Jump to content

Talk:Seymour Duncan

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

Seymour Duncan SH-5 merged here

[edit]

See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Seymour Duncan SH-5. Johnleemk | Talk 08:39, 28 January 2006 (UTC) It's a shame we couldn't have an entire article about the Duncan Custom. It's a ceramic-magnet humbucker that might just be the best all-around metal pickup out there. I have one in the bridge of my Jackson Dinky Reverse, and I love it.[reply]

Not totally true

[edit]

This article needs some editing, as some of the information isn't totally true. I will put the items in contention below. (If Wiki is to be a credible source of information, the writer of the page must remain unbiased and stick to the facts alone).

  • The JB is named after "jazz blues", not necessarily Jeff Beck. Usually this occurs, it is speculated by those in the forum, because the artist stopped short of endorsing their name on the pickup (unlike the Dimebucker). You can also see this in the '78 pickup, or "evenly voiced harmonics", which is not named after Eddie Van Halen. You can read a direct quote on the Seymour Duncan website Seymour Duncan's Questions and Answers 2. Also there are several unaffiliated pages, among these The Jeff Beck Bulletin Issue #4
  • "All of the humbuckers are magnetic as opposed to EMG pickups which are often active." That's not totally truthful. First, Seymour Duncan has offered active pickups for a while, just that they are not as popular or well known, I guess. Second, the way this sentence is phrased leads the reader to think that EMG active pickups do not have magnets, which is not correct.
  • A wise choice would be to instead of making product descriptions, either quote their website (with permission), or offer it as an external link.
  • (SH-1 '59) "The pickup looks like a '59 pickup with no logo and mostly used, a zebra finish." This is not accurate at all: they come in a variety of color schemes. My Fender Showmaster has a '59 in the neck position and it's solid black. "Effectively always used in the neck position" is conjecture as well: there are guitars with the '59 in both positions, and Seymour Duncan makes a set called the Vintage Blues set that is two '59 pickups: one for the bridge and one for the neck. Also, the Pearly Gates Plus pickup that Fender sells (but Seymour Duncan makes) is extremely close to the '59 and is used in the bridge of the Fender Showmaster line of guitars (made in Korea, 2004-2005 manufactured).
  • "The target group is especially blues, jazz, country or classic rock since the output is moderate and it does not sound too good with high-gain tube amps." This is not totally accurate: the pickup is not wax potted, which can lead to microphonic feedback, which is the reason (per their website) that they do not recommend it for high gain situations.
  • (Pearly Gates) "Modeled after the pickups in Billy Gibbons' (ZZ Top) '59 Les Paul that Billy named Pearly Gates" Not necessarily: proof of this would be needed, as this could be deemed slander (i.e. "did Seymour Duncan make it or did Billy Gibbons?!"). Heart's guitarist used a Pearly Gates in the bridge of his guitar for a long while, so again, clarification would be required.
  • (SH-2N Jazz) "The pickup is meant to be in the neck position (see the N letter in the name)" This is not totally correct, because it leads the reader to assume that there are only Jazz neck models. You should explain that the "n" on the end of the model number means "neck" and the "b" on the end means bridge. Jazz Bridge pickups can be bought.
  • (SH-5 Custom) "is made for playing with dropped tunings without sounding muddy." This is not phrased properly and leads the reader to assume that the pickup was made solely for drop tunings. This is not correct, according to Seymour Duncan's website.
  • There are pickups that are listed on here that have no description. Maybe they should not be mentioned, or (again) you should get permission to quote them.
  • Maybe instead of describing their products, you should give only history of the company / the person and such. As for their product descriptions being available online, maybe you should just copy the descriptions. These are products owned by a company, and so you should probably get permission. I have some of their products and such on my own personal website (www.puresimplicity.net/~twinreverb) and I got permission first (because I asked them if I needed it, and they said yes, I need their permission first).

Surely this is pure advertising

[edit]

I mean it's a fine company and the products are truly good, but what if MacDonalds gave a list of their different hamburgers here. Or am I just being small-minded about this? Johnmuir 23:17, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, I'm deleting it

Boadrummer —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.164.97.83 (talk) 03:03, August 28, 2007 (UTC)

Revisions

[edit]

I've removed the information about the pedals and the pickups as it was just blatant advertising. I will be putting some back, but in a better style. Something more similar to the EMG, Inc. article, where it does not read like it has been lifted from the manufacturers website. As it was, the article was too far over the WP:ADVERT line., and whereas the company, services and some of the users are noteable, the many permutations on the same basic pickup are not noteable for a paragraph about each of them.

