Template talk:Infobox clan

Comment

• I think the Clan chieftain field should be changed to Clan chief, because i think a chieftain refers to someone subordinate to the chief. For example when wearing the crest badges chiefs wear three feathers, chieftains-two, and armigers-one.
• Another thing is clans don't have arms. Its a common misconception that they do, same ppl believing their family has a coat of arms. The infobox is just gonna keep this fantasy going on, so i think this field should be removed.
• I'm not sure that any clans are going to have more than one seat.
• There should be a field for Clan commander, a few clans have these, like Clan Macfie. Commanders are appointed by the Lord Lyon and are different than a chief.
• The motto field should be somehow incorporated into something to do with the crest badge. The motto is actually the chief's motto, not the clans. Both the chief's motto, and the chief's crest are in a clansman's crest badge. They don't belong to the clan. Maybe two fields named "Crest badge crest" and "Crest badge motto".
• One thing that will make this infobox tricky is including sept names. Lots of clan have long lists of spelling variations which they call septs. Including these are going to make the infobox dominate the article, making hard to include pics in the article.--Celtus (talk) 10:22, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

• Example of the infobox out of control and dominating its article Clan Buchan.--Celtus (talk) 08:20, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

• I'd agree there's a problem there and would discourage the inclusion of septs in the infobox unless there's <5 - you can link to a separate septs section using something like See [[#Septs|Septs]], I've now done that with the Buchan one. Might just be best to completely exclude septs (how many clans have as few as 5?) - and in turn you might need to exclude branches, just because people may not know the difference.
• On seats - you could have different seats through history, don't know if that's just getting too complicated though.
• Tartans section needs a bit of work - do we have tartan1= | tartanname1= | tartan2= | tartanname2= fields? And perhaps split out the motto into motto= | mottoenglish=
• In general I think the idea of an infobox is worth pursuing, but an overlong one is counterproductive. Le Deluge (talk) 11:35, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

• That solved the septs. For the seats why not have a "Historical seat(s)" and "Seat(s)" option? It bugs me that some articles imply things that aren't true, along the lines of "Ardincaple Castle" is the "seat" of Clan MacAulay-yet it is only a single tower, exists as a lighthouse, and is owned by the Ministry of Defence. Is there a way to make the options invisible if they aren't used? I noticed the Buchan one shows "Gaelic name" yet nothings in the field? If they're invisible then we could have "Commander" option for the couple clans which have that position instead of a chief.--Celtus (talk) 09:21, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

• Yep - having "conditional" fields is very doable, so makes sense to have separate fields for historical seats versus current seats.Le Deluge (talk) 11:40, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Tartans

I think the square images just look ugly in the infobox. What if the images were resized into a rectangular shape (thin veritcally but wide horizontally, i'm unsure how many pixels that'll be though)? That way if a clan has a few tartans then they'll stack ontop of each other neatly. Like for instance the MacLea infobox looks like crap to me, the tartans make it a mess. The rectangular images wont be tileable or as useful like the square ones, but the square ones can live within the article below. Either that or just list the names of the tartan in the box?--Celtus (talk) 09:21, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Inspired - rectangular tartans in the infobox is definitely the way to go now you mention it. Something roughly the size of userboxes but wide enough to fill the infobox. That would be the only tartan you would need - to be honest I've never really liked the square tartan images even when they're in the article, they seem to be particularly disruptive for some reason. We could always have a link to the SRT website somewhere in the article, for people wanting the full thing. You could have tartanname1=, tartanname2= assigned as titles on the left if you wanted. Only thing to discuss is the exact size of the image, but that probably depends a bit on how wide the infobox ends up being (and there's some general "prettifying" to be done, but it's easier to do that once you know what the final fields are. As an aside, I notice that some clans have "manual" infoboxes, and Clan Fraser has its own unique one, they can be tidied up in time. Le Deluge (talk) 11:40, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

