Jump to content

Talk:David Gilmour/Archive 1

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

Amplifiers

I am surprised to see no mention of Gilmour's work with amplification. Townshend and Gilmour worked to create new quadrophonics and bigger and better HIWATT amps.

That'd be a great addition. Needs citations though or else it comes off sounding like original researchAnger22 (Talk 2 22) 22:09, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

DOB

i thought he was born in 1946? -He looks so old now, just an observation.

you could well be right: [1].--bodnotbod 22:21, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

Link to info on his new solo album.


If he turns 60 on March 6th, 2006, then he would have been born in 1946 right? --TurtleSpartan

Yes he was, how could someone write he was born in 1987? I have never seen a 19 y/o that old looking. (Changed date of birth) --Zen Novalis 20:36, 1 December 2006 (UTC)


Someone's had a bit of fun..."Gilmour has chubby fingers that move round the fretboard slowly but he is extremely talented."

Picture

I like that picture of him with the Strat much more than the one with the Tele. And anyway, he is associated much more with the Strat than the Tele...


I added a different "profile picture" of David Gilmour. I thought this picture represented him better.

-dandog77 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dandog77 (talk • contribs) 01:22, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

You added a handmade wallpaper made from an image you stole from the internet. And it has been removed. The Real Libs-speak politely 01:29, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

You know all the pictures on this page don't need to be of David past 55.

David Gilmour's music on CD's

I went to our local music store to look for David Gilmour's music. They do not keep it in stock but ordered from their Johannesburg South Africa store. The Johannesburg store advised that the CD's "David Gilmour" (recorded Spring 1978) and "About Face" (recorded 1984) were 'deleted' and are not available anymore. I have the record albums but desperately would like to acquire at least the CD "David Gilmour" as that was brilliant. Who can help? Reply on this page please to Denis from Namibia, Africa.

Denis, on http://www.amazon.com pick "music" then search for "David Gilmour," and you'll find plenty of sellers. You'll then need to contact them to find which are set up to take your payment and ship to your country. Good luck! Please remove this section when you have read this because it really doesn't help improve the article about Gilmour. VisitorTalk 05:30, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

'Sinking off the charts'

I'm guessing the person who inserted that little jewel is probably trolling (he's been known to do so on two well-known Floyd-related forums). It's completely unnecessary to the article - the article is about David Gilmour and not how classic rock sells in the United States. In addition I would consider it a POV issue - why it came so quickly off the charts could have many reasons, ranging from other kinds of music being popular, to it being a poor piece of music, to...well, you get the point. I don't have any idea that it is either of those reasons, so not pointing fingers. But it is purely speculation to suggest that other genres are selling better and so is the only direct reason for it falling off the charts. 71.209.144.121 04:43, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

David Gilmour works as producer

Anyone has a full list of albums (of other artists) that Gilmour has produced? I am aware of the Unicorn and maybe the Gong... Dr. Who 22:20, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

I believe the Miles/Mabbet book had a reasonably complete index of them. Of course, that would only go up to whenever that book was last updated.
Off the top of my head, he did some production work on The Dream Academy's first and third albums. He also apparently played a little on the first, and he definitely co-wrote a song and did some backing vocals on the third. PurplePlatypus 22:36, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Cables

I removed a direct link to some cable company whose cables were used in few gigs. This isn't notable, plus it wasn't a link to any wikipedia article. --syvanen 10:51, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Excuse me but is there some cabal here which refuses to acknowledge the fact he uses the cables I build for him? Cables I design and build with my own hands for the purpose of contributing to a quality sound for both recording and live performances? Do you have anything to contribute other than to decide what is or is not important to someone else’s sound?
I mean come on! I removed the direct link (which other companies provide). If that gets your knickers in a twist fine, you could have left my entry (unlinked) in the effects section. But no. Killed.
Then someone weeks later comes along and creates a Miscelaneous (sic) category -- someone who can't even use a spell check for his Wikipedia entries... and I figure if his picks and strings can be mentioned, it should be reasonable for me to add my cables (without a link) under this category, even if the category title is spelled wrong.
Yet no. Someone feels the need to delete my entry repeatedly -- all without fixing the spelling mistake mind you.
What more do you need? Half the external links regarding his gear on this page MENTION Evidence Audio:
Source: http://www.gilmourish.com/?page_id=133
Source: http://mywebpages.comcast.net/jroscoe/Live8.html
Source: http://sparebricks.fika.org/sbzine28/ggg.html
Do I need to post a picture of me on his stage? For Christ’s sake lighten up and delete 40% of the information on this page or stop singling me out as some sort of spammer.
No wonder Larry Sanger is creating Citizendium – some of you illustrate perfectly why editors need to prove their expertise before hacking away at this place.
—Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.234.113.241 (talk • contribs)
Well, as you might understand this is a encyclopedia. Do encyclopedias have links or even urls in artists entries to makes of their equipment? I'm happy if someone makes misc subtopic in the article and adds names of stuff used and maybe link to encyclopedia article of the item in question. But again that article has to be notable to even exist.
You plee that you are doing things yourself is familiar to me also. I do freelancer work as graphics artist and inhouse production here in Finland. But I'm just happy with the money and thanks I get from the producers who hire me for the gig they do in Finland. I understand that you want some credits just as the other stuff listed in David Gilmour article, but please don't turn it into direct link to a website where you sell stuff. --syvanen 10:03, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Fairuza Balk

The article on Fairuza Balk states that she was in a band with a "Steve Gilmour" who the article further claims is David's son. Since I can't recall reading anything about a son named Steve, I checked this article. And no, no Steve. So can someone with more resources available to them than me right now check this out. I'd say the F.B. page is wrong but I'm not 100% certain that I remember each of the Floyd's kids that well. Dismas|(talk) 07:03, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Why cant we call him "Sir David Gilmour"?

