiProject FranceFrance High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Electronic music Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Electronic music, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Electronic music on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Electronic musicWikipedia:WikiProject Electronic musicTemplate:WikiProject Electronic musicelectronic music Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. Rave (inactive) This article is within the scope of WikiProject Rave, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.RaveWikipedia:WikiProject RaveTemplate:WikiProject RaveRave

This article has been viewed enough times in a single week to appear in the Top 25 Report 8 times. The weeks in which this happened: April 14 to 20, 2013 (16th) April 21 to 27, 2013 (18th) May 12 to 18, 2013 (7th) May 19 to 25, 2013 (7th) May 26 to June 1, 2013 (15th) June 2 to 8, 2013 (24th) January 26 to February 1, 2014 (1st) February 21 to 27, 2021 (1st)

To-do: E · H · W · R Updated 2023-07-24 Toolbox Analysis Citation bot External links Here are some tasks awaiting attention: Assess : With the band's departure, ultimate goal is reach FA status Categorization : Does anything need to be fixed within Category:Daft Punk and its other categories? Priority 2

Good day fellow Wikipedians and Daft Punk fans, as many of you may or may not be aware of at this current moment in time, official accounts of Daft Punk have very recently posted several images on various social platforms such as Twitter, Facebook, and Instagram. As a fan of the duo and an inexperienced Wikipedian, I come to the talk pages to ask whether this recent event is worthy enough to update the page to reflect the strange occurrence on the first anniversary of their separation. Thank you in advance. KnightCamelot (talk) 20:55, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't seem anything worthy to mention for now. For the duo, it might be as simple as sharing their material through the years or maybe leading to Musique Vol. 2? We can't speculate. – The Grid (talk) 21:11, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@The Grid: A revision has been made with the summary of "reunion announced". Would it be appropriate to revert the edit in following WP:CRYSTAL? TIA KnightCamelot (talk) 21:42, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Reunion is confirmed.[1] Cheers. Lmharding (talk) 22:24, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Their reunion is purely speculative. Social media still says (1993-2021) Rpgoof (talk) 22:57, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah...the EDM.com article even says "return to social media". They have made no announcements of reuniting. – The Grid (talk) 14:08, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The Grid is correct. Daft Punk is not reuniting and they only returned to release anniversary content. KnightCamelot (talk) 00:53, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I typed "livestreaming on twitch.tv" because I thought that that could somehow highlight the fact that Daft Punk did in fact reunite on 2nd February 2022, at 2:22 PM PT to stream their old event: the fact that they streamed an old event doesn't cancel the fact that they did so at that precise day and time. On top of that, the VOD (video on demand) is not available on their Twitch.tv channel where it was streamed (it's available on the Internet though, some other user recorded it and uploaded it), perhaps suggesting that it was meant to be a rare/unique event, and the fact that it was livestream was important and worth to type after all...? My two cents. Sorry btw, didn't mean to make a meal out of it. JohnnyCoal (talk) 16:17, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There's been some disagreement as to whether the spinoff parameter should be used in the infobox. I checked over at Template:Infobox musical artist and it seems that the spinoff parameter has been the subject of some controversy over there as well. I would think that past_member_of would be more appropriate but that seems targeted to solo artists rather than groups. I've posted a new topic on the template's talk page to get more thoughts about the issue. Orange Suede Sofa (talk) 23:12, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It used to be "associated acts", which was exponentially more confusing than the parameter that exists now. We replaced it with spinoffs in May 2022. dannymusiceditor ^oops 00:17, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I read the history and the subsequent discussions at the template talk page before posting this here. I've also seen that there still has been consequent confusion and I'm totally OK with raising yet another example on the template talk page if that helps to reduce any future confusion. Orange Suede Sofa (talk) 00:19, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Whoops, I saw this after making the revert. I always saw the usage of spinoff as confusing here. Darlin' was a 6-month group that made 3 songs. It's a minor detail compared to the 30 years of Daft Punk. The description of the band is covered entirely in the prose. It feels like using the spinoff field gives some importance that the band came from another group. This isn't the case, especially when the genres changed from rock to electronic. That would be like saying Skrillex is a spinoff from his previous rock group. – The Grid (talk) 17:33, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to discuss adding the 1995/1996 "unofficial" tour to the Concert tours section. There are found records of a few shows from this tour in the form of photographs and videos, but the sources are not always the most credible. If we decide that its worthwhile to add this tour to the site, should be call out only shows that we have record of? Or maybe it's best to simply state that a tour happened, but the specifics tour dates, venues, loactions, etc are a not well known? Open to thoughts. Joe from Chicago (talk) 00:59, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The correct way to handle this is to find third-party sources that documents these shows. We really even shouldn't call it an unofficial tour unless third-party sources state that. I know that these sources exist, because I read them myself in the mid-'90s, but they might require extra effort to track down these days. Orange Suede Sofa (talk) 01:04, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think the section about what they have done post break up might be something where we should not go into detail if it's only about one member. We have articles for Guy Manual and Thomas Bangalter for that detailed info. I can start to see a coatrack effect happening here and it's going to eventually give undue weight to the band's article as a whole. – The Grid (talk) 15:59, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I propose we merge Darlin' (French band) into Daft Punk. The content on the Darlin' page is already covered on the Daft Punk page. The rest is uncited and not obviously notable. Popcornfud (talk) 15:48, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have no authority or expertise, but my personal gut feeling tells me these should be separated. An additional band member, different genre, etc., makes me feel like it was more like a protogenetic evolution than being the same thing. Maybe pose this talk page to /r/daftpunk for a more detailed analysis? Electricmaster (talk) 10:16, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