I just used Inkscape to slap some squares together to see. The green one is just two of the squares side-by-side, the blue one is four. The small looks ok and it wont waste space if the clan has a bunch of them. If we use different variables for the tartans which show the number/letter, for example Tartan (1), then that could correspond to a 'tartan' section within the article. No need for duplicate images then. Though maybe visible variables like Tartan (1) is too clumsy/ugly.--Celtus (talk) 06:19, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Something like the "four" one works for me, although the exact width may have to wait until we've fiddled with everything else. I'll have a think about the best way to refer to them, perhaps with some kind of internal links, but if they're labelled with the proper name in the infobox then people should be able to work it out? Le Deluge (talk) 08:50, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

sugestion (warning long pics)

(Skip to discussion)

create a clan template for each clan, e.g.:

Clan Campbell
Cambeulach
Crest: On a boar's head erased fessways erased Or, armed Argent, langued Gules
Motto	NE OBLIVISCARIS
Slogan	"Cruachan"
Profile
Region	Highland
District	Argyll
Plant badge	Bog Myrtle
Pipe music	"The Campbells are Coming"
Chief
His Grace Torquhil Ian Campbell
The 13th Duke of Argyll and The 6th Duke of Argyll ('MacCailein Mor')
Seat	Inveraray Castle
Historic seat	Castle Campbell
Septs of Clan Campbell Arthur, MacArtair, MacArthur, MacCarter. Bannatyne, Ballantyne, Blanton. Burnes, Burness, Burnett, Burns. Caddell, Cadell, Calder, Cattell. Connochie, Conochie, MacConachie, MacConchie, MacConnechy, MacConochie. Denoon, Denune. Gibbon, Gibson, MacGibbon, MacGubbin. Harres, Harris, Hawes, Haws, Hawson. Hastings. Isaac, Isaacs, Kissack, Kissock, MacIsaac, MacKessack, MacKessock, MacKissock. Iverson, Macever, Macgure, MacIver, MacIvor, Macure, Orr, Ure. Kellar, Keller, Maceller, MacKellar. Lorne. Louden, Loudon, Loudoun, Lowden, Lowdon. MacColm, MacColmbe, MacLaws, MacLehose, MacTause, MacTavish, MacThomas, Taweson, Tawesson, Thomas, Thomason, Thompson, Thomson. MacDermid, MacDermott, MacDiarmid. MacElvie, MacKelvie. MacGlasrich. MacKerlie. MacNichol. MacNocaird. MacOran. Macowen. MacPhedran, MacPhederain, Paterson. MacPhun. Moore, Muir. Ochiltree. Pinkerton. Torrie, Torry.
Clan branches Argyll, Breadalbane, Cawdor, Loudoun, Possil, Strachur

Yours ever, Czar Brodie (talk) 12:57, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Discussion

This latest format is my favorite type of 'infobox'. I like that blue/white combo and the font; the arms & badge look good centred within it too. My comment would be that maybe the text within could be smaller (for example "<small>[[Torquhil Ian Campbell, 13th Duke of Argyll|Torquhil Ian Campbell]] 13^th [[Duke of Argyll]]</small>" and the chief fits in one line neatly). Is there an advantage of having multiple box-templates in one article?--Celtus (talk) 06:57, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

my thinking is devision is better: not all clans have chiefs, septs and some clans have so many septs that the list is better seperated to place comfortably in the article. Also the lands, castles, branches can be used as nabox at the linkinking articles without draging all the clan info along. Re the tartans, at the moment, and mostly because the number of tartans varie, I think they are better as thumbs withine the article. Re, the chief name, good point, another option here is to have two entrys: {{{Chief}}} and on the next line (<br />) have {{{title}}}. Yours ever, Czar Brodie (talk) 09:02, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

See example at User:Czar Brodie/sandbox. Yours ever, Czar Brodie (talk) 12:50, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