He is CBE, just like elton john is. Also, he is a citizen of the queen. So why isint he Sir? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 65.2.121.130 (talk) 00:16, 24 December 2006 (UTC).

See Wikipedia:Naming conventions (names and titles). I don't personally know but I bet that the reasoning is in there. Dismas|(talk) 20:40, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
A CBE does not make you a "sir". Elton John was knighted. A CBE does let you call yourself Fred Smith CBE, but not Sir Fred. Hobson 03:32, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Infobox

I tried to add more instruments to the infobox, but they are not showed. Can someone check the source? something is wrong with that infobox.--Dr. Who 19:27, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

I repaired the infobox back to it's proper Guitarist Project state. I put the "died" field back in. I know it isn't required at this time(and hopefully won't be for a long time) But...as long as the field is blank...it won't show up in the main article anyways so the Project box formatting might as well be maintained. Anger22 has added the audio sample field to the Guitarist project box. It allows for a 30 second solo snippet to be included showing the artist's "signature sound". It would be great to see a soundbyte of Gilmour's Comfortably Numb solo added to the box. 156.34.215.98 19:56, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
You repaired? Ok, please note anyway that the instruments list was there previous to my edits, I didn't damage anything. :) Dr. Who 19:59, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
Repaired?? maybe restored would have been a better choice of wording. Some of the fields had been jumbled(or renamed) so I guess I thought repairing was the best description of my edit...not a comment on the previous edit. What are your thoughts on a "Numb" solo being added to the box. I suggest that one as it's the one that fans seem to discuss the most. Perhaps there is a more notable solo/signature sound from Gilmour that would best represent his style in the infobox audio field? 156.34.227.20 20:07, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
Well, Comfotably Numb is very well known, and it's a Pink Floyd song. I would like to see there 'Raise my rent', the instrumental from his first solo album. Or maybe the lead guitar line in 'you know I'm right' from 'About face'.Dr. Who 20:31, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
Excellent choices. I have both as well. When I can escape the school library and return home to my 'logged' state of Wiki-being...I will dig them out and see if I can slice a snippet from one of them. The audio sample in the Mark Knopfler infobox uses an ogg codec. Is that the norm? Do you know the "Wiki-standard" for audio uploads?. 156.34.227.20 20:46, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
Thank you. :) . Yes, there is a policy, you can read at [2]. Dr. Who 21:39, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Gilmour concert.jpg

Image:Gilmour concert.jpg 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 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 uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 04:38, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Gilmour 1984.jpg

Image:Gilmour 1984.jpg 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 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 uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 04:38, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

"Amused himself"

"During Pink Floyd's quiet spells, David Gilmour has amused himself as a producer and even concert sound engineer" seems to me to be editorializing, somewhat condescendingly at that. VisitorTalk 05:41, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Car race

Was Gilmour injured in the accident that inspired "One slip?" VisitorTalk 05:41, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia viewing

According to an interview, David has read his own Wikipedia page, "but not recently", and humourously claims he found inaccuracies in it. 99.243.128.125 03:35, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Musical style section

  • I feel that musical style need not be so detailed. I mean that use of terms "minor pentatonic (1 b3 4 5 b7), blues(1 b3 4 b5 5 b7)...etc" are too technical and a layman would not understand it. Also i think it's not encyclopaedic. I'm thinking of trimming it down or if consensus prevails then i suggest deleting the whole section with the exception of his multi-instrument playing ability, rock and roll hall of fame award and comfortably numb guitar solo info which i think could be included in other sections of the article.
  • Another thing i wanna discuss is about "Main musical equipment" section which i feel is unnecesary. I suggest we move the info to a separate article of its own and provide a link here to the main article alongwith a brief description in one para.

I wanna know what ppl think of it??...also i request all floyd fans to provide inline citations/references to all the claims made in the article. This way we can hope to push it closer towards GA nomination. Right now, its still a far cry away...Gprince007 15:35, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

>>Regarding the main musical equipment section, if you are going to delete the information, and just propose a new article for it, then follow up and create the article, or do not delete it. If not, the information can potentially be lost.

A quick comment... just about every significant guitarist and DG is certainly one of those has a "gear" section. Most could use a bit of a trim and some citations (any Tony Bacon book will do). But they do not warrant being deleted as they provide some technical information that is interesting... albeit... if only to guitar players. 156.34.208.175 (talk) 01:11, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
First of all no info is lost in wikipedia....it can be retrieved from history. Secondly, the musical equipment list is too lengthy and unnecessary. Gilmour might have used 100 or 1000 guitars....do the readers need to know all the names of the guitars used??? if needed u may describe a few guitars in prose if its notable enough and verifiable. I also see that the anon ip added the list of musical equipments back to the article. Is it sourced??? how can we verify it??....unless and until it is verifiable, i dont think it needs to be added to the article. A short para describing a few guitars he uses is ok provided it is accompanied by valid sources and inline citations. also pls go through the guidlines regarding the use of jargon in wikipedia.Gprince007 (talk) 14:57, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
Do readers need to know all the tech info??? Some do. I found it interesting enough to retrieve it (and I am a staunch deletionist) .Stick an unref'd template and a cleanup template on it ... but it's still a keeper for the reasons previously stated. 156.34.142.110 (talk) 15:26, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

I think we can come to some common ground on this issue - it's doesn't have to be all or nothing. The list as it exists is way unwieldy but I don't think the solution is to delete it. I propose two things:

  • Turn the Equipment section into prose rather than a list; write about his equipment, don't just list it.
  • Find sources that discuss his equipment to determine what is notable, then trim.

