Talk:Stanford Band

message: I moved the page to reflect the Wikipedia:WikiProject_Marching_Band naming convention. --Rocksanddirt 17:58, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, I have a problem with this.  Although naming conventions are great when you're naming things, they don't give you the power to rename things that already have a name!  No one calls Stanford's 'marching' band "the Stanford University Marching Band."  It's either "the Leland Stanford Junior (pause) University Marching Band" (LSJUMB) or "the Stanford Band."  The title should be changed back. David Cohen 19:57, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Of course, "Stanford University Marching Band" should redirect to this article, and the folks at the marching band wikiproject can include "Stanford University Marching Band" in their list of bands . . . if they value conformity to their naming convention over fidelity to the LSJUMB's actual title. David Cohen 19:57, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed with David Cohen! Samois98 12:38, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Moved name 

message: I believe the story about being banned from Notre Dame is also an urban legend.  What I've been told by someone who's been in the Band for a long time (well before 1991) is that their student newspaper ran an editorial suggesting that we should not be allowed back.  After that, we didn't ask to come back for a while, but we were never actually told by the school not to come.
Also, the part of the article that says that Band members dropping their pants on the field is a regular occurrance is inaccurate.  At rallies, maybe, but not often on the field. SlySi
---
There's enough stuff on the dollies to create a separate Stanford Dollies page.
---
Yeah, yeah, we don't need to debate the legitimacy of The Play *on this page.*
Many years ago, I heard the story that the Stanford Band had been banned (no pun intented) from some airline (TWA?) becuase they had thought it a clever idea to see what would happen if all the band members started on one side of the plane and on a signal ran to the other side.  Can anyone confirm that? Remes 22:47, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Previous notes 

message: What about Sandinista?  I think I even have a copy of it.  --Rocksanddirt 17:49, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Albums and Recordings 

message: "Finally, for the next game they performed an anagram show and spelled out an anagrammed four-letter word ("NCUT")"-is this saying that they actually spelled cunt or just ncut. if they actually spelled cunt it should be clearly stated to avoid confusion.♠♦Д narchistPig♥♣ (talk) 20:55, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe it was intended to be "NEUT" for TUNE, but some, ahem, last minute changes were made.  There may be a source somewhere if it's important. AntiSlice (talk) 06:13, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Anagram 

message: Other college bands like The Pride of Arizona and the Spirit of Troy are listed under their real names. The discussion above didn't really give much insight, so why isn't this one listed correctly? --Kevin W. 15:57, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  I'm slightly confused 

message: The caption for the picture under "Controversial Actions for the Band" appears to be incorrect.  It reads "The LSJUMB (background) mocking the 'V for Victory' finger motion as USC's fight song is played by the Spirit of Troy (foreground)."  It's always been my understanding the the motion is made with a dollar bill between two fingers and is mocking the USC band, as a reaction to the USC band's actions after a LSJUMB field show.  Unfortunately, I'm not sure where this could be sourced.  AntiSlice (talk) 03:26, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Caption Issue 

message: See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Arthur P. Barnes. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:03, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Related AfD 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Stanford Band. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080316222221/http://daily.stanford.edu:80/article/2004/9/22/bandsMormonmockingHalftimeShowLeadsToApologiesSanctions to http://daily.stanford.edu/article/2004/9/22/bandsMormonmockingHalftimeShowLeadsToApologiesSanctions
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080312102001/http://www.sfgate.com:80/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2007/03/12/state/n162422D27.DTL to http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2007/03/12/state/n162422D27.DTL
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 10:59, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: I do not believe this means the organization is defunct. It appears the direction is to re-organize the band. It is not obvious what form this will take. Until that time it is not helpful to add an end date. Group29 (talk) 19:42, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  2016-2017 Suspension 

message: Good evening,
I have concerns about the potentially unencyclopedic nature of the review of this band's history, specifically that there are not consistent sources cited for many of the stunts and other events throughout their history, and that there appears to be a bit of an issue with a certain entry in "History", which I will detail below.
Reviewed the edit history in the new interactive browser feature, I found some interesting things occurring with edits to "History".
To begin with, let's walk through the various edits that illustrate the issue. 
Edit 1 by User:2601:647:5801:28D0:F489:8133:848D:F75
Edit 2, 3, and 4 by User:2601:647:5801:28D0:55A7:3D6B:2AA7:C0A7
Edit 5 by User:128.12.122.78
Edit 6 by User:23.124.105.233
Edit 7 by [User:2601:647:5801:28d0:f18b:efb3:7a1d:73c8]]
It appears edit 1 introduced information about allegations surrounding the band's recent misconduct. An edit by User:Metric reverted this, but User:2601:647:5801:28d0:f18b:efb3:7a1d:73c8 added citation and re-upped. 
Edit 2-4, all by User:2601:647:5801:28d0:55a7:3d6b:2aa7:c0a7 introduced edits to this portion, elaborating on the previously provided information. 
Edit 5 appears to redact the name of an individual "the manager of the band". The edit was performed from the Stanford University campus.
Edit 6 appears to not only reinsert but also elaborate on this issue that edit 5 redacted the name of the individual in question.
Edit 7 then reinserts a name here.
Due to the pattern of information added in edits 1-4 and 7, as well as an identical IPv6 address site prefix for all three editors, I would guess the editor of edits 1-4 and 7 to be the same individual.
Because Edit 5 was performed from the Stanford University campus, I can only assume the individual responsible to be a part of the University and probably related to the band.
Edit 6 might be from the same editor as 1-4 and 7, but this is unclear. All IP addresses resolve to the Stanford area. 
At large, it seems as though the name of the "former band manager" is something that the editors of 1-4, 6, and 7 want to include, and 5 wants to remove. From my perspective, it is not clear whether this individual should be mentioned here. My intuition is that, given that this person seems to be a current or former student who is not significant to the band intrinsically for any reason other than that they are cited in the linked Stanford Daily article, the edit made in 5 should stand. 
Furthermore, the sensitive nature of the details mentioned surrounding this person's experience should not be included as it does not seem to relate to the Stanford Band.
It is clear that whoever the editor of 1-4, 7, and possibly 6 may be is someone who, for some reason, wants to include this name. While the whole article has its share of unencyclopedic points, the inclusion of this name seems to be one of the most egregious, and apparently controversial as the edit history will show.
I have edited the article to redact the name of this individual, as I believe that it should not be included for reasons mentioned above.
If the editor of 1-4, 6, or 7 would like to justify the inclusion of this individual's name, please do so here before attempting to add their name again.
Cormorant001 (talk) 01:41, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unencyclopedic nature of this article, incl. reporting on recent events