As I've mentioned elsewhere - if you only do one thing, make the navboxes bottom ones rather than right ones, it's already hard enough to keep the top bits of articles tidy without yet more "competition". And in any case, it's more natural to let people read one article, get to the bottom, and then move on to the next article. As discussed above - having lists of septs on the right hand side is probably a bad idea too, partly just on visual grounds and partly because they make it harder to find the most important facts. On having a separate chief box - I'm in two minds, I suspect that probably you want things like seat in the main clan infobox as now, and then you want something freestanding that can be used on chief articles and (optionally) somewhere near the chief list in smaller clan articles. But then that may just be a case of modifying the existing {{Infobox Officeholder}} template rather than reinventing the wheel. I've not got strong feelings either way. I'll mebbe have a play with redesigning the current Infobox Clan in the next day or two, although it's probably time for me to do a bit more writing of actual articles, I've been spending too much time on "process" recently... Le Deluge (talk) 13:30, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Noted about the navbox. Noted about the sept list. Noted about the seperation of chief. Update, I created a template sandbox, see Template:Infobox Clan/sandbox, and entered the ddata for a test, see User:Czar Brodie/sandbox. Yours ever, Czar Brodie (talk) 21:53, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm taking the plunge. I'm updating Template:Infobox Clan with the code from Template:Infobox Clan/sandbox. I'll update the linking clan articles. Reason: only 5 clans link to the Template:Infobox Clan, these are: Clan MacLea, Clan Sinclair, Clan Bruce, Clan Buchan, Clan Strachan, and I'll add Clan Campbell. So If other editors disagree with my changes, things will be easy to correct. This bold move will see how the template works in a series of clans. To work, I'll post here once updated . Yours ever, Czar Brodie (talk) 10:45, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Re updating - Done, please see the six clans. Opinions? Yours ever, Czar Brodie (talk) 11:58, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Not too shabby. The MacLea one stands out from the others because the blazon of the crest is just so long, though there's nothing we can do about that. I especially like how the Arbuthnott one turned out with the arms. What's your opinion on how the motto/slogan should be formatted? All uppercase, all lowercase, or just regular text? They always seem to be blazoned in uppercase letters, though maybe it is too much emphasis in the infobox (also WP:ALLCAPS says Latin shouldn't be all uppercase). If they happen to be in a language other than English it seems like they should be italicised (WP:ITALICS#Italic_face 'Foreign-language words').--Celtus (talk) 07:01, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Good point. I did a quick search to see how other mottos are written, while some varie, I think the general view is to just have normal text regardless of the language: see Royal Badge of Wales and Great Seal of the United States, Coat of arms of Prince Edward Island, Coat of arms of Charles V, Holy Roman Emperor, Coat of arms of Orkney as fine examples. Think we should go with this trend for all the entries (including- slogan, Gaelic name etc...), just normal text, no italics, speech marks, capitals (unless exceptional circumstances, e.g. a motto that is an Acronym.). Yours ever, Czar Brodie (talk) 11:13, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

updates

• historic seat added

need advise/opinion on:

• Branches, I think this is best left to a navbox and article. Some branches can be quite large (see Clan Hay), and with heraldry can liven up an article (see Clan Brodie)
• Home page, web pages, clan links etc...
• and should one add Tartan images? I think not, but I'm open to sugestions.

yours ever, Czar Brodie (talk) 13:51, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Good point about the branches/cadets. I was thinking it could be something that would be interesting in the box, but now i can see how it could turn out to be information overload like the septs. I'd like to keep the infoboxes are short as possible, so they don't encroach on the article. I'm not sure about weblinks. I imagine most clans will have more than a few society pages, from different countries, and also webpages that are not connected to any society or organisation. IMO it'd be better to leave the links in the EL section and not endorse one society/clan-page over another. It'd keep the infobox shorter as well.--Celtus (talk) 07:21, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

On the other hand there's not many cases where there's more than 4-5 branches, and those we could perhaps handle those with a anchor link like in the septs above. I'm actually starting to move back to the idea of having septs in the infobox, but bunched up as continuous A,B,C rather than one per line - it helps get round the inherent WP:LISTiness of a sept section, and I don't think the separate sept box as in the Campbell article really works. Incidentally, might I suggest that people don't start adding the infobox to any more articles until we've really sorted this kind of thing out - it it a right royal pain in the neck to go back and alter any infoboxes that were "deployed" with sections that were added or removed before it was finally settled. For instance, the current version doesn't include the tartan changes we discussed above. I've got quite a few ideas of things I want to change, butI need a bit of time to think about it and it's the sort of thing where consensus is good - we're not in any particular hurry on this, it's better to get it right than to rush into it. The only exceptions are where someone's already substed in an old version of the template - it's much easier to track things if they're using the "live" template rather than some old Wiki code, I've changed Bruce and Graham. Now I really must get going on some of these half-completed articles I've got lined up.... Le Deluge (talk) 16:47, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