I really think Andy Summers is a great example of what an Equipment section should be. It is prose, it is limited to what is notable, and it is sourced. The section here should be tagged - and I'm assuming that those bringing up the issue here are willing to work on it? --Spike Wilbury ♫ talk 16:52, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

I will pitch in if I can find anything in the library on the subject. Doubtful... lots on Pink Floyd... probably none on DG's gear. For anyone else who wishes to tackle the topic (which I think is a valid one since Gilmour's unique style/tone orignate directly from his very specific use of equipement/effects)... Gilmourish.com is an excellent websource for technical info on the subject. I normally do not like websites as sources (I prefer books/periodicals) but this source is very well researched and very indepth. Hope that helps. 156.34.215.179 (talk) 17:08, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
I'm positive sources can be found through LexisNexis. They index every issue of Guitar Player and many others. I'm sure there have been articles on Gilmour's gear. I won't have time today but I can look for sources this week. --Spike Wilbury ♫ talk 17:12, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
I agree with Spike on this one. I am in favor of converting it into prose cited with valid sources. Thats what i've said before (see comments above). Right now it looks like a long, wobbly list. But i feel the paragraph shd list notable guitars only. Maybe Spike can help with it...Gprince007 (talk) 06:47, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

I think Phil Taylor's book The Black Strat will be a very useful source for this section. Jumble Jumble (talk) 17:47, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Is this an error?

"Energy consuming an uncomfortable relationship" Shouldn't that be "energy-consuming uncomfortable relationship", or perhaps "energy-consuming and uncomfortable relationship". As it stands it makes little sense, but I wouldn't want to correct it without knowing what he actually said. --Memestream (talk) 13:22, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

If its wrong, then u are free to change it.....be Bold while editing. Gprince007 (talk) 10:17, 2 June 2008 (UTC)


Pictures

Great job putting pictures of an old Gilmour all over the page. It would be annoying to see him being young and influential.

Well, if you know where we can find some free images of him when he was young, please let us know rather than just sniping. Ged UK (talk) 06:52, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
I think there's enough rationale for fair use of some images even if they are copyrighted, as the members of Pink Floyd are influential enough that their images may be considered cultural icons of an era. 143.89.188.6 (talk) 06:27, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
You mean there is a Pink Floyd photo that has iconic status similar to the portrait of Che Guevara? I rather doubt it. And I doubt it even more for a photo of Gilmour as a solo artist. --A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 15:42, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
Well, not even David would call Roger a second Che Guevara - but anyway - the Ummagumma cover is pretty known and it has - tata - David in front. There really should be a picture from let's say between 1969 and 1973, plus one from around 1979 (-> first solo album cover?). There's not much at Commons.--Avant-garde a clue-hexaChord2 15:58, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Remember that night

Is it true that there are hidden clips in the second disc as we have been informed that these exist? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.22.139.136 (talk) 19:18, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Personal Life

should there be any mention of his family? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.75.17.138 (talk) 13:31, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

What especially are you missing? --Say Headcheese!--hexaChord2 16:26, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
Yes there should, but the article only contains what has been contributed so far. If you have information with references, please feel free to add to the article. --A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 19:39, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Gilmour, the roadie?

What? Is there a source for that?--Avant-garde a clue-hexaChord2 17:50, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Guitar solo award thingie

"Gilmour's solo on "Comfortably Numb" was voted..."

Which one? There are two, one over each chord progression in the song. Should it read "Gilmour's solos on "Comfortably Numb" was were voted..."? Huw Powell (talk) 04:33, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

I think they talk about the big one that runs for several minutes when played live. Use common sense. --Avant-garde a clue-hexaChord2 06:23, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

B.B. King

B.B. King is one of a list of artists in the "Other projects" section. I noticed that an editor recently made a change to pipe B. B. King to B.B. King, thereby rendering "B.B." with no space between the letters. I initially wondered why, but found that this accords with what's explained in the B. B. King article, namely that the artist

a convention which the B. B. King article itself demonstrates throughout its own text.

I later noticed that another editor had reverted the change, giving the reason that there was no improvement. This is understandable as it's a subtle change and the effect or reason might not be obvious. I reverted the reversion, attempting to make the reason clear but perhaps failing to do so because it was subsequently reverted again.

I have now reverted to restore the original change to use "B.B.". If any editors have an issue with this, please discuss here rather than simply reverting as I'm sure none of the parties wishes to engage in an edit war. PL290 (talk) 18:19, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for making this clear! The question I'm asking myself is: Why isn't the B.B. King main article "corrected" then? Shouldn't it be moved? See: Talk:B. B. King#Space between B. and B. - I think the change should be consequent and not a bizarre mix of different versions. --Avant-garde a clue-hexaChord2 18:38, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
I wondered the same thing myself. Double redirects would need to be checked but I agree it ought to be moved. If you feel strongly you could post a comment on that talk page or just go for it! PL290 (talk) 19:09, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

A request concerning photographs of David Gilmour.

There are four photographs of David Gilmour on his wikipedia article. All of them were taken during the 2000s decade. Something that I want to request would be one or more pictures of David Gilmour during his time with Pink Floyd during 1968 through 1994. I think that would be appropriate, since that was the era in which he was most famous and most notable for. Does anyone agree with me that there should be such photos of David Gilmour on this article? BacktableSpeak to Meabout what I have done 20:02, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

PS: Sorry about lacking in expertise on uploading images on wikipedia.

The Black Strat

I think that David's Fender Stratocaster, the "Black Strat", is deserving of an article of its own. I have the book by Phil Taylor, David's "guitar man" so there is plenty of sourced material to start one. If it's deserving of a book then it's deserving of an article on here.

