Talk:List of pipe bands

Deletion conversation

i do not have a problem with deleting the page. otherwise it will be an external link to every pipe band in the world. and there are websites that already contain world lists.

i do believe that their should be a list of pre eminent pipe bands; that would include the military bands with a history, and the pipes bands that have won national or international competitions.

wouldnt it great if if could include management and musical stategies that allowed bands to achievve celebrity. joe 21:02, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

• Keep page; the information contained within is notable and very useful to those interested in bagpipe bands. The presence of links does not detract from the page's usefulness, it enhances it in that users are able to find more information about each band. Badagnani 03:04, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep page; Articles can be written about all of the important bands here, and the unimportant ones (non-competitive, grade 5, etc...) can be deleted.

I am going to begin writing articles about bands that are important and/or provide enough information on their websites', and deleting bands that have little information and/or are unimportant. I will remove the deletion tag when I start. --Musaabdulrashid 08:12, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

• Keep page; As per Musaabdulrashid's comments, I will also help assist writing articles (time permitting). gummAY 12:56, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Delete - Wikipedia is not a link farm. See the policy on this issue. • Freechild'sup? 18:28, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Introductory Paragraph

As this should not be a list of every pipe band world wide, I have inserted the word "notable" behind world wide. --Musaabdulrashid 08:52, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Criterion has now been furthur adapted, that obviously wasn't enough Musaabdulrashid 03:57, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Notice

• DO NOT add a band unless you are capable of writing a good, original article about it and plan on doing so in a reasonable amount of time--Musaabdulrashid 09:46, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
• never put "the" in front of a band name--Musaabdulrashid 09:46, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
• Sort bands in alphabetical order by country--Musaabdulrashid 09:46, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
• articles on this list must conform to wikipedia guidelines (duh), including: Wikipedia:Vanity, Wikipedia:Notability (music), and all the rest.--Musaabdulrashid 08:35, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

as a general policy, bands on the page that have empty links for more than about a week should be deleted.--Musaabdulrashid 09:46, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Diversification

I think it should be considered the different types of traditional pipe bands, like Galician and Portuguese ones, which differs in their compositions, but indeed traditional pipe bands. Tonyjeff 01:54, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Thats a good idea, but not for this article which has the criterion at the top. List of bagpipers has a section for bands that feature the bagpipes which includes more popular folk bands as well as pop/rock groups that have a piper. Please feel welcome to create articles about traditional style bands then list them on WP:PB. Musaabdulrashid 08:27, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

I think this page should be changed -- if it's going to be about Highland pipe & drum bands, then it should reflect that in the tile ... otherwise this is helping to perpetuate the misconception that "bagpipes" are only "Highland bagpipes" and that the only type of bagpipe bands are Highland bagpipe bands, oh... and that the only type of Highland bagpipe bands are P&D Corps that compete. I'd also strongly recommend that this be kept to only largely recognized bands, and not just competition bands unless the name of the article is also going to reflect this as well, otherwise this list could insanely long and any old rinky-dink band could add their name. Ooh, maybe I should add the ManOnPipes Pipe Band, a little-known band in my area consisting of one piper ... oh, and then there's the rinky-dink get-together galaday band I have with a few friends, I could add that name to, 'cause why not since we have a MySpace profile we must be established ... see my point? ManOnPipes (talk) 19:44, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Other Pipe Bands

Why would you choose to have a list of pipe bands attached to articles about bagpipes and pipe bands, which does not include as many pipe bands as possible? You are choosing to decide which pipe bands are "good enough" to be listed on your list, and that is biased and prejudice. If you feel that this should be a list of certain bands which you feel are prominent enough, you should relable the lish to Musaabdulrashid's list of the best pipe bands in the world that I think are good, not list of pipe bands. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Grim0107 (talk • contribs)

There are actually very clear guidelines on this. I would first direct you to WP:ENC to promote the understanding that wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, nor a collection of external links. WP:LIST also gives more specific guidelines on lists. Basically they all must have a criterion that restricts the contents of the list and does not allow it to become a collection of indiscriminant information or list of external links. Grade I pipe bands are mostly encyclopedic, and some lower grade bands may be relevant, but it is easy to tell what is spam. If you are really concerned that erversions of listings are arbitrary, we could change the criterion to only include grade one and two bands on this list. M i c 02:48, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Appears the "List of Pipe Bands" is degrading (no pun intended-well, maybe intended) from the intended content. Perhaps the article could be retitled to "List of Internationally Recognized Pipe Bands" to further support the list criterion.Srebob 13:12, 21 November 2006 (UTC)srebob

Indeed. I second that, srebob, and I believe this should be an all-around list. BagpipingScotsman 01:31, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Suggested move and solution

I suggest that this article is moved to List of competitive pipe bands and that List of pipe bands is converted to a universal list containing all matters of pipe bands — small to large.

Any other thoughts? Bagpiping Scotsman 21:37, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm a tad conflicted. After a minor "go-around" with regard to City of Rockford Pipe Band, I began to see Musaabdulrashid's logic that the "List of Pipe Bands" should have limited crieria otherwise it would become an out off control list. However, there are three basic levels of Pipe Bands:

Competitive/Internationally Recognized

Competitive/Regionally Recognized

Non-Competitive Bands

At this point, my off hand thought, is that "competitive" may be the key to the list. Still conflicted. Srebob 23:28, 25 November 2006 (UTC)srebob

That is a good point, and I wholeheartedly agree with your catagorization - like my userpage says, I'm a snare drummer for the Weston McEwen Pipe Band, and we are fairly recognized within the area of Oregon and Washington, but we have played in Washington DC on several occasions representing Oregon as well as our trip to Scotland, so I would place us in the middle catagory.

