Talk:Richard Wright (musician)/Archive 1

Archive 1

Personal problems

The article on Roger Waters: "It was while recording The Wall that Waters with the agreement of Gilmour decided to fire Wright, after his personal problems (the lyric "...silver spoon on a chain" is a reference to Wright) began to affect the album production." Why aren't these personal problems mentioned in Wright's article, if they exist?

Always wondered why Rick agreed to come back as a session musician for The Wall. If I was in a band who'd done that, I'd tell told them to f^£k right off! Martyn Smith 18:23, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Its a fair point. According to the recently published book (Comfortably Numb) on the Pink Floyd by Mark Blake, he was basically in denial and hoping that him playing would convince the others to keep him in the band.. It was a very unhappy time for the band, what with being in debt because of the Norton Warburg disaster, which forced them to have to leave the country for tax purposes. Rick was also going through a seperation and I think he just wanted to be out of the situation (being in the group) anyway

Nick Mason said in the BBC Omnibus documentary that the Floyds attitude towards a problem was to just ignore it and not deal with it (though he was talking about the Syd situation). I guess thats how they dealt with one of the founding members being dismissed out of hand and Waters beginning to dominate the group lyrically and musically

Fair use rationale for Image:Broken china.jpg

Image:Broken china.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 Wikipedia articles 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 16:29, 1 June 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:Rick wright wet.jpg

Image:Rick wright wet.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 05:09, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Need a current picture

The article needs a present day picture of Wright. VisitorTalk 05:50, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Equipment

The ARP Quadra was also mentioned in Peter Forrest synthesizer book, but I don't no if Rick really played it. The instrument was produced since 1978/ 1979. That means that he only could used it on The Wall. But his main synth at this time was the Prophet 5. And Rick Wright never had towers of synths around him in the Seventies. Mostly just two at one time!

There's a claim that Wright did not play on The Wall at all: "The people who would eventually end up playing keyboards on The Wall: Rick Wright (keyboards, synthesizers & Hammond B3 organ), Bob Ezrin (keyboards), David Gilmour (keyboards), Freddie Mandell (Hammond B3 organ) and Peter Wood (keyboards). Most of the fans would only find out four years later when Wright's name did not appear in the credits of the follow-up album The Final Cut." http://www.dprp.net/proghistory/index.php?i=1979_012 If this is accurate, then even if Wright was using a Quadra at the time, it's not on that record! VisitorTalk 06:07, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

IMPORTANT: Wasn't he born in 1945?

Well, Martyn Smith, he needed money to survive, right? Imadofus 03:59, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Rick was in a difficult financial situation during the time of The Wall, as was the entire band because they got screwed over royally by their investment company (the founder of whom eventually went to jail.) Plus, Rick wanted the Wall tour to be a final farewell for him. In the end Rick had the last laugh because he's the only one to make money off the tour. He was paid to play each show as a sideman while Roger, David and Nick all had to pay out of their own pockets for the financial loss of the massive concerts.

And although most sources say Rick was born in 1943, some extremely reliable sources say 1945. Until Rick actually clears this up in his own words, I don't think we'll ever know for sure.King Tarkus

Where was the discussion about renaming this article prior to doing it?

Did I miss it? Geez, for months we've been having people inserting links to "Rick Wright" blindly into articles without checking to see if that's the proper page name, and I and others have been fixing the links. Suddenly this page move happens out of the blue. Aren't there supposed to be discussions first, before doing something like this? --A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 14:13, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

I have raised concerns about the recent page move for this article on the Pink Floyd WikiProject talk page. --A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 20:16, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

My two cents See here; you bring up a good point. I think I may have been mistaken. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 02:55, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Merge

Please Zee (band) has virtually no content, and it's doubtful there will be enough to justify its existence in my opinion. All of it is duplicated here anyway. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 04:42, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

It's a stub article, and it properly cross references Wright's article. There is nothing about it that goes against Wikipedia's rules, as far as I can see, and it's notable enough to keep as a stub. As for future edits, someone may want to expand the Zee article with a track list, etc. --A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 05:29, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Oppose merge. It's a stub article that might warrent expansion. Mrh30 (talk) 15:47, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Merge All info already in Wright's article. Useless division of efforts.Cosprings (talk) 21:24, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Protection

Hello, please protect this article, I'm sorry I can't help, I'm not a usual contributor.