Danny (talk) 20:15, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Pictures

All the pictures in this article were taken in the 33-month period November 2003-July 2006; a small fraction of Gilmour's life and career. Can't we have some of him as young man, and in his heyday? Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 20:30, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, hit enter too soon

The edit summary for the change I just made should read:

Did David Gilmour play the guitar solo on an alternate version of Steely Dan's 'FM' ?

If anyone can verify this, then Steely Dan and 'FM' should be listed in the table of artists with whom he has partnered. I searched the web for verification, but could not find any. If you are familiar with the solo, it has Mr. Gilmour's fingerprints all over it. It sounds like it must be him. Thanks to anyone who can confirm or deny this addition. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.186.71.61 (talk) 04:23, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Reformation/Renaissance

Lets face it, this article is a mess, and does not do Gilmour justice. Using mainly the comfortably numb biography book I plan on expanding the text based portions of this article and refining it in general.

Keatonkeaton (talk) 19:53, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Main Songwriter Dispute

From 'Piper' through "The Final Cut", (1967-1983), counting the soundtrack to 'More', Gilmour had 5 total tracks with music credited to him solely. Wright had 5, Mason had 2, Waters had 59 tracks with music credited soley to him.

One Gilmour track is "Wish You Were Here" for which Waters wrote the lyrics, and one is a "A Spanish Piece" a one minute and five second guitar instrumental with some drunken vocalizations but not true vocals.

If you look through the album credits it becomes apparent that Gilmour wrote only three proper songs, "Childhood's End", "Fat Old Sun", and "The Narrow Way", through "A Momentary Lapse", which itself only has 4 tracks credited to Gilmour, for the rest he used more than one outside songwriter (Ezrin, Moore, Carin, Leonard, Manzenara). Look at the Division Bell credits also, you will see there is only one song which Gilmour is soley credited the words and music.

The numbers don't lie, Waters was Pink Floyd's main songwriter, not Gilmour.

Final Score: Waters 59, Wright 5, Gilmour 5, Mason 2. 02:39, 28 February 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by GabeMc (talk • contribs)

Even if you gave Gilmour SOLE credit for EVERY "Momentary" and "Division" track (which would be ridiculous), he would still only have 26 tracks credited to him soley. Versus Waters' 59. GabeMc (talk) 21:57, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Atheism

David is listed on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_nontheists_%28music%29 can he also be added to the category of English atheists? --Robnubis (talk) 16:12, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Les Paul Goldtop

It says in the guitar section that Gilmour played the Another Brick In The Wall Pt 2 Solo on a Gibson Les Paul Gold Top equipped with a bigsby. This is not true, David owns two. The gold top used on the 2006 tour (this heaven) is a different guitar than the one used on the wall recordings. The guitar seen in 2006 features a bigsby while the one used on the Wall album and subsequent tour did not feature one. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.72.179.102 (talk) 08:27, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Atheist

Gilmour is an avowed atheist, yet this article does not so much but even mention it. What section would this usually fall under? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.83.50.137 (talk) 21:40, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

It would best fit into the "Personal Life" section. I think it would flow best with some background information about relevant or notable events from the past. MrMonday1 (talk) 04:10, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Son

"Cenotaph Hooligan is Son of Pink Floyd Star: Cambridge History Student in Riot Outrage Says He Didn't Know What Memorial Stood for," by Sam Greenhill, Ben Todd and Nick Fagge, Daily Mail, 10 December 2010. "And gathered at the Cenotaph all agreed with hand on heart to sheath the sacrificial knives...." I leave this note here for the regular editors of this page to do or not do as they see fit. COI (?) note: I'm a Pink Floyd fan. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 02:15, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

added new project

added info about Christmas 2006 release of multi track 12" dedication to Syd Barret

Redirect

Just to let you know, there is another guitarist by the name David Gilmore. There shouldn't be a redirect from that name. -Tim

picture? someone should put in a picture

The Rolling Stone's "100th Greatest.." and the equipment list

This list is highly criticized and there's tons of other lists and just having one of them make Rolling Stone as some sort of de facto bible on music. It don't have any value.

David Gilmour owns roughly 300 guitars and use a lot of effects, maybe this list should be on a separate page? Take a look at www.gilmourish.com

--- I agree, this list is completely subjective and irrelevant. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.236.2.163 (talk) 23:49, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Biography section too messy

I think the biography section is too messy, maybe it should be divided into "background and early years" "music career and pink floyd" "family life" "non-music activities"... just a thought...

Saxophone

He's also recently achieved grade four on the saxophone.

Ringo Starr

He played guitar on a track in Ringo's last album, I forgot the name, if anyone does know, add it to the list.

Guitars

Under the section for Lap Steel guitars, the Fender Stringmaster was listed as a pedal steel. The Stringmaster is a console lap steel guitar which does have legs, but does not have pedals. The article has been edited to reflect this.

"100% accurate"