I have added "septs" and "websites". See Clan Campbell and Clan Graham. Yours ever, Czar Brodie (talk) 08:45, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

I've just replaced a static box on Clan Buchanan and something's broken the floats - if you disable the website section it all works properly. I'm still recovering from my attack on Battle of Harlaw so I'm not really up to thinking about this stuff just yet - give me a couple of days and I might be able to think straight. <g> Oh, and do we have branches? Le Deluge (talk) 13:16, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Yeah the branches should be covered, especially if septs are. Though i think the weblinks should stay out of the infobox.--Celtus (talk) 07:53, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

I've been thinking that maybe the 'clan profile' sections could be converted into a template-form to get them away from them looking like lists. Something like {{Infobox COA wide}}. Then the large sept lists could live easily down there? Same with large numbers of branches and notes on them. Also things like the full description of the chief's arms, badges and all that (see how it takes up so much space in the MacLea infobox).--Celtus (talk) 06:56, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

my thinking was that the infobox is just a brief summary, a further section within the main body titled "clan profile", giving details, translations, notes, etc should stay/be added. Technically there is no need to add the crest or motto text as this is covered in the image. This would be good info for the main articles profile details. The reason I set out to write the text is that not all clans have images, so the text could replace this lack. We could place in the guideline info that if the clan has a good image for the crest badge, the text should not be added. agree that branches would probably be better than web sites. What is the general opinion of the "show/hide" boxes (e.g septs)? Do other editors think this is a good way to approach the problem of overly long lists? Yours ever, Czar Brodie (talk) 14:50, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

please note the documentation I've added to the infobox. This is the infobox's general guideline. Other editors may want to have their say in this section. Yours ever, Czar Brodie (talk) 12:25, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

summary of adjustments

• websites to be removed
• branches to be added
• text of crest badge to be removed if image of crest given (can I think be done with the {{#if:{{{entered label}}}}} command. May even have the text as a pop up if the mouse cursor goes over image of crest badge) done, note the text of the badge comes up if the cursor goes over the image (e.g.: Clan Sinclair) and the text is written if no image (e.g.: Clan Buchan).
• A note that the Infobox does not replace the profile paragraph. The profile section will still be needed for greater detail.
• Other editors need to review the Template's documentation
• Add Highland/borders/lowland/isles entry. , entry called "region", see examples Clan MacAulay and Clan Campbell
• Need to update the code for clans without chiefs. Problem: these clans had chiefs who may need a mention + Arms. Solution: creat code that reads if the "chief" entry is blank or filled, if blank it adds text "no chief", "armagerous clan", and if it the finds an entry for an arms image, can label the shield as "arms of the last known chief". This would also allow extra entries south as "last known chief=", "date last known chief died=" etc... On a sub note, this would stop casual user vandalism, as the "|chiefs name =" can actually be deleted on the clan page if there is no chief (rather than leaving blank), and none regular users will not be aware how to add such an entry. Will work on. done, see template documentation and examples: Clan MacAulay and Clan Buchanan
• origins to be removed

Yours ever, Czar Brodie (talk) 13:01, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Two thoughts on the clan infobox

I definitely think the infobox is a good idea and will give a standardized look to the clan articles. My appreciation to those who have worked on it. I have two suggestions with regard to possible changes for discussion by the "regulars" (or anybody else). The box lists the clan "Slogan." The problem is that I think many readers will not understand the difference between a "motto" and a "slogan." As a strictly technical matter "slogan" is certainly accurate. Innes of Learney's Scots Heraldry says: "'The Slughorn'; Slogan or Cir-de-guerre is confined to the Chief of a clan or house." Similarly, Friar's A Dictionary of Heraldry lists: "Slogan: Also known as slughorn. The battle cry of a chief of a Scottish clan or house." In the U.S., the slogan is most commonly referred to as a war cry, Innes of Learney's cir-de-guerre. "Battle cry" would be another alternative. Would either war cry or battle cry not be less confusing to readers?