Why? Zazaban (talk) 22:33, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Because it looks like it is being vandalized, i checked it twice, and there was just "HAGGER" in the page. Hopefully I'm wrong, apologies if so. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.18.252.217 (talk) 23:25, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

:: Done The article has been protected. --Ged UK (talk) 07:29, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

It's only been protected against page moves. I'm not sure this was the original intention. I've let Ged UK know. That said, I don't see vandalism as being regular and uncontrollable to warrant protection of any kind at this stage. It's easily dealt with. -- Longhair\^talk 10:32, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

My mistake. The article was semi-edit protected after the spate of vandalism, and then removed again as it all calmed down. --Ged UK (talk) 10:55, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Citation

“ Rick actually hasn't had an eye operation, he and I have eloped to Rome and we're living happily in a small apartment off the Via Venuti! ” [citation needed]

this is the link that proves this quote: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nIN6i6cgIsg

I just can´t do this by myself. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Codona (talk • contribs) 02:35, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Infobox image

I note the source for the infobox image now says 'non-commercial use' - [1]. Obviously it wasn't always so, but is the image still compatible, or should it be removed? Parrot of Doom (talk) 10:23, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Location and death

There is no mention in this article of where he lived in later life, nor where in the UK he died. They are important facts, which should be included in a biographical article. Werdnawerdna (talk) 20:43, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

As no-one seems to have published this as of yet, we can't speculate - I've already deleted an uncited reference to him "dying at home" once. But you're right - it is very important to have this - when we know for sure. As for living in his later life, there must be a source somewhere. Booglamay (talk) - 22:40, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

There's plenty of reliable sources available stating his death occurred "at home" if someone wishes to work that into the article [2] [3] [4] [5]. -- Longhair\^talk 12:55, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

The German WP article states he died in Kensington. Is that his correct death location? Qzm (talk) 18:20, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Some sources, not reliable enough to use here, state he was a heavy smoker and died of lung cancer. Are those points true? Qzm (talk) 18:20, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Date of Death

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26722696/

He died on MONDAY, that was actually on the 14th september!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.44.95.88 (talk) 18:18, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

September 15, 2008 WAS a Monday. The msnbc article above merely states he died on Monday and is dated Sept. 15. Apparently written the same day of his passing.Racerx11 (talk) 03:18, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Photo Caption: performing with PF in 2006

Not sure this is accurate. I believe the only two performances that any incarnation of Floyd had in the 2000s was at Live 8 with Waters/Mason/Gilmour/Wright and in 2007 for the Barrett tribute with Mason/Gilmour/Wright. This picture is either from 2007 with Floyd, or more likely he is supporting Gilmour in a solo tour. 74.0.188.130 (talk) 20:00, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Richard Wright which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RM bot 21:46, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Is Nick Mason a prolific songwriter?

It is mentioned that Rick Wright is not as prolific songwriter as Nick Mason. If I'm correct, Nick does not have more songwriting credits in the Pink Floyd catalogue than Rick who has quite a few...

It is definitely the other way round. Nick Mason wrote a song or two on the album Ummagumma, while Rick Wright wrote several songs, such as Echoes and on the albums The Division Bell, Wish You Were Here, and Meddle. MrMonday1 (talk) 17:59, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Re-recording of piano

I don't feel confident enough to do it myself, but it should've been mentioned somewhere that Rick Wright in 2007 re-recorded a piano part for the SACD mix at British Grove Studios. http://www.pinkfloydz.com/missingpiano.htm 62.102.167.136 (talk) 23:17, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Re "classic" albums - neutral POV?

