Talk:ESP Guitars

This article was nominated for deletion on 12 September 2020. The result of the discussion was keep.

This page was proposed for deletion by LaundryPizza03 (talk · contribs) on 12 September 2020.

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Guitarists, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Guitarists on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.GuitaristsWikipedia:WikiProject GuitaristsTemplate:WikiProject Guitaristsguitarist articles
	This article is supported by Guitar equipment task force.

Musical Instruments Low‑importance

	Music portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Musical Instruments, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of musical instruments on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Musical InstrumentsWikipedia:WikiProject Musical InstrumentsTemplate:WikiProject Musical Instrumentsmusical instruments articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Text and/or other creative content from ESP Guitars was copied or moved into List of guitars manufactured by ESP with this edit. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted as long as the latter page exists.

Question

Does anyone know any other interesting facts about ESP? I don't want this to be a total commercial for ESP, but I guess it is now until we can expand it. Timbo 02:42, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Too many artists

Does anyone else think that there are too many listed artists on this page? It looks silly compared to the text above it. Perhaps we should remove some? Lambyuk 10:56, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'd suggest that this page should only contain ESP Guitar players who have their own custom models commercially available, and then create a category for 'normal' ESP guitar players.hellboy 03:41, 9 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed.--Ecstacy ^Xtcy3 15:22, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If the musician is signed, then he should be on the list. If the list gets hard to manage (which it's not at the moment) a separate article can always be made. --Sn0wflake 20:57, 9 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Romeo uses Capirosons nowadays, doesn't he? I didn't see an ESP when I saw them live...

I think you are right (you can download a video from the Gigatour website where he's not playing an ESP). However, I believe he uses different guitars for recording and live performing. Try posting in Talk:Michael Romeo? Lambyuk 12:33, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I'm going to start removing non-notable artists as they are added to the list. In my opinion if they're not popular enough to have a Wikipedia article, then they shouldn't appear here. Any objections? hellboy 00:18, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

ESP Pictures

Do you guys think that I can use the pictures of the guitars from the ESP website on here and cite that i got the picture from the website or should I email ESP and ask for permission or something? QelDroma06 19:21, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Removing huge list

There was a huge list of models- I've turned it into a list of series. There's a ton of tiny little stubs about specific models that are not, and can probably never be, encyclopedia articles. I've moving this list of links here since I don't see that it belongs in the article.

Damn, that's a crazy huge list. I could see maybe having articles on certain series of guitars if there's much to be said about them, but there's no way we want to reproduce the entire product catalog here. Friday (talk) 18:00, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well I guess I can create an article for each series and describe the individual models there if that'll make it better. QelDroma06 18:04, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Seems like a step in the right direction- I've left the series links in for now, altho most of them appear to not be articles either- they're just lists. Moving lists around isn't very helpful, but turning a list into an article is. Honestly, given the content we have, maybe describing the major different series here in the main article is the way to go. Some of the content we have right now is pretty much an "indiscriminate collection of information", which is what Wikipedia is not. Friday (talk) 18:08, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

- Alright I'll turn the existing lists into articles instead. I guess I can make them somewhat similar to the Jackson Kelly page. QelDroma06 18:16, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Jackson Kelly most definitely looks better to me than having seperate articles for each variation. Friday (talk) 18:21, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - Alright then, I'll get to work on fixing it up right now. If any other problems arise just inform me or make the changes you feel are needed. QelDroma06 18:24, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Alright I just finished the first page: ESP AX Series. Any feeback is welcome on it. Tell me if it's good how it is so I can continue doing the same for the others or if there are any improvements I can make. And by the way, for series that have many models in it, such as the M Series, I can condense the information a bit so that there won't be a big list again but I don't think that would be a problem because first of all, it's not really a list, and second of all, it would only be contain about 10 or 15 models for the biggest series. It wouldn't be long like the list previously on the main page. QelDroma06 00:42, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't the model section(and all the individual wiki's for all the models) pretty fucking redundant considering that all this information is freely available(and probably more accurate) on their site? Considering none of their guitars have even reached the level of popularity of say, a Jackson Kelly, let alone a Les Paul, why the need to inflate an article with pointless lists?

These individual models definitely don't warrant their own pages. I have changed them to re-directs to the series representing each variant, but I think they should be completely deleted. --Deon Steyn 06:13, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't even bother putting them through XfD - just redirect them all to a list article - wikipediai not being a directory and all that. As with WP:EPISODE, as each guitar develops anything worth writing about, only then is it to be considered suitable for a standalone article - Tiswas^(t) 08:43, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

dont see why they need individual redirects. At present they've been prodded, which will remove them all in 5 more days, DGG 08:57, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Headquarters ??