Thanks for joining the debate. Your thoughts are very welcome. I have added an entry to the infobox: "war cry=" with a link to battle cry (editors choice on the term, they can use slogan or war cry). My own thoughts is this matter is that the tradition in Scotland was to have the motto above the shield, as many families also have slogans this has generated some confusion. I think the Slogan (heraldry) article is not strictly correct in its depiction of the coat of arms elements (at least for Scotland), as the motto in Scotland should be above in my view. Yours ever, Czar Brodie (talk) 18:17, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

You are 100% correct. Slogan (heraldry) is not accurate as showing the slogan above the shield and the motto below. See Scottish heraldry note 3 and text to which it pertains. I did not use that template in Scottish Heraldry because it is correct for other U.K. arms but not Scottish. I will add a second reference to Scottish Heraldry on the point in light of the conflict between the two articles. I don't know how to change the template itself to correct it though.

Which leads into my curent difficulty. I was under the (mis)impression that when you changed a field on the model(?) prototype(?) template it would automatically change on all other templates that had not been expanded. Obviously, for Clan MacIntyre I would like to use "war cry," but don't yet have that option. When I try to change the field name on the template on the article page, the entry disappears altogether. How do I change this? Thanks again.--Tomaterols (talk) 19:37, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

added war cry to Clan MacIntyre, as to the all other templates, yes this would be a problem, but not insurmountable, should probably be address at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Heraldry and vexillology. Yours ever, Czar Brodie (talk) 20:06, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

I wonder if slogan article should be re-directed an appropriate section on the Scottish heraldry article?--Celtus (talk) 06:35, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

The more substantive concern I have is the heading: "Origins." I think this can open up a real Pandora's box. Flipping through Collins Scottish Clan and Family Encyclopedia it is apparent that there are very few clans that can trace their origins with any certainty. And what is one to do with this statement in Moncreiffe's The Highland Clans entry on Macfie: "On the other hand, there are those who say the Macfies descend from a seal woman [sic]"? In the case of Clan MacIntyre I have changed the origin entry from "unknown" to "Celtic." I base this on the common belief that the clan originated in the Hebrides and the account that the founder was surnamed MacNiall or MacArill. But these stories are undocumented and probably mythical. Moreover the Hebrides were under Scandinavian control for a period of time. So am I right in saying the clan is Celtic? My fear is that the origins field will either have to say "unknown" (accurately)in the great majority of cases or possibly lead to edit wars in other instances. Should it just be dropped? As to difficult problem of sept lists, fortunately, Clan MacIntyre has very few.--Tomaterols (talk) 16:43, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

I imagine most of the west highland clans will be uncertain. At the same time there seem to be about 300 clans. A certain proportion of those will are going to be families considered to have been Norman/Flemish/Breton. Though i can also see how the origins of some clans could lead to problems. So i don't know what should be done. One thing that should be certain would be a 'highland'/'lowland' and possibly 'border' cat within the box.--Celtus (talk) 07:13, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

I fear even 'highland'/'lowland' might sometimes be contentious. In some quarters, describing a clan as 'lowland' is considered a slight, i.e. "it's not a real clan." (Disclaimer: This opinion is definitely not shared by this editor!) Moncreiffe's book The Highland Clans (which some swear by and others swear at) only addresses about 60 clans but this certainly does not mean all the rest are lowland. Does anybody have a reliable source that consistently identifies clans as either 'highland' or 'lowland'?

I think you are correct in thinking the issue is contentious. But I think the problem does not stem from Moncreiffe. The problem in my view is the changing nature of the highland border and that many clans had territory on both sides of this. A good source for highland and border (Middle March, West March) clans would be the 1587, 8 July, Edinburgh, Parliament Register for the quieting and keeping in obedience of the disordered subjects, inhabitants of the borders, highlands and isles. See the list of clans by region at the bottom therto. If any hint that lowland is not clan country, I usualy give the example of Clan MacDuff, Scotlands oldest recognised (by parliament) clan. Yours ever, Czar Brodie (talk) 16:39, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

on an amusing technical note, the clans definition of highland/lowland seems to rely on some arbitrary undefined date, and this without good reason; a true definition should probably be brought up to date, defining the the clans location from the current location of the present chief. Yours ever, Czar Brodie (talk) 12:26, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