Hey Wikipedians: I notice the phrase in the intro "classic albums such as Meddle, The Dark Side of the Moon and Wish You Were Here". Whereas I personally agree with the statement (for the most part), I would still question whether the term reflects a neutral point of view. Thanks. Brenne (talk) 22:24, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Year of first marriage

I thought this would be easy to source, but I've checked my copies of Mason, Povey and Schaffner, and all three have the same fact - Rick and Juliette were dating in 1964, some time later they married. Exactly when is unspecified. @Pigsonthewing: - you of all Wikipedians should have a source for this, right? Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 08:03, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

I've never heard a date, I'll dig around Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:01, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Richard Wright (musician)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Zwerg Nase (talk · contribs) 07:54, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Glad to review this. Zwerg Nase (talk) 07:54, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

Good work so far! The following things should still be adressed:

• Lead: No need to put the reference behind the tours statement. But it needs to be behind the aquivalent in the article body, where it is lacking.

As the comment said in the article body, I didn't think this was "information challenged or likely to be challenged" but I've dropped a source in Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 08:51, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

• Pink Floyd: as well as harmonies on "The Scarecrow" and "Chapter 24". needs a source.

As this isn't particularly important, I've removed it Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 08:51, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

• Other work: and two Barrett's songs - I guess it's and two of Barrett's songs?

I've removed this - "Arnold Layne" is the only one sources give any prominence to Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 08:51, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

• Personal life: to whom he dedicated Broken China - I cannot find that in the source.

Ah, mea culpa on this one, I haven't listened to Broken China for about ten years and assumed the dedication would be easy to source, but it appears not, so I've removed it. There's quite a bit on Broken China elsewhere in the article anyway that is sourced.Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 08:51, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

Isn't the dedication in the booklet? You could use that as a source, provided it is written there somewhere. Zwerg Nase (talk) 09:28, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

The CD booklet just says "Thanks to Millie" and is one of several people credited; I don't think that counts as "dedicated to". Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 15:27, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

• Equipment: second paragraph: The last sentence needs a source.

Now, I can probably ferret one out somewhere if I try hard enough, but I sincerely believe it is not original research to watch Live and Pompeii and observe Rick is playing a grand piano (at 6:00 on "Echoes Part I") a Hammond M-102 (eg: at 28:00 on "A Saucerful of Secrets"), a grand piano and a Farfisa Compact Duo (57:19 on "Echoes Part II"). I can drop these cites in (citing the DVD with publisher, serial number etc) if necessary but it seems a bit like citing that the Pope is Catholic if you ask me ;-) Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 08:51, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

• Discography: several entries need sources.

Again, I do not think saying Rick appeared on Live in Gdansk is particularly "material likely to be challenged" but I dare say Povey's book or AllMusic will be able to cite all of these. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 15:44, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

• References: ref #32 is not only offline, but can also not be considered reliable.

Reworded with the same information from Mason's autobiography Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 08:51, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

• Sources: The source of Mark Blake 1996, where exactly was that published?

It would help if I had remembered to include the URL for the interview, now done. While Brain Damage is a fanzine, it's a highly regarded one, Mark Blake is a respected music journalist who has had work published in The Times and The Daily Telegraph and the interview was authorised by EMI Records so I've no reason not to trust its factual content. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 08:51, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

So far, so good. I give the nominator(s) the usual seven days to adress the issues at hand. Zwerg Nase (talk) 18:52, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

@Zwerg Nase: I think all the issues have been addressed - can you take another look? Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 09:06, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

@Ritchie333: Thanks for the changes! I would disagree with your comments on the equipment section though. That might be obvious for music enthusiasts, but those instruments and the concert in particular cannot be considered common knowledge. A citation of the concert DVD or something along those lines would be very helpful. Zwerg Nase (talk) 09:37, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

@Zwerg Nase: I did cite the reissue DVD using timings, but it's in a footnote at the bottom to avoid clutter in the main text. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 09:39, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Ah, sorry, I misread that... Then it's a pass, congrats! :) Zwerg Nase (talk) 09:45, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Great, thanks! About time we had another Floyd biography at GA. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 09:52, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Indeed! The review made me listen to a couple of the early albums again. Great stuff! :) Zwerg Nase (talk) 09:59, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

