Talk:Nick Harper

This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.

If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Nick Harper. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/20031203071710/http://www.holytoilet.com:80/blam/blam_nov2003.html to http://www.holytoilet.com/blam/blam_nov2003.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 06:30, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Squeeze

The lead describes him as a past band member. The article mentions connections with Squeeze & buried also in Squeeze's article is mention that he has played with the band. Musicians collaborate with each other in all sorts of different ways but is this notable enough to be included in the lead? I really don't know but I think both articles would benefit from a little review by someone who does :o) 86.148.15.250 (talk) 18:55, 9 March 2019 (UTC) For example: Roy Harper's article includes interesting stuff about his connections with Pink Floyd including that he sang lead vocals on "Have a Cigar" but to introduce Roy as an ex-Pink Floyd member would've been a bit unbalanced - then you'd've had to call Nick "son of Pink Floyd's Roy Harper" - see what I mean? 86.148.15.250 (talk) 19:19, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, Squeeze are much bigger than N. Harper was or will ever be. In fact, this whole page sounds like a Nick Harper fanzine article. (Nick H 2019)

I think the point is not quite so much about 'how big' but more 'what is he about?' 86.159.6.119 (talk) 18:00, 19 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes! Having met Nick Harper on several occasions, I think he is "about" his ego! I remember when he was playing with Glenn and Chris as a trio but I don't think that makes him a former member of "Squeeze"! (Nick H 2019)

Early influences

The article previously read like his father's famous friends were all just rock musicians. For those who are familiar with his father's work then at least equally notable - and relevant - were: Davy Graham, Bert Jansch, John Renbourn, Jackson C. Frank, Sandy Denny, Paul Simon who are currently listed on the same website used for the previous citation. So I added those but unfortunately I am still pretty much a novice editor & it may take me some time to work out how to link those names to their relevant wikipedia articles (so if anyone else feels like doing it that's fine too). 86.159.6.119 (talk) 18:10, 19 May 2019 (UTC) Update, I did the links now 86.159.6.119 (talk) 20:37, 19 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

On the one hand I think my additions are a good thing from the point of view of background/facts but on the other hand it seems to me that my edit has made the previously readable sentence now rather ungainly. It may be better to do a re-write of that paragraph, if nobody else does it I'll have a go myself next week... 86.159.6.119 (talk) 20:42, 23 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I've now re-written the para in a way that (following the additions) I hope carries the meaning a little more clearly & concisely but if anyone can do better please go ahead! Sorry forgot to put in edit summary so no lable in article history but it's today's date. (IP changed) 86.155.27.168 (talk) 08:28, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]