This claim is subjective and unverifiable. It is not and can never be claimed to be 100% accurate. Unless you have a survey of a representative sample of the world's population in which they were asked what they know David Gilmour for, then any claim about what he is "best known" for is an assumption. The claim contains no information of any use. Why say "X is best known for being Y" when you can just say "X is Y"? The principles of NPOV and verifiability must be adhered to. 200.120.158.78 (talk) 11:39, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Left a message on your talkpage. Murry1975 (talk) 11:47, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
You left a snotty message bragging about how you'd block any changes I try to make to this article. I am sure you enjoyed leaving it very much. Now, discuss the issue here, if you have anything to contribute. 200.120.158.78 (talk) 12:21, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
WP:NPA thats 2. Murry1975 (talk) 12:34, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
I've been looking at the first sentence of several famous guitarist's articles here, and some of them actually say, "best known for" (i.e. Eddie Van Halen) or "gained worldwide fame as" (Paul McCartney) or even "featured his melodic, blues-based guitar lines" (Carlos Santana). As always, if the claim is based on a cited reference it can stay, even if the reference simply verifies fame by indicating number of records sold, which is the case here. Therefore I think the phrase "[Gilmour] is best known for" can stay. BTW, it appears that neither editor in this edit war are assuming good faith or behaving reasonably to each other. Cheers. Prhartcom (talk) 13:16, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
I haven't reviewed the sources in use in this article, but my impression is that we use a phrase like this to encapsulate what most sources would say is the thing people would know the subject for, or has lent the most to the subject's notability. As such, this statement about Gilmour seems reasonable. IP, are you arguing that Gilmour is best known for something other than being in Pink Floyd, or that we just shouldn't be making any such statement? It seems useful to guide the reader right away into "How would I know this person?" --Spike Wilbury (talk) 13:46, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
The WP:LEAD section is a summary; the phrase "best known for... Pink Floyd" is a reasonable summary of Gilmour's career. That is, Gilmour's solo work, and work with other groups, has not risen above his work with Pink Floyd in terms of record sales, and column inches devoted to him in the literature. Binksternet (talk) 15:14, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

It's really not a hard concept. "best known for" is a subjective claim. I don't "best know" David Gilmour for anything. Don't know his solo stuff, don't know much Pink Floyd. Many people in non-English speaking countries most likely haven't even heard of him. Making the claim adds no useful information whatsoever.

  • Prhartcom: "blues-based guitar lines" is an objective fact. Number of records sold is an objective fact. "best known for" is not. Nor is "worldwide fame". "Success" would be a better word than "fame", in that instance. Reproducing opinions as if they are facts is specifically proscribed.
  • Spike Wilbury: "what most sources would say is the thing people would know the subject for" is really not what we are trying to get across here. We guide the reader into "how would I know this person" by stating what they did. We don't need the verbose and subjective "is best known for" formulation to do that. What exactly is wrong with "X did Y" that "X is best known for doing Y" would somehow improve upon?
  • Binksternet: what you say about record sales and column inches may be true, but it does not translate into a useful claim that he is "best known" for anything. We deal in objective facts, not subjective claims, and there's no escaping from the fact that "best known for" is a subjective, unverifiable claim. 200.120.158.78 (talk) 22:29, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
Hi 200.120.158.78: I understand what you are saying, truly. I am a little like you; I don't want to write anything in this encyclopedia that is not backed up by reliable sources. I was really torn on this one before I made a decision. But for me, my decision is made, and I am relieved to see that others agree with me. I know it must be hard for you to see that no one agrees with you on this, but it is the case. Gilmour is simply best known for being in that one band. It helps readers to know they found the right David Gilmour. And really, is this such a big deal worth fighting over? I've had discussions over more interesting matters than this, as I believe you would too if you were a frequent contributor here. Let's all put this energy in what we should be doing: Improving the encyclopedia. Cheers. Prhartcom (talk) 23:12, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
If you're going to insist on missing the point, don't be so patronising while doing so. 200.120.158.78 (talk) 00:00, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Here are some examples based on popular topics that show how absurd it is to make this kind of subjective claim. Do you really think any of the right hand column examples would "help the reader to know they found the right article"?

Current text How you would apparently prefer it
Niagara Falls is the collective name for three waterfalls that straddle the international border between Canada and the United States Niagara Falls is best known for being the collective name for three waterfalls that straddle the international border between Canada and the United States
The Beatles were an English rock band that formed in Liverpool, in 1960. The Beatles are best known for having been an English rock band that formed in Liverpool, in 1960.
London is the capital city of England and the United Kingdom London is best known for being the capital city of England and the United Kingdom
Nelson Rolihlahla Mandela (18 July 1918 – 5 December 2013) was a South African anti-apartheid revolutionary, politician and philanthropist who served as President of South Africa from 1994 to 1999. Nelson Rolihlahla Mandela (18 July 1918 – 5 December 2013) was best known for being a South African anti-apartheid revolutionary, politician and philanthropist who served as President of South Africa from 1994 to 1999.

As an independent party, who noticed this IP editing WP:OWN page, I have to agree here with him. Per WP:PEACOCK and WP:CITE, you cannot put in wikipedia claims, such as fastest, bestest and belovest without proper references.. This is the fundamental wikipedia policy. Staszek Lem (talk) 00:54, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

