Talk:List of bagpipe makers

This article was nominated for deletion on 28 May 2009. The result of the discussion was No consensus.

Lists Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Lists, an attempt to structure and organize all list pages on Wikipedia. If you wish to help, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.ListsWikipedia:WikiProject ListsTemplate:WikiProject ListsList articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

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.

Bagpipes Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Bagpipes, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Bagpipes 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.BagpipesWikipedia:WikiProject BagpipesTemplate:WikiProject BagpipesBagpipes articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.

Linkspam

I suppose given that a list of makers is a list of businesses, most of whom are bound to be online, it seems rather daft to call it linkspam. On the other hand, not a web directory, etc, etc. I have cleaned the list up and stuck it on my watchlist. Most of the makers on here don't deserve a further article on their own, however some definitely do. I have also hacked off some of the dodgier names on the list (Hakum Din, I'm looking at you). Calum (talk) 19:08, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why should Hakam Din not be listed? Criteria for inclusion should not be quality, but notability. In the case of Hakam Din, the sheer quantity of units they've moved must exceed 90% of the names on the current list, and probably exceeds the total of 50% of the list. Opinions on quality (however well-shared by the GHB community) are beside the point. Plus, I really hope the exclusion is not also based on the "foreignness" of the maker, not being part of the Anglo world, etc. MatthewVanitas (talk) 09:10, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Possible AfD

As far as I can tell, this article is an unencyclopedic directory and doesn't really belong here. Half of it is people and half is companies, so it's poorly defined...most of the names are and will always be redlinks, and a large number of those that aren't just happen to go to disambiguation pages or different people with the same name (for example, one goes to a TV show host). Can anyone give a good reason not to delete it? If I don't get a response in a couple days, I will probably take this to AfD. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 11:44, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To be honest, my main reason for preserving it when it last went for speedy deletion (as linkspam) was that most of the information will end up written into various articles anyway. I agree that a substantial number of entries aren't ever going to be written up into seperate articles anyway (but isn't that true of most lists?). I do think a reasonably comprehensive listing is a useful thing to have online somewhere - what would we need to include to make this suitable for retention? Calum (talk) 07:21, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure. If it keeps on including companies, as it does now, it will be like a directory, which is one of the things Wikipedia is not. If we trim it to be just notable people, it would be better as a category. (Actually, even if we don't, it might be better as a category...it would be a small category since most of the names in here are not bluelinks, but it might be better than having this list.) rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 13:03, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on List of bagpipe makers. 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:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150801064417/http://caillagh.com/ to http://www.caillagh.com/
Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.thisisscunthorpe.co.uk/news/Pipes-piece-county-history/article-3055235-detail/article.html

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) 22:27, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Glen (music company)

Just knocked off a quick stub on this historic company that was known for making bagpipes. No idea where to put it in this list as I am not versed in classifying this instrument.4meter4 (talk) 23:17, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]