@Zwerg Nase: Well my favourite era of Floyd is from about '68-'72, where Rick was at the height of his contributions, and any live show would feature much jamming and improvisation. The later stuff is okay, I saw them on the Division Bell tour and the light show was amazing, but listening to it back I can't help feeling they could have cut costs by getting rid of the band and just playing the original albums along to the lights and video. Anyway ... have a look at Wikipedia:WikiProject Pink Floyd and see what other work there is to do. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 12:47, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Using MOS as a hammer

@Muboshgu: The MOS is a guideline for what may be suitable practices and solutions, and basic common sense and English Grammar. If you want to use the MOS as a weapon to fight with other editors, say why it applies in this instance, and don't edit war. That's all. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:25, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

I though it was obvious, especially after reading Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Lead_section#Usage_in_first_sentence. "If a person has a well-known common hypocorism, used in lieu of a given name, it is not presented between quote marks following the last given name or initial." "Rick" is a well-known common hypocorism of "Richard". – Muboshgu (talk) 16:46, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

Okay, I'll carrying on taking articles like this one to GA status, you screw about with trivial matters. Have a nice life. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 17:02, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

@Ritchie333: Check my user page. I've taken 61 articles to GA, and part of that is by following MOS. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:21, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

Fly by MoS edits that omit knowledge for our readers is not what we are looking for. So why dont we say Richard Wright, often known as Rick Wright, ..... this way are readers get the info and style editors will be happy. --Moxy (talk) 17:02, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

Shit I see this type of edit all over.....@Muboshgu: you sure your doing right by our readers by deleting the common used name all over because of the MoS. Is this helping or impending knowledge. Looks bad to me....that is MoS over info? --Moxy (talk) 17:17, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

I've made this sort of edit many times with little argument. This isn't "omitting" knowledge. It's common knowledge to English speakers that "Rick" is short for "Richard", "Mike" for "Michael", etc. It's clutter to include something so common in the first sentence. "Often known as" is for more of a "Samuel Clemens, often known as Mark Twain" type situation. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:21, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

Your assuming .....this is very bad. Not all Michaels go by Mike. Dame MoS creep over common sense. Will make a proposal so that bad guidance like this is fixed....will ping you when ready.--Moxy (talk) 17:27, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

Maybe the MOS needs to be changed, this seems clear to me. If a person has a well-known common hypocorism, used in lieu of a given name, it is not presented between quote marks following the last given name or initial, as for Tom Hopper which has just Thomas Edward Hopper. Also acceptable are formulations like "Alessandro di Mariano di Vanni Filipepi, known as Sandro Botticelli", when applicable. Muboshgu seems, to me, to be correct with their changes, unless I'm misunderstanding the MOS's point. - Mlpearc (open channel) 17:34, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

Not every "Michael" goes by "Mike", but many do, and it's so common in the English language that it doesn't need to be spelled out. Common sense says that it's excessive to list "Richard "Rick" Wright" rather than "Richard Wright". If you want to propose it be changed, that's fine. I'll happily discuss this there. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:38, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

We should not assume that only those very familiar with English names read this Wikipedia....this is simply the wrong way to approach things. What is need is a fix to the problem not deletion of valid information. Last thing we want is editors just deleting common names all over rather then fixing the style problem. The MoS is clear as pointed out by User:Mlpearc that there is an alternative that can be used. My proposal will be based on the fact editors should not go around deleting the common name over correcting the format style. We need to make clear that common to some is not common to all. I am just disappointed to see the MoS being implemented without thinking of our readers be they native English speakers or not. What should happen is a correction from format A to B not format A just deleted because the MoS.-- Moxy (talk) 19:21, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

@Moxy: Agreed. Thank you, - Mlpearc (open channel) 19:28, 22 May 2017 (UTC)