My point is broader than that - even if you find a reference that says "best known for X", it's still an opinion, which cannot be reproduced as if it is fact. That it is subjective is shown by some random pages I found in a quick google search. "David Gilmour, best known as a lead vocalist and guitarist for Pink Floyd", "best known for being a Strat player by choice", "Gilmour is best known for his lead guitar work", "David Gilmour is best known among fans for his characteristically atmospheric guitar work". Some people mention Pink Floyd, others don't; some say vocalist, some say guitarist, some say both. It's not useful to try to guess what people think of objective facts. It is simpler and obviously better to simply state the objective facts. 200.120.158.78 (talk) 02:56, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
This formulation is the widely accepted WP:CONSENSUS at present. If you disagree, you will need to find wide support for such a change throughout the project. I would suggest starting at the Villiage Pump. - SummerPhD (talk) 04:53, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
No consensus can violate requirements for citations (WP:LOCALCONSENSUS, if you like wikilawyering). I don't need to look for support for WP:CITE, this is the fundamental policy of wikipedia. Staszek Lem (talk) 01:31, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
I am not talking about a consensus on this page. I am talking about a consensus distributed throughout the project. Various infoboxes include "known for". "Best known for" is a slight extension of this. What is Gilmour known for? While individuals may or may not know of him, he is best known for his involvement in Pink Floyd. How do we know this? Every source that discusses him connects him with Pink Floyd (with the possible of narrowly focused publications where every reader is very familiar with Gilmour. Take a look at the "Sources" section. All but one of them has "Pink Floyd" in the title. The lone exception starts with "As a producer and songwriter, Pink Floyd's David Gilmour..." Not "David Gilmour", "Pink Floyd's David Gilmour". How do we know Gilmour is "best known" for his work with Pink Floyd? How could we possibly not know? This is not original research, this is summarizing what the article says. How do we know that an article violates WP:BLP1E?
We have reliable sources discussing that Mark David Chapman did several things. How did we "choose" one thing for the lead? Why doesn't it start with "...is a guy who read The Catcher in the Rye"? How do we know murdering John Lennon is what he is notable for? No, the first sentence doesn't use the phrase "best known for", but to not figure out that that is exactly what we are saying you would have to be half asleep.
Pedantically, we could "write around" the problem by saying what Gilmour is best known for without directly saying the words. Is that what you are hoping for? - SummerPhD (talk) 02:42, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
I've added a citation... but I still can't figure out if folks are actually arguing that he isn't best known for his work in Pink Floyd, or what's going on here. Every scholarly publication I found frames him as Pink Floyd's lead guitarist, even when the purpose of the work is to discuss his solo projects or other things. Is this citation enough, or do we have to have an unsightly string of footnotes in the first sentence of the lead? --Spike Wilbury (talk) 10:07, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
The IP editor who started this pedantically insisted that the phrase is original research and repeatedly removed it from numerous articles. The IP's reverts included every personal attack they could dream up. Their explanations weren't very enlightening. Most of the IP's changes have been reverted during their block. A few have resulted in discussions like the one here with two camps: those who seem to believe it should be removed as unsourced (with arguments that we can't know what David Gilmour and Syd Barrett are best known for... yeah, Syd Barrett might be best known as a painter I guess). The other camp is of the opinion that we are being forced to pedantically source that water is wet.
As for the cite clutter, keep in mind the lead section is meant to summarize the rest of the article and generally shouldn't have cites. I'd say restate the obvious "best known as" later in the article with the source and kill the cite in the lead. - SummerPhD (talk) 12:55, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
Obvious? You might think it is. What about to the millions of people around the world who've never even heard of him? What do they "best know" him for? What about his wife and children, what do they "best know" him for? What about people who like his solo material more than they like Pink Floyd? What about the fact that I found four different statements of what he is best known for? Two things should be obvious to anyone with half a brain:
  1. The claim that anyone is "best known" for anything is a subjective assumption
  2. There is no possible advantage to writing "X is best known for Y", where you can just write "X is Y".
Someone almost got the point with the Mark Chapman example. How do we know murdering John Lennon is what he is notable for? No, the first sentence doesn't use the phrase "best known for", but to not figure out that that is exactly what we are saying you would have to be half asleep. Indeed. We simply present objective facts in objective ways. Making explicit guesses about what some unspecified demographic thinks about the objective facts is absurd. 200.120.158.78 (talk) 13:52, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
So what "objective fact" puts murdering John Lennon in the first sentence of the Chapman article? How about the simple fact that it is plainly obvious that Chapman is best known for killing Lennon? Uh oh, that's original research. Perhaps the first sentence of that article should be "Mark David Chapman was born May 10, 1955 in Fort Worth, Texas." Then, to avoid original research, we'll need to detail everything he did over the next 25 years before mentioning the thing he is best known for: killing John Lennon. - SummerPhD (talk) 14:19, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
The article about Mark Chapman makes no explicit claims about who might know him for what. It simply states the objective facts. Are you arguing that there, too, the article should say he is "best known" for shooting John Lennon, rather than simply stating that he shot John Lennon? I do not know how many times I've asked this without anyone attempting to answer it: what is lacking in "X did Y" that is somehow improved upon by saying "X is best known for doing Y"? 200".120.158.78 (talk) 14:33, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

"Best known as guitarist, vocalist and writer with Pink Floyd,..."[3] "...most famous for his work as the guitarist and and co-lead vocalist of the rock band Pink Floyd."[4] "Best known for his distinctively atmospheric lead guitar work for Pink Floyd..."[5] This is verifiable. - SummerPhD (talk) 14:38, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