r/daftpunk? The reddit page? Forgive me, but if we went by the opinions of Redditors, every Daft Punk B-side would have three different Wikipedia pages.

In any case, it's not to do with how different Darlin' were from Daft Punk, it's to do with how much coverage there is of them in reliable sources. There isn't really enough quality coverage to justify giving them their own page, it can all be summarized in the Daft Punk article. Popcornfud (talk) 11:53, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Uhhhh consulting Reddit (or any off-wiki website) is certainly not how the process works. We're not particularly seeking out the opinions of superfans, we need the opinions of experienced Wikipedia editors. Sergecross73 msg me 15:36, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per nom. This band doesn't appear to be independently notable, but can be discussed in the history section of Daft Punk with a redirect and a bolded name. voorts (talk/contributions) 15:48, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge per WP:MERGEREASON. There's very little there. It can just be a small mention in DP's early part of its history section. It's actually pretty much mostly already in place. Sergecross73 msg me 16:14, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per WP:MERGEREASON. I used to have Laurent Brancowitz as its own article until realizing he's not independently notable to have a separate article. When Darlin's history can be explained in a paragraph, we already have the info about the short lived band in the right place. – The Grid (talk) 16:52, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge. I consider myself a super-fan of Daft Punk, yet agree that a band that they were in for six months before actually becoming famous isn't notable enough for its own article. The redirect to the history section of Daft Punk's would be enough. I think that article does a better job of explaining the band than its main article does, and anyone searching for Darlin' is likely doing so under the context of looking at Daft Punk's history anyway. -- coco (talk) 10:02, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per WP:MERGEREASON. Redundancy and lack of notability. Itzcuauhtli11 (talk) 21:42, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per WP:MERGEREASON. I note that two of the only three references for the D'arlin article were about Daft Punk, in which D'arlin gets a brief mention. 14.2.200.245 (talk) 10:03, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per nom. Darlin' was only around for a year, had no notable pieces of work, and is considered a stepping stone to Daft Punk. Dares7361 (talk) 18:36, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per WP:MERGEREASON, no other rationale needed in my opinion. Sock (tock talk) 18:41, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]