To me, the pedal section was blatant advertising for a new product, and the line

"Did you know that Seymour Duncan makes FX pedals? They do"

really was a few steps too far. TorstenGuise (talk) 14:37, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Look at the EMG site. It lists all their pickups and all their users. By deleting 90% of the Seymour Duncan site and not doing the same to their competitor, you put Seymour Duncan at a disadvantage which is just as offensive as blatant advertising. Maybe more. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.72.79.32 (talk) 00:21, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, It's gone. the EMG site has changed considerably since I was last there. TorstenGuise (talk) 15:30, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The EMG site is filled with artist endorsers. For some reason, when artists are listed on Seymour Duncan's site, it's considered advertising and it's removed. So Mr. TorstenGuise, you have seven guitars. That's awesome. Congratulations. Which EMG models do you have in each of your guitars? Or do you just work for them?—Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.173.201.186 (talk) 22:29, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well Mr Mystery. I have seven guitars, none of which have EMG or Seymour Duncan pickups. Also stated on my talkpage is my profession of Physicist & Engineer. If you will please notice that since my last edit in March, people have decided to add artists. My specific task was cleaning up the very extensive product list that existed when I first came to the article. I did the same to the EMG page. it is not noteable for every endorsed artist to list th e product they use on the page. I stand by that for both articles. this is why I've deleted the specifics, but left the artist references there. Something i shall be doing to both pages as soon as I get round to it. TorstenGuise (talk) 14:50, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As an addition to that, if you look at the history, it was Fair Deal who deleted the information, not me. TorstenGuise (talk) 14:54, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Notable Users

[edit]

Is it me, or are the notable users being used as a method of stealthy advertising?. TorstenGuise (talk) 17:29, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You and your fear of advertising... Try to understand this: kids want to know what pickups their guitar heroes use because they want to emulate their tone. That's why they'll keep writing about their guitar heroes faster than you can delete them. Or, maybe you can you realize it's an honest exchange of information. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.173.201.186 (talk) 22:50, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have a fear of advertising. If the kids want to know what pickups their guitar heroes use, then they can go to THEIR heroes website (where it's definitely notable). I play guitar myself and have 7 guitars. There is still no reason for it to turn this page into an advert. TorstenGuise (talk) 10:36, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

98.173.201.186, you really should disclose your status as an employee of Seymour Duncan. We don't have a "fear" of advertising. Advertising is not allowed on Wikipedia. Material added to these articles must meet our standards for notability and be sourced to reliable, secondary sources. Rees11 (talk) 16:34, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I’m an employee of Seymour Duncan. What does that have to do with the simple fact that if someone lists their favorite Seymour Duncan artist it gets removed by you cops as so-called advertising; meanwhile our competitors list myriad artists with impunity. Go check their pages right now! OK. I’ve disclosed that I work for Seymour. Now it’s your turn to disclose that either you’re shills who work for our competition or you’re biased in favor of their brands. Or maybe you’re just blatantly inconsistent in your application of the rules. Either way, you are not making a positive contribution to this community. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.249.152.3 (talk) 23:37, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The best way I can address your point is explain our point of view. First of all, my interests are well declared on my user page. There are three key guidelines that we are following here. WP:ADVERT is the key standard that we follow in these matters. Advertising is not allowed on wikipedia. The company is, however, notable (as per WP:NOTE). All wikipedia articles have to be unbiased and balanced and comply with the WP:NPOV core policy. These are the standards that hold the encyclopaedia together.

Finally the reason why your status as an employee of the company is important. Another guideline we are using here is WP:COI. As an employee, you have a vested interest in the company and therefore have a biased point of view and thus a conflict of interest has occurred. Now we don't sit over articles deleting stuff as we see fit. In fact, I haven't edited the article since March, currently 46 edits ago. I haven't edited the EMG page since February, currently 51 edits ago. I just don't have time. TorstenGuise (talk) 08:17, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I guess the cops finally gave up on removing the names of notable artist users. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.249.152.44 (talk) 21:30, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Missing Headline?????

[edit]

I was editing the notable user section on this page when i noticed that it doesn't even show up on the page. What is wrong????

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Seymour Duncan. 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:

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 IITalk to my owner:Online 18:33, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Seymour Duncan. 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) 15:23, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

why The List will go away

[edit]

1) there is no source cited to substantiate the (implied) claim that the list is somehow notable, or complete, or indicative.
2) such a list generally fails to substantiate that the product is actually in use, right today, by the "user." I have seen such endorsements claimed for years after an ugly falling-out. To be valid, each user name ought to have at least a "beginning" and an "until" date.
3) much the same can be said for "signature" models.
4) if such a list is indeed notable, then it maybe ought to have its own List page. If it doesn't deserve its own List page, then it is not notable enough to take up space here.
Weeb Dingle (talk) 19:38, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Seymour Duncan. 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) 01:02, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Seymour_Duncan&oldid=1229549081"