But you have to see my logic the confiction behind the naming here - List of pipe bands does not give any criteria in its name that it is a competitive list, so I still think my previous suggestion would be good, except expanded as: List of competitive pipe bands and List of non-competitive pipe bands. Bagpiping Scotsman 00:13, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

I,obviously, agree with the competitive/non-competive band list designations. However, we may be now faced with a Wikipedia:Notability (music) problem. Competive bands may or may not meet the "notability" criterion (a clouded issue in the limited universe of pipe bands). Non-competive bands, in my understanding, would not. My hope is that more people (editors) would join in this discussion. As, always, conflicted. Srebob 02:20, 1 December 2006 (UTC)srebob

• It appears the List has become "all inclusive," however, the opening paragraph states "list of competitive bands that have gained international recognition at the World Championships (and other "Major" competitions in Scotland), including Grade I and Grade II bands." I don't want to make any changes to the opening paragraph until there is some kind of a consensus on the criteria for a band listing. Srebob 13:08, 28 January 2007 (UTC)srebob
  • HELP!

Top pipe bands ? really ?

At the beginning of the article it is said:

"The following is a list of competitive bands that have gained international recognition at the World Championships (and other "Major" competitions in Scotland), including Grade I and Grade II bands."

seems to me some of the bands recently added do not belong to this category. So can we put any pipe band now in that list ? if yes, the article start should be changed. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by OC (talk • contribs) 14:34, 15 February 2007 (UTC).

• • In answer to "unsigned" - YES! the list has become all inclusive...and YES! you are correct about the opening. Any suggestions? Srebob 23:23, 15 February 2007 (UTC)srebob
    • So, can we start to register "any pipe-bands" ? Will somebody modify the introduction this article ?

--OC 09:38, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

• As you can tell from the previous discussion, it has been my feeling that the list should, at the very least, be limited to Competitive Pipe Bands (with articles) but the list has taken on "a life of its own" and become somewhat of a "link farm." I was hoping for a lot more input before I went into a BOLD mode. I'm going to sit on this for a couple of days because I really don't know what would help other than changing the list title to Every Pipe Band Known and Unknown in the Universe. Srebob 11:09, 19 February 2007 (UTC)srebob

• • Well, either you take a drastic action and remove all the none grade one pipe bands from this article, or you accept any pipe bands and in that case the introductionnary paragraph should be changed. An other way would be to have a special section in this article for the Grade I pipe bands and left the others in the "by country" ordering. --OC 10:04, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Pipe Band List Edits

Since I have have only been able to "scare up" limited input I am going to, as a first step:

• 1. Remove all "Red Links" keeping "blue links."
• 2. Restate opening paragraph.

I would appreciate any thoughts... Srebob 22:08, 24 February 2007 (UTC)srebob

• • There is no mention anymore in the introduction, about "competitive pie-bands" so it looks like any pipe band can be listed there. But, it seems you introduced a new way of selection because you allow only the bands having an entry in Wikipedia. So that's almost the same kind of selection because only the top bands have an article in Wikipedia. For instance I would like to put our band in the list, but I do not think that's worth making an article about our band in Wikipedia. --OC 09:39, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
    • OC, thanks for you input... Srebob 10:16, 26 February 2007 (UTC)srebob
      • You're welcome. But a question still remain: Can I write the name of my Pipe Band in that list ?--OC 12:24, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
        • OC, I became the "primary editor" of the List page by default. I was a pitiful failure in trying to get more editors involved and develop a consensus on what the List should be. The last changes I made were more to "shake the tree" than to independently decide which bands are "worthy" to be listed. You certainly do not need my "permission" to add your band to the list. Personally, I would like to see, as a minimum standard, every band listed have a wikipedia article. If that's the direction you want to go, I'd be glad to help.Srebob 19:13, 26 February 2007 (UTC)srebob

• • A new red link just appeared :-) To be removed I guess ? --OC (talk) 09:27, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Thats right, i just removed it. By the way, when having conversations in the talk space, it is better to use :'s to indent rather than using *'s--Jac16888 (talk) 10:51, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

More bands

With deference to those who know infinitely more about these matters than I do, I would suggest there is a certain inconsistency here surrounding military pipe bands. You allow the Royal Air Force pipe band to be listed, yet there is no mention of the Scottish Highland regiments, which even after amalgamation and defence cuts must still include a piper or two? Or the pipe band of the Scots Guards? Pipers with the Irish regiments of the British Army? (These military professionals must surely count as "grade one and two bands" for this purpose?)

Nations such as Canada and Nepal also retain pipers as part of their military establishment.

86.177.210.96 (talk) 16:47, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Then go BOLD and add them. --Muhandes (talk) 16:56, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

The RAF band doesn't seem to be currently listed. However one difference is that a RAF pipe band (the same one?) is currently participating in the competition scene, but the British Army bands haven't competed for some years. The latter are still notable, but perhaps not appropriate for this list. Lavateraguy (talk) 09:27, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

Defunct Bands

Should the list include notable historical bands such as Red Hackle and Lothian and Borders Police? Lavateraguy (talk) 16:17, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

The list currently includes the defunct Dysart and Dundonald Pipe Band. If defunct bands are to be included, it ought to be as a supplementary list, noted as such, but I think it would be worthwhile to note them here. Mutt Lunker (talk) 22:26, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on List of pipe bands. 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/20141006073805/http://www.pipe-band.com/ to http://www.pipe-band.com/

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) 10:54, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

Australasia merged with US???

Looks like the AU/NZ table has been absorbed into the US table - I'm not quite sure how to fix it so if someone could please do it or teach me how that would be great :) TreeReader (talk) 04:39, 26 June 2020 (UTC)