Talk:Bagpipes

/archive1: up to February 15 2006

Temporary: In use

Removed here from article by Mais oui!.

I'm starting a major edit of this page just now - I intend to thin it down a bit, move much of the content to other pages and generally turn the page into one about bagpipes and not just a directory listing of types as it currently is. Calum 09:14, 27 February 2006 (UTC)Á[reply]

I left a comment at the User's page explaining that you cannot leave comments on articles. I would like to emphasise that it is not me planning to work on this article!

Please remove the "inuse" template within the next hour or so, or immediately after editing.--Mais oui! 09:35, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A quick note to say that editing continues, despite the passage of time! Calum 10:58, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Calum's big edit

I am heavily re-editing the article and so most of the stuff on this discussion page is now irrelevant, so have blanked it. I appreciate after a major rework like this everyone with an interest in this page will wish to work on it, but please bear in mind it is a generic page about bagpipes and not a listing of every kind and genre of bagpipe in existence. Give them their own article. Calum 10:03, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but please do not remove comments from talk pages. The comments about different types of bagpipes *were* relevant to the history of this article, so they should be kept. I don't mind if they're copied to other talk pages. Graham/pianoman87 talk 10:21, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So should comments never be removed unless copied? A lot of the comments will be meaningless when this re-edit is done - for example - my discussion with Finlay over a year ago is already out-of-date and irrelevant. Is there a guideline on this? Calum 10:45, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am removing the material on types of pipes and putting most of it in their own article pages, where the information isn't already there.

OK, good. Talk pages on here are usually archived when they become outdated; for more details see Wikipedia:How to archive a talk page. If I've removed any sections from here that need to be on the main page, feel free to put them back. Graham/pianoman87 talk 12:56, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK, much has been moved. A lot of material doesn't have an obvious home; for example the linguistic discussion on the term 'gaita'. It isn't finished yet - the lists of music/bands needs clobbered as well. The history section needs revisiting (I've only patched up one sentence). New pages I've created or unredirected:

Enjoy! Calum 13:02, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As it reads now, the "types of bagpipes" section is not good. It is very vague and mysterious about exactly where pipes exist. When moving or deleting large areas of text from an article, one needs to at least retain a skeleton of what was there; this means at least mentioning some of the names of individual pipes and the places they are used. It would be great if you could re-add this. Badagnani 07:21, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Even worse--the Iberic gaitas section seems to be completely missing from all articles. How could this be allowed to happen? If such a big edit was made with such mistakes, how can we be sure that other important content wasn't "lost"? Please make small edits from now on, so that other editors can more easily check on changes. We are all working together here. Badagnani 07:26, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I pulled the Iberic gaitas discussion out of history and stuck it in Types of bagpipes. Yes, it's unfortunate that this happened, but it was easily fixed. Please feel free to enhance Types of bagpipes with other material you feel should be in there. Perhaps looking at the pre-Calum version will help.

I can't fault Calum for his work, though. The article was way too long before he started. Please note that WP:BOLD is a widely-accepted Wikipedia guideline! Remember, your (very good!) work was not lost, just hidden in history. It can easily be retrieved and made to fit in the new (and better, I think) article structure. Happy editing! --Craig Stuntz 13:56, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for this, but how can we be sure other things weren't lost "accidentally" as well? Doesn't matter "boldness" or "too big," the bagpipes article needs to have at least a glancing description of the various regions and types of pipe that exist. Someone new to the subject could leave without knowing that unique pipes exist in Spain, France, Italy...which doesn't really make any sense. That was the idea all along, to move the exhaustive descriptions of each pipe to separate articles, while keeping the basic information. This wasn't done here (while I hate to say it, my perception is that the "big edit" was done sloppily) and the reader suffers. Badagnani 17:54, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You'll find the Iberian stuff at Spanish bagpipes. Perhaps not the best place or article name, but not deleted entirely. I can't deny the editing is not all I would wish, but, in my defence, I ain't finished yet...the trouble is finding a few hours free to sit down and do some serious work on it. I need to borrow a couple of books to redo the history section properly, I will expand the modern usage section (and clarify it) and clear out all that cruft at the end of the article to some better place. Actually, today is Friday - I'll have a few hours in the morning. Check back in 24 hours... Calum 19:55, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Good to know. I couldn't find the Spanish/Portuguese pipes listed in the new Types of bagpipes article. Badagnani 20:01, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In that case maybe Gaita should redirect there instead of Galacian gaita? --Craig Stuntz 21:34, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Donald MacDonald

