Template:Did you know nominations/McCallum Bagpipes

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Yoninah (talk) 10:21, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

McCallum Bagpipes

(

)

... that in 2015, Kjell Lindgren played a plastic set of bagpipes made by McCallum Bagpipes on the International Space Station? Source: "They were made for Mr Lindgren by McCallum Bagpipes at the company's factory in Kilmarnock, Ayrshire. 'They're made of plastic - they're ... easier to keep clean ... They're also lighter.'" Astronaut plays bagpipes on International Space Station
- ALT1:... that Red Hot Chilli Pipers founder Stuart Cassells uses a special bagpipe chanter manufactured by McCallum Bagpipes that uses flute keys instead of the normal holes? Source: "He heard about Dutch piper Joeri Besnyoi who also suffered from the condition and played specially adapted pipes which have flute keys attached to the chanter. Before long Stuart had his own customised chanter - costing around £1000 - thanks to McCallum Bagpipes." Medical condition almost cost me my career, says Red Hot Chilli Piper founder Stuart Cassells

Created by Rey grschel (talk). Self-nominated at 08:44, 15 January 2018 (UTC).

Article is new enough, long enough and within policy regarding neutrality, sourcing and close paraphrasing (Earwig maxes out at 2.0%). The original hook is far more interesting than ALT1, but both are neutral, within length and properly sourced. This appears to be the nominator's first DYK, so no QPQ would be needed.

@Rey grschel: Before this can proceed, can you please add citations where there are "citation needed" tags in the article. Thanks. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 19:10, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

@Cwmhiraeth: I've removed the unreferenced claims, as I could not find sources to support them. {{u|Rey_grschel}} {Talk} 00:54, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

Hi, I came by to promote this, gave it a quick copyedit, and formatted all the referencing. I have a question as to whether the company's logo is really public domain, or fair use. @The Rambling Man: could you enlighten us here? Thanks, Yoninah (talk) 15:52, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

Comment – I moved this entry from the DYK approved page back to the DYK nomination page as per the concerns presented in the discussion. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:44, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
AFAIK, the threshold of originality in the UK is much lower than the US. With the target design and font choice, I expect this to be copyrighted in the UK. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 03:13, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

In that case, Chris Woodrich, does this need a non-free license (UK-based) for the logo to be used in the article, or would it not be eligible for such a license? (If ineligible, would the logo image then need to be removed from the article?) BlueMoonset (talk) 05:20, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

Current logos are generally eligible. It's also possible to upload as free in the US only (like File:EDGE magazine (logo).svg) on the English Wikipedia (and delete it form Commons). — Chris Woodrich (talk) 07:09, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

@BlueMoonset: what needs to be done with the image in the article to move this forward? Should we just delete it? Yoninah (talk) 19:25, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

Yoninah, I honestly don't know at this point whether it's fine because it is uploaded to English Wikipedia as free in the US only (which happened back in mid-January), or if we also need a non-free for UK license added to the logo's file page so we've covered all the bases: from what I've read (and from what Chris Woodrich said about current logos generally being eligible for NFCC licensing), it should be allowable to have one added, though I'm not positive about that. Chris, given your past experience here at DYK and with image licensing in general, if you could give us a firm opinion about what is needed and what, if anything, still needs to be done (and if you'd be willing to do whatever does need to be done, that would be great), this can move forward. In fact, if it is ready for a tick on the image question in its current state, please feel free to give it one. Thank you. BlueMoonset (talk) 18:46, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
The image currently looks fine. If that question's the only thing holding this back, it should be ready to be queued. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 04:08, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

@Crisco 1492: thanks. Restoring tick per Rey_grschel's review. Yoninah (talk) 10:18, 9 April 2018 (UTC)