How about this idea as a general philosophy? Since the template is just a summary, sort of a quick overview, limit the template fields to those areas that, in 95% or more of the cases are indisputable. Clan chief, war cry, motto, plant badge, pipe music, Gaelic name are all usually well settled. Alything that might give rise to differing views or have to be based on inferences, such as origin and maybe even district and clan seat, are better left to the body of the article. Even with conditional fields people will be tempted to 'pick the best option' when the reality may be more complicated. This may be a case where "less is more." I think there are few subjects which can give rise to more uncertainty and controversy than Scottish clans.--Tomaterols (talk) 15:25, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

That would seem like a good idea. Better to show-off information that our sources are certain of. I wonder if the Gaelic spelling of a surname is relevant to most clans though. It seems almost like it could possibly turn into a lowland/highland culture debate discussed above. Here's the big list of clans: List of Scottish clans.--Celtus (talk) 07:42, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Not sure I agree. I have given the matter some thought, and think that we should not shun away from entries on the principle that they would be contentious. I think many articles on wiki are contentious, and I think it would be bad policy to start avoiding subjects, definitions, or the way something is defined on the principle that somebody might disagree. If one thinks about the number of clans and their mostly obscure checkered early history, I think one could conclude that all the definitions could be subject to contention, from the chief to the crest badge. I do think we should make allowances for this contention where it can be foreseen; such as the guideline direction to use "uncertain" if an origin has several versions; or the entry "seat" coupled with the term "historic seat". The template is being written with what are called ParserFunctions, these can tackle conditions (i.e: if an entry is left blank, the subject will not be displayed), and somewhat reduce conflict by not advertising the contention (i.e. instead of leaving an entry blank, the entry could be deleted and the template would still function.). Having said that, I do not think we should start out in the direction of deleting (or hiding) contentious entries, users should be assisted in contributing, I think we would be in danger of creating a close knit editors club that views all outsiders with suspicion if we created a situation where it was impossible to edit unless one was familiar with templates, parsers etc...I am only suggesting that entries be removed if they are continuously under dubious unreferenced attack. i.e. Clan McExample in generally considered to be armigerous, however the entry "chiefs name=" should be kept, if user:555.123.456 then proceeds to add "chiefs name=John McExample of Edinburgh", this should first be deleted back to "chiefs name=" with cause that no reference was given, and if the edits persist remove "chiefs name=" from the list. In my view the same goes for Gaelic spellings etc. Yours ever, Czar Brodie (talk) 11:22, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

I have to admit I do sometimes sound like I favor avoiding controversy entirely, but that is not really the case. In Clan MacIntyre I have included several notes that go against positions I wish were uncontested and which will probably raise the hackles of some MacIntyres. My real point is not to exclude items that may be controversial, but to limit them to the body of the article where the pros and cons can be set forth in full. Even with the option of omitting a field, I do think people will still be too tempted to put something in, even of dubious certainty, which will then (properly) give rise to a challenge. If Clan MacA has a certain field, Clan MacB will be reluctant to omit it. In a collaborative enterprise like this, I just think if something can be structured in a way that makes it less likely to cause conflicts it should be. The "origins" field is the one that I think most problematic because an honest answer in most cases will be "uncertain." So it will either read uncertain or be omittted (in which case, why have it?) But I can’t say I feel passionately about it. I will say that the discussion on this page strikes me as a model of what consensus is all about. --Tomaterols (talk) 21:16, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

I see your point. I've added a note to delete the origins entry at the summary of adjustments paragraph above. Yours ever, Czar Brodie (talk) 00:41, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Pipe music link in info box

Currently the Pipe music link in the info box goes to the Bagpipes page. Would it be more appropriate for it to go to the Great Highland Bagpipe page ? I know that many of the clans with pipe music are Lowland clans but the Great Highland Bagpipes are used for their pipe music as well. The Bagpipes page covers different types of Bagpipes for several countries. The Great Highland Pipes are what are used in Scotland. QuintusPetillius (talk) 16:03, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Kenny Ramirez I

I apologise for the confusion my name is Kenny Ramirez I thank for your time an an effort !hope to hear from you soon God bless you sencerly clan chief😇🙏 Kenny Ramirez (talk) 05:42, 13 October 2019 (UTC)