Just noticed a comment in the source about the MacDonald book. Donald MacDonald produced the music, but as a native Gaelic speaker his English was incapable of producing the florid prose of the letterpress Introduction. Who did produce it is anybody's guess, but he didn't know what he was on about, anyway. I'll clarify the article. Calum 11:10, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bagpipes + Non traditional forms

I think that this topic is quite specialised and really deserves an article of its own: Opinions? While a few examples may deserve mention in this article, such as AC/DC, Mull of Kintyre, Sting's use of Northumbrian pipes, Orkney Wedding, I think this is an article topic in its own right. An article on the German heavy metal bands now using pipes would be good, though would it come close to being original research (being as there is nothing I know of written on the subject)? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Calum (talk • contribs) .

It would be best to only offer information on bagpipes if one were, perhaps, a player or, at least, had some remote knowledge of the subject.. unlike the previous post.

May I direct your attention to BobDunsire.com. Wikipedia censors: This is the World Standard bagpipe discussion group. There is no other that meets these standards. **Please delelte these commentsa and leave the link. reedwrangler.net —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 64.12.116.199 (talk • contribs) .

Any tips?

Any tips on presentation done in flash on bagpipes? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 205.121.113.52 (talk • contribs) .

Links

The links section has good information about various pipes but there are many that are just for specific GHB bands, of which there must be hundreds or more in the world. I suggest moving these links out of this article and into List of pipe bands. Badagnani 20:55, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The links section also contains to nearly every category listed in WP:EL#Links_to_normally_avoid, which is presumably why Veyklevar (talk · contribs) tagged the section with a cleanup tag in the first place. Most are off-topic and some are almost certainly spam. Brian Kendig (talk · contribs) reviewed the links and explained his rationale for deleting them a week later. Then an anonymous user, 24.18.213.127 (talk · contribs), restored the entire section, less one critical detail, and without a revision comment. Note that this list contains no fewer than three links to what appears to be this user's own site! I reverted the edit with a comment as to why I was doing so, and then Badagnani (talk · contribs) reverted that with a comment that "No good form of editing! Work on 'discussion' to find the best ones, build consensus, then edit." As far as I can see, this is exactly what happened! You can disagree with Brian Kendig's opinion if you like, but he at least reviewed the list. Did you? Do you really think having three different links to the posting editor's personal site is a good idea? --Craig Stuntz 00:38, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Some of the links are very good to excellent and some others seem inappropriate. I've commented as to several of the latter above. Badagnani 00:41, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rather than continuing to exchange vague generalities on the subject, I opened every linked site and compared its contents against WP:EL and m:When should I link externally. I considered especially, the "What should be linked to" and the "Links to normally avoid" sections. I then removed everything which did not, in my opinion, pass that test. Note that some of these might be appropriate on a different article, for example, Great Highland bagpipe. Since Wikipedia is not a web directory I don't feel compelled to spend my time moving them to the sub-articles, but if someone has a passionate interest in doing so then please feel free. They certainly do not belong here, though. If you feel that there are specific links I eliminated which pass the WP:EL guidelines and are better suited to the general Bagpipes article than the individual sub-articles for the different types of bagpipes then you can certainly add those particular sites back. --Craig Stuntz 14:56, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Number one, you should have "discussed" here before you deleted, not after (you appear to have done the opposite, possibly to make a point), and number two, yes, you do need to reinsert the good links into specific bagpipe articles. Not to do so, I'm sorry to say, shows the same laziness that other editors have manifested here in the past by blanking large areas of text and then simply saying I'm quite busy with my job, etc., I'll get to it at some undetermined future time. No good. This kind of thing gives pipers a bad name. Further, without discussing here first, now you've unilaterally decided that Swiss or Swedish bagpipes cannot have a link here, even if there is no such article for that instrument and if the site is excellent, authoritative, and educational about pipes in general. Badagnani 17:44, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I will not continue conversations with you if you will not assume good faith. Please consider that link before responding because I see no need to carry on a conversation with someone who attacks me in particular and pipers in general. Please also note that although I disagree with you on this subject I have never accused you of disruption or bad faith. I am willing to carry on a constructive discussion whether or not I happen to agree with you, but I'm not going to get involved in namecalling.

