Talk:Bagpipes

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Bagpipes article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1, 2, 3: 100 days

This article is written in Scottish English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, realise, travelled) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.

Musical Instruments Top‑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
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

Portugal Mid‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Portugal, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Portugal 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.PortugalWikipedia:WikiProject PortugalTemplate:WikiProject PortugalPortugal articles

Mid

This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Portugal To-do:

Find correct name The airport is not listed as João Paulo II anywhere. The airport's own website calls itself simply Ponta Delgada, and has no mention of João Paulo.

Improve key articles to Good article

Improve

Review

Category:History of Portugal: lots to remove there
Template:Regions of Portugal: statistical (NUTS3) subregions and intercommunal entities are confused; they are not the same in all regions, and should be sublisted separately in each region: intermunicipal entities are sometimes larger and split by subregions (e.g. the Metropolitan Area of Lisbon has two subregions), some intercommunal entities are containing only parts of subregions. All subregions should be listed explicitly and not assume they are only intermunicipal entities (which accessorily are not statistic subdivisions but real administrative entities, so they should be listed below, probably using a smaller font: we can safely eliminate the subgrouping by type of intermunicipal entity from this box).

Requests

See Requested articles

Assess

Help assessing articles.

Need images

Translate from Portuguese Wikipedia

Wikify

Vote:

Watch this list — Edit this list

Scotland Mid‑importance

	Scotland portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Scotland, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Scotland and Scotland-related topics 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.ScotlandWikipedia:WikiProject ScotlandTemplate:WikiProject ScotlandScotland articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Europe Low‑importance

	Europe portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Europe, an effort to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to European topics of a cross-border nature on Wikipedia.EuropeWikipedia:WikiProject EuropeTemplate:WikiProject EuropeEurope articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Archives

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

This page has archives. Sections older than 100 days may be automatically archived by when more than 4 sections are present.

Roman dispute

I dispute "evidence for pre-Roman era bagpipes is still uncertain" -- I argue that evidence for pre-13th Century evidence is uncertain

The way it's phrased currently implies that evidence for Roman and post-Roman bagpipes may be certain. My understanding is that there is no absolutely ironclad evidence for bagpipes is in the Cantigas, from 13th century Spain. I would like to modify the article to be more explicit that even Roman pipes are still a contested issue. Any objections? MatthewVanitas (talk) 19:43, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Contrarily, I have read in more than one place (in the 1980s to 1990s, in books I no longer have) that the bagpipe, originally of Middle Eastern origin, was spread throughout Europe by the Roman army. There's clearly more than one hypothesis, and we need to account for them, with sources. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 21:08, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

wicklow pipes=

no mention of this - whuich wer enmost liekly bagpuipes from 2000bc:

Bernice Molly at Greystones, Co. Wicklow. It consists of six carefully worked wooden pipe — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.56.110.121 (talk) 10:13, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's an excellent lead, thank you! However, this research paper is very very careful to say that there is no indication what sort of instrument these pipes were part of . https://www.ancientmusicireland.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/11/Holmes_Molloy_paper_Wicklow_Pipes.pdf unless we have a source that definitively says they were 'most likely' bagpipes, we can't include it in this article. JeffUK 10:21, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What notes can it play?

It would be good if the article gave the notes that a bagpipe can play. I've seen sources that say that it goes from the G above Middle C to the A an octave higher, in Dorian Mode. I don't have a good reference. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 04:21, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about a fairly disparate family of instruments, thus with a variety of ranges and notes available, dealt with in the specific articles. You're referring to the nominal range of the Great Highland Bagpipe, though they tend to be about 3/4s of tone sharp relative to concert pitch. Mutt Lunker (talk) 09:10, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, and that is Mixolydian, not Dorian (as I thought). Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 01:42, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

My daughter plays chanter (I assume of this type) and she said that it can't play Happy Birthday to You in any key. But it looks it can play it in A. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 01:53, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Merge from Gaida

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

To merge Gaida into Bagpipes to provide international context, while maintaining separate pages for specific regional gaidas. Klbrain (talk) 09:00, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Gaida seems to be just a word for bagpipes used in several European languages. I can't find anything to show this term is differentiated by scholars (what makes gaidas different from bagpipes except region of origin?). In other words, gaida seems to be a WP:POVFORK of dubious stand-alone WP:GNG. A merge and redirect seems warranted. PS. While arguably different typs of bagpipes, culturally connected to different regions, warrant subarticles (Kaba gaida, or Great Highland bagpipe), I can't find any sources that say that "gaidas" are a specific subtype of bagpipes. It's just just a word for "bagpipe" used in the Balkan region. PS. This merge proposal is inspired by the followng discussion on pl wiki, where several users expressed the sentiment I summarized above: pl:Wikipedia:Poczekalnia/artykuły/2022:07:14:Gajda_(instrument_muzyczny). _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:00, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm uncertain about this. Greek WP has two separate articles for bagpipe and gaida (Άσκαυλος, Γκάιντα), as does Bulgarian (Волинка, Гайда), implying that these are considered two separate concepts in (at least those two) cultures where the gaida exists. Doremo (talk) 12:16, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support, Gaida does not meet the General notability guideline as it has very few reliable secondary sources, if any at all Quinnerwinner12 (talk) 12:47, 26 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Merger complete. Klbrain (talk) 09:00, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]