Talk:Drum and bugle corps (modern)

message: I think this article has become too detailed and too biased toward certain portions of the activity.  Much of the content is directly related to DCI and belongs elsewhere (the DCI article, DrumCorpsWiki, etc.), IMO.  I've begun removing content and editing text for clarity, and I hope that (over time) this article will present of a broad overview of drum and bugle corps.  Jaymendoza (talk) 06:12, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article scope 

message: The "Drum and Bugle Corps (modern)" article is full of style and grammar errors. From a "manual of style" point of view, it's pretty poorly written. There's a specific way to flag the article with an indication that it needs to be edited for grammar, style, etc, but I don't know how to do that. So I start by flagging it here. If anyone knows the tag that will create the standard Wikipedia "needs editing" box, please add it. I will make corrections to the poor grammar as time permits, and I encourage others to do likewise. In your spare time, when you're not arguing with vandals and reverting their vandalism, of course.
:I must agree. It is an embarrassingly bad article. The writing is so poor that at times it is truly difficult to understand. Gingermint (talk) 21:48, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree as well. I will go ahead and tag the article to indicate its need for editing. I also think the article could benefit from a discussion on what exactly belongs here. Much of the content seems to be fairly trivial and too detailed (e.g. references to specific drill moves, which I have recently removed). Jaymendoza (talk) 01:17, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Style, Grammar, Spelling

message: Some more specifics on the instrumentation (how many of what instruments... or does that matter? Are all the instruments in G written transposed or are they written in C, such as the Bb Tuba etc.) is in order. We could certainly learn more about the percussion and maybe see an example of a score. Gingermint (talk) 21:48, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Instrumentation

message: This expanded DCI article is my solution to the clash between "classic" and "modern" drum corps that has reared its ugly head.  As I explained in the Talk:Drum and bugle corps discussion, I intend on using this article for information about "modern" drum corps, rather than creating "Drum and bugle corps (modern)" and "Drum and bugle corps (classic)" articles.  Hopefully this will appease the drum corps "purists" who think DCI isn't really drum corps. The purists can keep the Drum and bugle corps article, as long as prominent links to the DCI and DCA articles remain at the top.  
And hopefully no one thinks that DCI really needs an article expressly for DCI itself without any info about the corps and activity it governs.  Trying to separate them is fruitless, in my opinion.
Lazytiger 02:30, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: split

message: The discussion page on the Drum and bugle corps article is getting pretty long, so I figured I'd post to this discussion instead.
I was wondering what the big differences (if any) are between DCI and the other associations around the world.  I think I might be trying to cover too much ground with the DCI article, but the one nice thing about it is that the activity and the rules and particularities of DCI can be discussed all in one place.  I assume that the Drum and bugle corps (modern) article will be based on the DCI article, so what generalities or differentiations will have to be made in order to cover drum corps around the world?
Also, one of the reasons I was against the (modern) and (classic) articles is simply because I don't like parenthetical words in titles.  Are there any other wordings we could use to avoid the parentheses?  "Modern drum and bugle corps"?  Eh... I don't really like that either.  I don't know... I guess the parentheses really aren't that big of a deal, but does anyone have any other ideas for the sake of argument?
Lazytiger 23:20, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reorganization of articles 

message: Catherine, no matter how much you despise DCI and think that it's not drum corps, DCI is never EVER going to NOT be called drum corps.  This is a reality that you're just going to have to deal with.  Most immediately, you're going to have to deal with the fact that there are two very different activities competing for the same Wikipedia article title.  No matter how strongly you and I feel about our respective positions, neither of us exclusive rights to take over the drum and bugle corps article and discuss one version of drum corps.
Therefore, I don't see how there's any proper solution other than an equal disambiguation page pointing to a classic drum corps article and a modern drum corps article.  As soon as that plan is enacted, I'll edit the modern page and you can edit the classic page if you wish.  I won't touch the classic page and I would advise you not to touch the modern page.
Lazytiger 19:14, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Boo hoo. 