I spent a good bit of time studying policies and guidelines and selecting links I felt were appropriate out of a large list of clearly inappropriate items, and clearly, based on other edits to the page, I am not alone in this opinion. You are free to disagree with my choices, but calling my work "lazy" is not a good way to have a constructive discussion. I'll judge "laziness" via actions and not words, thank you. Think the Swedish link is most appropriate here (as opposed to, say, Swedish bagpipes, which, in my opinion, would be a better place)? Well, you have an "edit" link too, right? My judgment on what is and is not appropriate is far from final; you or anyone else can go ahead and add whatever you like to the list. As I've stated, the only real objection I would have is to uncritically adding the entire list back without doing the same evaluation that both Brian Kendig (talk • contribs) and I did. I don't think it's necessary to keep a cluttered list around in article space so that someone, someday, maybe, can go through it and possibly have an opinion more like yours than mine. The list is in history and it's not going away. Please use it if it helps you improve the article.

I also feel you aren't really expressing the wiki process, one of the only five real rules that exist here, accurately in the comment above. It is not necessary to have a discussion before changing content; witness the number of articles where the Talk page is completely unused. It's polite to do so before making a controversial change, yes, but cleaning up spamlinks is not particularly controversial, and Wikipedia is not intended to be a web directory even for legitimate links. Good-faith edits with edit summaries are themselves a conversation over content, and they're one which is resulting in a steadily improving article, rather than merely hot air expended. Nevertheless, I'm spending time discussing the issue here since I think it's worthwhile to resolve differences of opinion amicably.

For as much as you talk about the need to discuss individual additions and deletions I find your comments here to be quite general and short on specifics. Had you expressed opinions about which sites you felt were valuable before I made my changes I would have considered your opinions in addition to my own and the noted policies. You're still free to add those sites in now; my version of the list is not final. This article is a living document with a freely-accessible history, just like everything else on Wikipedia. --Craig Stuntz 18:48, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

All I asked was to discuss before deleting. That (reasonable, I thought) request apparently failed so I did feel it was appropriate to insist that if links are blanked that the helpful ones be moved into articles deemed appropriate to the deleter. You are the one that seems most determined to charge ahead, take the bull by the horns, etc., so you're also the one who should do the job in a complete way. It's like fixing redirects when moving an article title--part of the "job description." No personal or general insults meant; it was just a reaction to the emphatically stated "I'll blank now and then, maybe, get to wiping up later" attitude I've seen before at this article. Badagnani 19:00, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Proscription of bagpipes after the '45

While the bagpipe is not specifically cited in the Act of Proscription, a court-martial at Carlisle in 1746, trying a piper who had served with the Royal army and was captured while returning to Scotland with his pipes in his possession, deemed the instrument to be "a Weapon of war" and thus proscribed under the Act (see Peter Hume Brown, History of Scotland, 3 vols. (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1909), 3: 328n.). This seems to provide some legal basis for the undoubted discouragement of the playing of the instrument, in addition to the natural decline caused by the deliberate efforts of the Government to destroy the Highland culture. Parmst 14:55, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]