The difference between an opinion and a fact is clearly beyond you. The fact that these three claims are all slightly different doesn't seem to bother you at all. And still, you are unable to explain what the problem is with simply saying "X is Y", and why you feel it necessary to claim that "X is best known for being Y". Two simple questions for you:
  1. Do you think it would be useful to change the article to say that he is "best known for his distinctively atmospheric lead guitar work"?
  2. If not, why not? 200.120.158.78 (talk) 14:42, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
No, because that's not what's stated in the preponderance of sources. We summarize what is stated in the preponderance of reliable sources. If most reliable sources are of the opinion that he's best known for some thing, that's what we state. The "best known for" construction is a rhetorical device that guides the reader to an explicit point of reference. This helps reading comprehension, and helps the reader frame further discussion and reading about the topic. If they get in a conversation about David Gilmour at a pub tonight, they can confidently say, "Oh yeah, he's the lead guitarist for Pink Floyd" and be confident that's the more important defining characteristic of Gilmour. --Spike Wilbury (talk) 14:52, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
We are not in the business of providing trivia for morons to regurgitate down the pub. Do you really consider the reader so stupid that they would not understand from "David Gilmour is the lead guitarist in Pink Floyd" that David Gilmour is the lead guitarist in Pink Floyd? How exactly would adding the words "best known for being" aid anyone's comprehension of anything? 189.124.217.111 (talk) 01:50, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
Welcome back, 200.120.158.78. You make an interesting point. You make it in the most stubbornly offensive distasteful way, but you do make an interesting point and I do see your point. As a sort of thought experiment, I started wondering about a hypothetical scenario in which the phrase that you wish removed from this article is banned by some future policy from all articles and must be removed immediately. Using WP:AWB, I ran an unscientific experiment: From a small subset of all articles, the list of all male guitarists with articles on Wikipedia, how many of those contain the phrase "best known" in one of their introductory paragraphs? Out of a list of 1137, there were 323 that did, or about a third.
I will go ahead and draw a conclusion from that. The use of the phrase is fairly common and widespread on Wikipedia, and probably elsewhere in print media around the world. If you wish the phrase removed from this article, shouldn't you also be making the claim it should be removed from all 323 of those articles? And those were just a representative sample of all Wikipedia articles; what about every other performer that ever lived, shouldn't you be willing to convince hundreds and hundreds of Wikipedia editors and administrators that the phrase should be removed from the thousands and thousands of those articles? Well then, in that case, can't the phrase stay? The phrase reminds me of some of the prose I write in articles here that might possibly come close to the line, but which I realize is ultimately harmless because of the obviousness of the phrase written. As SummerPhD observed, it is the statement "water is wet" and it is pedantic. That is my humble conclusion. Would you please, in a thoughtful way, consider that could be the case here? Thanks for that, and cheers. Prhartcom (talk) 15:02, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
Yes, the phrase should be removed from all articles in which it appears. It is subjective and contains no information. No-one has yet been able to tell me the implied demographic who is doing the knowing, nor who has polled them to verifiably determine their opinion on all the articles that claim to know it. Do you know why no-one's been able to do so? 189.124.217.111 (talk) 01:50, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
(Some of the male guitarists in the experiment above that contain the phrase "best known" in one of their introductory paragraphs include Aaron Fincke, Ace Frehley, Adam Darski, Adam Gaynor, Adam Granduciel, Adam Jones, Adrian Belew, Adrian Smith, , Adrian Vandenberg, Aljoša Buha, Allan Holdsworth, Alvin Lee, Andy LaRocque, Andy Powell, Angus Young, Art Alexakis ...)
A few of the articles that contained the phrase above actually said "perhaps best known". Possible compromise? Cheers. Prhartcom (talk) 15:31, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
No, that is not a good compromise. It explicitly acknowledges that you don't know the truth about what you're trying to claim. We do not need to include any vague guesses as to what people's opinions might be, when we can simply state the facts objectively. 189.124.217.111 (talk) 01:50, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
Fact vs. opinion is not "beyond" me. It is a quantifiable fact that Gilmour is widely known. That there are people who have never heard of him and never will is immaterial. Of the hundreds of thousands of people who have recorded in the past 50 years, there are people who would fit into any operational definition of "widely known". Elvis is best known for his music. That he is best known for his work with Pink Floyd is similarly quantifiable, but we go with "verifiable" instead. It is verifiable that Gilmour is best known for his work with Pink Floyd. Vocals? Guitar? Writing? All of the above? That's a separate question. How do we describe the guitar work? Again, a separate question (and probably doesn't belong in the first paragraph). You are clouding the issue. You've made numerous claims as to why you don't want this here. It's a bit hard to track. - SummerPhD (talk) 15:09, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
He is best known for Pink Floyd, is nearly a WP:BLUE. Is he equally known for producing others materials (Kate Bush for example), or playing with MacCartney, Jokers Wild or The Orb, or giving to charity? The IP seems to think its POV. That we cant qaulify it like such. As far as I can tell, best shouldnt be used if it is alleging a POV, the best guitarist, the best band from a polytechnic or the best wearer of white tee-shirts in the business. That would be POV, using it as it is in the article lets the reader know why Gilmour is primarily famous, and may just boil down to a usage of a common English phrase that IP doesnt understand (geo-locates to Chile), or maybe a limited vocabulrary or maybe it is just us in this end of the world that use this phrase. Is it really as simple as a misunderstanding of a common phrase in a regional variety of English? Murry1975 (talk) 16:30, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Without prejudice to any side, I'd suggest changing "best known for" to "known for". It has the same amount of prominence and weight in the lead, it's unarguably true according to all sources (not OR or unsupported attribution if it's a summation of the sourced main article material), without getting into any idea that fame can be quantified into first and second places.__ E L A Q U E A T E 15:31, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

Sounds sensible, agreed. There are hundreds of "best known for" in other articles as I state above (I always like to see the big picture) but I see no reason to fight to keep that here. Prhartcom (talk) 15:40, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
I don't agree it carries the same meaning or is preferable. One could say a person is known for any number of things, but stating what he's best known for is a clear rhetorical cue for the reader. Additionally, the "best known for" rhetoric is a de facto style standard across many biographies. --Spike Wilbury (talk) 16:01, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
That makes me want to ask: Is there any competition or confusion over what he's famous for? How does that word serve the reader? I assume we're trying to give an indication he's not just a guitarist, but a famous guitarist. Widely known would also convey the fame. We're already positioning his work against other things he's done by having it as the main thing we say about him in the first paragraph of the lead. Everything else is already marked as subsidiary with the rhetorical cue of In addition to his work with Pink Floyd.... Everything is also marked as second best by us not saying he's "known" or "widely known" for those other things. All the "best" seems to do is indicate it's the "Number One" fame, when I don't see that as anything anyone would ever be confused about. As far as other articles, I think there are also certain cliches, tired phrases, and spelling mistakes found in hundreds of articles, but we should be trying to make the writing stronger and cleaner, regardless. I don't think it's a disallowed phrase, but it seems like an example of wanting to say something is "really important" when "important" works. The "best" isn't about his guitar playing, it's about a comparison among his other theoretical fames that we already emphasize less or not at all. I'd rather just say he was famous in some way (true and supported) than most famous in only one way, and without talking about whether he's more famous as a guitarist and singer than just as a guitarist, or just as a singer, or as a whatever (true and supported and distracting and redundant as we've written the lead). __ E L A Q U E A T E 16:57, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
Maybe I should say that I'm not against the phrase "best known" or "better known" in all cases. I wouldn't bat an eye if I saw a sentence like Bob Brown went to the same elementary school as James Newell Osterberg, Jr. (best known as Iggy Pop). But here it seems redundant. An additional concern is that it's grouping his different roles in the band to fit the stock phrase. I can see how a reader might gently and momentarily stumble over a construction set up like The subject is best known for x and y. I would have a similar rhetorical concern with This US Senator is best known for his work in the senate drafting legislation, knowledge of meeting protocol, and speaking volume. __ E L A Q U E A T E 17:37, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
I just want to make sure that if a reader comes here knowing nothing about the subject, they immediately, within the first 1-2 sentences, know what's most important about the subject. I don't think there's any question that it's his work with Pink Floyd. However we can best express that, I'm in favor. It seems to me we're saying, "[Of all the things you'll read about in this article,] He is best known for his work as the guitarist and co-lead vocalist of the progressive rock band Pink Floyd." If you omit "best", that sentence doesn't really make sense, does it? --Spike Wilbury (talk) 20:37, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