message: I have now disambiguated the articles. I deliberately chose the parentheticals following the Wikipedia guide for "what to do in this sort of case", so it should work okay.
Catherine, your insinuation of fraud is potentially libelous. You might want to reconsider its continued presence on these pages.
Please see my comments here for a longer discussion.
MattJ 17:30, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Disambiguation 

message: Right now, the DCI and DCA articles are just redirects to the modern article.  I think that they should have their own articles, based on the text that is now under the "circuits" section.  We should try not to make this article too long, and I think it's already pushing the limit while some sections aren't even fleshed out yet.
Also, under the DCI section it says that DCI is the original organization on which all others are based.  While it might be the organization on which others are based, it's not the original—DCA has been around longer than DCI.  I imagine that the general lack of mention of DCA in the article (DCI alone seems to be used in lieu of mentioning both) along with that incorrect piece of history won't sit well with DCA people when this article comes to their attention.
Also, it would be nice to have a picture or two!  Does anyone know how the rights work for that?  Do you need the permission of the corps, the circuit, the photographer (if taken by a professional)?
Lazytiger 14:28, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  more about reorganization 

message: Your contributions for the visual section look fine to me.  Besides, this is the Wikipedia!  Every article is always under revision!  ;)  Just go ahead and post whatever content you have, and if there's something wrong with it or if it needs tweaking, it will be done.  There's no need to submit it to the discussion page first.
Besides, despite the controversies that have come up, this isn't a particularly high-traffic page, at least in terms of editing (and I assume viewing as well).  So don't be bashful about committing changes.  Let's have 'em!  This is the essence of Wikipedia!
Lazytiger 23:37, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  looks good to me 

message: Catherine,
Your first sentence doesn't make sense -- to me anyway. Accusing anyone of fraud without extremely solid evidence is potentially libellous, that's where I stand on that; end of story. Your position with regards to DCI or DCA and their methods of operation stands separately.
As far as attacking classic drum and bugle corps as "outdated", "stuck in the past" and "dead" -- nowhere have I done this. Although personally I find it unlikely that there will be a groundswell of support to renew interest in AL/VFW-based classic drum corps to the extent you foresee, I would be more than happy to see more "classic-style" corps again. They are, after all, an important part of the history and formation of modern drum corps.
Ownership of the term... well, both types of marching unit are "drum and bugle corps", like it or not. You aren't going to change that. Business interest? Catherine, you *marched* in DCI corps in the 70's. Are you seriously trying to tell me that all the staff on the several corps you marched with were in it for money, and not for either making music or giving young people a "life experience"? I disagree with your opinion, but I respect your right to hold it.
RAMD doesn't like you much. I can't say I read it particularly regularly; I didn't know that the Wikipedia article had been announced there. So, "no doubt" I know absolutely nothing about that. Rather than spend my time reading newsgroups I spend time being in contact with people in the activity and seeing what active marching units are doing -- and supporting them, rather than doing them down at every possible opportunity!
Best wishes,
MattJ 09:54, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  In response 

message: I did some editing on the competitions section; I think it reads better now.  But I'm still a little fuzzy on how the "minimum performance and lot" system works... MattJ, would you like to expand on that a bit?  Thanks.
Lazytiger 14:50, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  competitions section 

message: Well, I'm not sure *how* to expand it more than what's already there!
In more detail: Once the unit registration deadline has passed for the season, a number of units are randomly chosen to perform at the first two shows by the circuit organizer; the unit is therefore obliged to attend and perform at their allotted show, plus Finals at the end of the season. After the show allocated by lot as above, units must then perform in at least 'n' shows (often 3 or 4) within the season in addition to Finals (where the unit themselves chooses which shows to perform in).
MattJ 13:41, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Minimum Performance and Lot 

message: Anyone who wants to help over at DrumCorpsWiki, your contributions there would be most appreciated.  It's a Wiki entirely for drum corps which can allow much greater detail...  spread the word...
Harlan Landes 17:59, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  DrumCorpsWiki 

message: Last night, an unregistered user (IP 63.193.245.244) added a couple paragraphs talking (giving a sales pitch, really) about the Blue Devils.  Now, I love BD as much as the next guy, but I really think we ought to shy away from such talk about specific corps in this article.  If this person wants to talk so much about BD, he or she is more than welcome to start a separate article for BD.  However, I think the Drum Corps Wiki has that covered.  Regardless, I don't think that this information belongs here.  I was not a fan of the information about Star being in there either, but now it's really going in the wrong direction.
I just wanted to see if anyone else has an opinion about this before I deleted those sections out of the article.
Lazytiger 14:34, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Content about specific corps? 