"ESP is located in North Hollywood, California" ?? Who wrote that ?? :-) Everyone knows that the main company is still in Japan, it always was in Japan .. --88.106.126.77 14:22, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

true , the headquarters are in Japan, they must be manufacturing guitars in Ca,

besides japan , korea is a huge market so many guitars are made there to, the ESP guitar that i got from ochanomizu,japan was made in Korea =_=' —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.199.118.12 (talk) 06:05, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, ESP can be considered to be split into two companies, ESP USA which is in North Hollywood, Cali, AND in Japan for the original ESPs, if I remember correctly somewhere in ShibuyaTkpenalty (talk) 01:00, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I thought ESP originally had hq in Japan, but moved to USA. hold on, im checking this out. --Ecstacy ^Xtcy3 15:25, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, I think their main company is in USA now. I just went to their japan and korean sites, and there's no address. -__- I think we can safely assume that the main company is in North Hollywood, Cali.--Ecstacy ^Xtcy3 15:32, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:ESP Logo.gif

Image:ESP Logo.gif 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 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 lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 06:12, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

ec-500

A small part about the ec-500s is wrong. They also have 2-volume and 1-tone knobs, I think the author got mixed up between the ec-500 and the ec-2005 anniversary model, which look almost exactly the same except for a skull and crossbones inlay on the headstock, dragon inlay at the 12th fret and string trough body design. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.196.235.194 (talk) 18:10, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Help?

Can someone who actually knows something about ESP add some pre-puff-hair-metal history? It makes a huge leap in time glossing over all the years and all the guitars from 1975 to 1983, many of which are far, far, far better than what they have sold in recent years. What I don't know about ESP could fill a warehouse, but at least I know that they had a very full line of completely awesome guitars for sale in 1979 and 1980, and they must not have sprung up overnight. They weren't for sale all over the US, but a guitar store in Berkeley, CA had some and had the brochures for ESP from 1979/1980. They were price listed in Yen and that store (and others) were importing them. They were mostly (obviously illegal) copies, but some were Strat-styled customs that were very much like the Charvel, Jacksons, and Kramers that were popular a few years later. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.235.241.93 (talk) 14:12, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

ESP dealers

I removed a link to an "unofficial Australian ESP reseller" from the External Links section.

This was an inappropriate link, which was determined by Wikipedia's policy on external links in articles, which is available to be read here.

In this case, the link in question came under these categories:
Links mainly intended to promote a website.
Links to sites that primarily exist to sell products or services, or to sites with objectionable amounts of advertising.

Wikipedia is not for advertising. Temple-of-Monkeys (talk) 06:43, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cleaned up guitar lines

I've cleaned up the Guitar and Bass ranges, because it was far too messy and didnt reflect the structure of ESP's guitars properly, and I recommend that the preceeding segment (Model numbers explanation) be removed as its only applicable to the ESP USA guitars. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tkpenalty (talk • contribs) 00:57, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Guitar page deletion

Most of the ESP Guitar pages are up for deletion. See Category:Proposed_deletion_as_of_30_July_2009. Fences&Windows 00:04, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

go do some work on History

I restrained myself from adding a line: Nothing whatsoever happened in the years 2006 through 2014.
Weeb Dingle (talk) 15:37, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Guitar page deletion redux

Ficadimerda has proposed the deletion of some or all individual instrument articles, and the list article, found in Category:ESP electric guitars. Other editors including Lightburst and 7&6=thirteen have questioned this in the current Afd discussion for this article. I'm suggesting that further discussion of the issue take place here, rather than cluttering the Afd discussion. --IamNotU (talk) 16:35, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, perhaps I did not take best course of action but I saw a category of unsourced or no reliable source articles and many have no text. I am researching some now to try to see which can be fixed. If the articles cannot be fixed, is redirection to ESP Guitars acceptable? Ficadimerda (talk) 16:40, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Someone has put a prod on almost every single product of the company as shown here. It deserves attention and a response from all interested editors. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 16:42, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ficadimerda, I noticed that when you added the "prod" templates, you didn't leave edit summaries. This may make them invalid, see WP:PROD. If you really want to go ahead with them, you should go and make dummy edits with a proper edit summary. However, proposed deletion should only be used in obvious cases, where no objections would be expected. Given the reactions, you may wish to just remove them.

I don't have any comment at the moment on whether the articles should be kept or not. If an individual model has received significant coverage in reliable sources and meets WP:GNG, it's possible to have its own article. But it's not required - it may be better to merge and redirect them, either to this article or the List of guitars manufactured by ESP, I don't know. If a model doesn't meet GNG, then it must be merged and/or deleted, but leaving a redirect is fine. This can also be done with WP:BLANKANDREDIRECT. --IamNotU (talk) 17:00, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I agree that that the editor must be sure something is not notable prior to prodding per WP:PRODNOM. Just deciding to prod every product from this company is disruptive. Also the editor appears to be a new editor based on 102 edits and a one week old account. With a curious name. Perhaps needs guidance. Lightburst (talk) 17:09, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Okay I am working on finding sources for the articles where possible. I found some sources for ESP Kamikaze and another so far. Edit summary is separate from the comment with reasons? I do not mind if the articles exist as long as they are fixed, but whole category of articles mostly just product names seems like excess. And yes thank you I appreciate guidance. Ficadimerda (talk) 17:10, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging ThaddeusB, who (a long time ago) created List of guitars manufactured by ESP and merged other individual articles into it. Maybe you have some insight about it? --IamNotU (talk) 17:14, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello everybody I am trying to clean up. I had idea but what does everyone think. Talk:ESP Edwards E-AL-120 Saw Tooth Maybe all signature model guitars of an artist can just have page (name of person) Signature Guitars, when notable enough for a page. Giocabene (talk) 05:25, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Artist signature models

Hello can we please change artist signature model guitars with individual page of just one guitar to page of that musician's guitar models? Or if that is still not much information what about List of Signature Guitar Models or something? That should be enough in one article surely. Giocabene (talk) 04:01, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]