Talk:List of Eminent Pipers of all Ages

Title[edit]

The title is strange. Might "notable" substitute for "eminent" and can the title be capitalized as normal for Wikipedia (first word of title capitalized only, except in the case of proper nouns)? Also, I think "ages" means "time periods" but it could cause confusion as meaning all "age groups." I don't think the time periods need to be stated in the title, in any case. Badagnani 03:15, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm. There already is a List of bagpipers, which I assume is not restricted to the living. Given Wikipedia policies, I don't see why this article and that aren't exactly the same thing. Therefore my feeling is that this article should just quietly go away (ie redirect to the other one, as that is already a reasonable list). Calum 17:46, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

the use of notable rather than eminent is fine. maybe better. i would rather see the list of pipers be eliminated and replaced with pipers who are notables or have great achievements. i know some of the pipers in the list of pipers. althought they are fine people, i question whether they should be immortalized in an encylopedia. at least not in this stage of their careers.

joe 02:57, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I beleive our piping history is replete with many great pipers of antiquity. I believe the encylopedia would do great service to the literature and history of piping to begin capturing and immortalizing their achievments. joe 03:01, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am in favor of merging the article and deleting names of non-notable pipers.--Musaabdulrashid 07:01, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]