message: Regarding what some might call "vandalism" of the pages on April 17,
Catherine Burr appears to have once again returned to lend her extremely conservative views regarding the Drum and Bugle Corps activities to our work here. I'd like to remind Catherine that she is, of course, free to lend her opinions as long as she does so in a manner that fits a neutral point of view (Catherine, feel free to see Wikipedia:Neutral point of view for more on this). Until then, I will continue to be reverting pretty much everything Catherine attempts to lend to these pages, as most of it is bias bordering on reactionary. 
As to Catherine directly: welcome back! Things are much more lively with you here. Do you work for Ameritech, or what? All your IP edits have been from "Ameritech Electronic Commerce". --Mr Bound 00:56, Apr 18, 2005 (UTC)
* Is this the same "Catherine" from RAMD? Kurt Weber 02:23, 5 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Catherine's "triumphant" return (copied from [[Talk:Drum and bugle corps (classic)]])

message: Just out of curiosity, why are there two different drum corps articles?  IMO it's kind of odd to have drum corps history suddenly stop in one and restart in another, and my instinct would be to merge them together, but I'm sure there's a reason for the seperation.  --Frontierbrass 23:22, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Two articles? 

message: To translate the above paragraph:
*There continues to be a long and tiring debate (those of us who have marched for decades know better than our younger critics just how tiring it is) between the proponents of the DCI and DCA corporate-marching-band corruption of what they continue to erroneously term "drum & bugle corps" and those of us who insist that our unique and special, fraternal and militarily-based genre, like any other unique and special genre, has never and will never change.  Not on the merits anyway.
Drum & bugle corps were *never* under the governance of the American Legion and VFW - not even those drum & bugle corps which were organized by and completely held at American Legion and VFW posts.  A corps was its own organization, and chose to compete OR NOT at contests sponsored and/or judged by the American Legion and/or VFW - OR NOT.
As for my not being personally attacked by those people who continue to mischaracterize my posts and what they describe, that's just very familiar par for the course.  
As for me being a "conservative" drum corps commentator, that's also revealing.  Most people I know don't think me conservative enough.  And I agree that I haven't been so, in the past.  But I keep getting better, as the corruption keeps getting worse.
Let's take an example, of "traditional" and "modern" jazz.  One can be an aficionado of one and not the other, and vice versa.  One can talk about one without talking about the other.  "Modern" jazz proponents must speak of their "roots", but they don't devalue and claim that "traditional" jazz is dying - at least these days, no one who's neutral.  In fact, there are all sorts of societies dedicated to various forms of "traditional" jazz.  So why is it, if drum & bugle corps is actually worth anything at all, that the "traditionalists" are labelled conservative, and must be saddled with the "modernists"?  That is, if the things I allege aren't the case.  Even more, what it "modern" jazz types asserted that "traditional" jazz fans and performers were dying and/or dead - even though there are plenty of traditionalists out there?
That some people get confused, intentionally or otherwise, is par for the course - and more of the costs of DCI and/or those who keep promoting "modern" band, er... "drum corps".
-- Catherine
***Since I haven't been getting e-mailed from unknown screen names concerning this article lately, I thought it was time to do a periodic check-in.  I had written some more directed responses to all the personal attacks in this, but decided it's really not worth it.  What's even more amusing <not really> to see is that since I didn't respond in person, someone actually brought me into this discussion - just because they apparently can't promote their own DCI/DCA "product" on its own merits (whatever they are).  The very fact of preferring to create an "enemy" (let's see - I've gone from insane, to crazy, to vengeful, and now I'm simply a "conservative" - all terms from DCI/DCA proponents) to attack, in addition to stealing the (marketing brand/)term drum & bugle corps from a past, present and future the "moderns" dishonor, should be enough "proof" to any "neutral" observer.  As for us "purists" being "appeased"... IT HAS NEVER HAPPENED AND IT NEVER WILL. -- Catherine***
*All you need to know is, Wikipedia is not a soapbox.  If you can't figure that out, your vandalism of this page will continue to be reverted to something that's actually factual and neutral.--Frontierbrass 08:13, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  In My Own Words (for a change) 