There has been a lot of vandalism here lately

I think we should protect the page Pink Floyd iii (talk) 00:41, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Face to Face release announced

I'm not sure where (if?) this should be mentioned but I thought I'd point it out to everyone... Face to Face performance from 1986 to be released on DVD/CD. †Dismas†|(talk) 17:25, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

Infobox image change

I'am asking that the page be (temporarily) restored to its original version, while the dispute is being resolved. Pinging the protecting Admin @CambridgeBayWeather: as I'm not positive about the guideline on this issue. Thank you, Mlpearc (open channel) 02:04, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

WP:WRONGVERSION applies here. I could remove the image completely if you like. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 02:10, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Now on the issue of changing the infobox image, on articles I watch a infobox image change is considered a major changer and would require consensus. My main objection is that the change was made quoting WP:BOLD, which is an OK call, but on major changes in a infobox it should be discussed first. My second concern is the new image is almost the same view, but in my opinion it's of lesser quality and not worthy of changing. Mlpearc (open channel) 02:15, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
Thanx @CambridgeBayWeather: That's the guideline I am referring to. Mlpearc (open channel) 02:18, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
Note - I have tagged the new version for lack of permission, with this rational. Mlpearc (open channel) 02:56, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
As the taker of said new image I believe I have acted in good faith. Firstly the image; yes I took it and any check on previous images I have uploaded to the past six months will show the same camera in use. See Jeff Lynne, Richie Blackmore and within Adele Live 2016 as examples. A complaint has been made it is of poor quality (I don't think it is) yet somehow it also looks too "professional" - which is it? I have changed literally dozens of Infobox images and have never had my honesty or integrigity challenged. If someone just doesn't like the new image, then say so but please don't accuse me of lying. It is said the image is the same as the previous one. Nowhere near. Mine is a full face image which we are encouraged to use and more recent, which we are also encouraged to use.--Egghead06 (talk) 04:52, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
I have sent an OTRS email on Wiki Commons as the copyright holder releasing this image for use. That is despite being informed on the OTRS noticeboard on Commons that there was no need to do so!--Egghead06 (talk) 06:41, 2 October 2016 (UTC)
Thank you @Egghead06: All your files that you have released have been tagged by OTRS. Again thank you, Now we need to gain consensus if the new image of Gilmour is to be used. I still like the one before the dispute started, as I thought @CambridgeBayWeather: was going to restore the page to a version before the dispute, per the guideline. Mlpearc (open channel) 01:51, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
Great new image a 3/4 profile is superior to a 1/2 profile anytime, the lighting is perfect, white light is sadly so rare at a concert. It captures the essence of the concert. The cropping is perfect. We should always be rotating in new images if they are of sufficient quality. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 01:17, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on David Gilmour. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:11, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

Error?

I suspect that the 'Cambridge Technical College' mentioned as being attended by Gilmour was in reality the Cambridgeshire College of Arts and Technology, formerly Cambridge School of Art and now Anglia Ruskin University. It is possible that the source for the statement was factually incorrect. Why do I believe this? I can find no references to the existence of a "Cambridge Technical College", French is a highly unlikely subject to be taught by a purely technical place of higher education and Anglia Ruskin claim Gilmour as an alumnus, Urselius (talk) 08:48, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on David Gilmour. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:24, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on David Gilmour. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:47, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

The Pretty Things

What is so wrong about David Gilmour contributing to 2 albums by the Pretty Things? I submitted the information to the article three times, and all the three times it was deleted! Why is this truth so unwanted here? Thank you in advance for a creditable explanation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.87.132.138 (talk) 21:17, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

No reason at all - although discogs is user generated, the sleeve notes can be "verified" by getting hold of the original vinyl and taking a look, so it's just a question of formatting. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:32, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

Lead image

There's been a lot of reverting, and not a lot of discussion. I prefer File:David Gilmour Argentina 2015 (cropped).jpg simply because it shows what he's notable for more easily, while still being a reasonably up to date picture. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:35, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

Agreed - an image with a guitar in shot would be better. The image you link there could do with further cropping though. Popcornduff (talk) 16:38, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
The article could do with a lot of things; the lead image was the first one I came across. It has been on my list of "things I should really improve to GA status at some point", but never quite got to the top. Still, I've got hold of Mark Blake's book, which at least can be used to get us all the way some of the meat of his quite substantial solo and guest career. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:44, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:David_Gilmour/Archive_1&oldid=1248727146"