Glossaries (inactive)
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Glossaries, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.GlossariesWikipedia:WikiProject GlossariesTemplate:WikiProject GlossariesGlossaries

Template:WikiProject PipeBand

Musical Instruments List‑class Low‑importance

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 List This article has been rated as List-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

archive1 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Calum (talk • contribs) 19:31, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Some of the terms here are general musical terms as opposed to strictly piping terms. I suggest they be filtered out, but I'd like second opinions.

BagpipingScotsman 00:54, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. This article should contain specifically piping-related terms. Maybe that would help reduce the length of the article... MatthewLiberal 02:36, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

According to Wikipedia standards, "Wikipedia articles should not list FAQs. Instead, format the information provided as neutral prose within the appropriate article(s)." ^[1] Thus, I think the FAQ of this article should be worked into the text. MatthewLiberal 02:42, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Removed transwiki tag as it could probably do with being retranswikied...hope this is the right thing to do?!Calum (talk) 23:29, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

 --CopyToWiktionaryBot 14:17, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I added two templates to this article. I've reviewed the talk page, and some other things were discussed (the FAQ, entries which don't explain the headword), but I wanted to call attention to two specific problems with this article.

1. This is a definition list. Thus, it should be formatted according to the Wikipedia style guide on definition lists. There are also those "Top of Page" and "External Links" links at the end of every letter, which are useless and don't conform to the style. There are lots of glossaries on Wikipedia to look to for examples. (The chess glossary is particularly nice.)
2. There are some run-on sentences, namely in the introductory section, and the style and capitalization of the definitions themselves are inconsistent. Also, there are headwords without definitions. If you'd like to keep these last ones on the page because you intend ultimately to define them (with references, right??), then put them in an HTML comment.

-Nkocharh (talk) 18:40, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've fixed most of #1 above so I've removed the template. -Nkocharh (talk) 20:02, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to try and do some work on this article, for factual, copyedit, and scoping issues. My general thought is that this glossary should contain any term one might encounter in an article that wouldn't deserve an article of it's own. I'd be the first to admit my worldview is GHB centric, but hopefully we can get this article tightened up and focused a bit. Calum (talk) 19:26, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And my first pass is done. It really is focused on GHB and Uilleann piping, I'm afraid. However, it is an improvement, so I have taken the liberty of hoiking out the copyedit tag. Calum (talk) 23:27, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]