message: Does anyone else feel that the article is getting too long?  Every time the page is edited, Wikipedia gives a soft warning that the article should be shorter.  Perhaps we could first try to eliminate some overlap between the drum corps-related articles.  Then if it's still too long (which I'm guessing it will be), we could break the article into a few separate articles, i.e., one for history (which is what I wish we could unreservedly use the "classic" article for, but I don't want to fight that fight), one for instrumentation (we effectively have one already for marching percussion), etc.  Some sections could use some straight-up editorial reduction (a good opportunity to get rid of a lot of unneeded corps-specific references).
Anyway, I don't want to do anything radical without getting some feedback.
Lazytiger 01:49, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I actually think this is a great idea!  I don't understand how one person could've influence such a large split.  We should merge the articles again, and if we get any opposition, we'll have a vote and see if it should be split or not. -- SmthManly / ManlyTalk / ManlyContribs 23:46, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, there are ways of dealing with vandals on Wikipedia; however, they're not particularly effective.  Ms. Burr has chimed in both as herself (User:Catherineburr) and anonymously.  If she causes trouble, we can petition to have her user banned, but that doesn't stop her from submitting anonymously. You can also ban IPs, but that's not 100% effective and might ban unintended people.  The other option is that the article(s) could be locked by a Wikipedia administrator, but they only do that for very high-profile, oft-defaced articles, which we probably won't qualify for.  The bottom line is, if we want to do this reorganization, we're just going to have to be prepared to deal with her.  Potentially over and over again.  I guess really that's no different than it is now.—Lazytiger 14:08, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm a sysop; but I think that if I were to block her or protect to article to keep her from expressing her views would be against policy, especially since I'm now involved (it would have to be a third party sysop).  We could always take it up with the arbcomm. -- SmthManly / ManlyTalk / ManlyContribs 01:01, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Well, we can't really change the entire article format to conform to her point of view simply because she wants to yell and scream and gripe about it.  What we have to put in the article is what is agreed upon by the parties in question in a neutral matter, this means that if modern drum corps is an evolution of classic corps, and the parties in charge agree on this, then that's what should go in the article.  People may hate the Bush, but that doesn't mean his article is full of conspiracy theories and flaming towards him, it's all written in a positive light that people agree on, with sections dedicated to views by the opposition.  If most people involved with drum corps, whether modern or classic, agree that they're basically one and the same and that the older form is a classical form still practiced today and the younger form is a evolution of this older form, then that's what the the article should say, under one topic.  It shouldn't be divided into two each one claiming to be the "true form".  This isn't a civil war!  Despite this, she does still have the right to have her views included in a neutral manner, contrasting what's written as the norm... most likely under a "criticisms" section.  This is because she is a minority point of view, and not the point of view taken by those in charge and those who participate in drum corps (whether classic or modern).  Even if she doesn't agree, it's still the way it has to be written!  Her views, which as you say, are minority, can't affect the entire topic just because she believes that's what should be said and nothing else.  If she becomes a problem, you could always take the road to arbitration, which includes several options to resolve disputes, with the arbcom being the last resort.  These are the steps that should be taken.  As long as the views of DCI and classic corps are almost universally agreed upon as being the same activity in different stages, then that is what has to go in the article.  After all, some people in Venezuela find Chavez's government illegal, but that doesn't mean that the Venezuela article has to agree with them entirely. -- SmthManly / ManlyTalk / ManlyContribs 18:32, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. I'm not trying to suppress her point of view, it's just that she has made it clear that she has no desire to write a neutral article about her views. She simply hates "modern" drum corps so much all she wants to do is defame it. I have reworked the modern article a little, including a tidbit about how Ms. Burr feels (under History), and tried to make it fitting of being the one and only drum corps article, which should also serve as a segue into the History of... article. The only section that needs some more fleshing out I think is about the color guard.  Other than that, I think it's ready for some serious peer review.—Lazytiger 19:57, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  article getting too long 

message: I actually have two comments on the article if it is to be rewritten.  The article right now needs more images.  The current image is actually in questionable copyright status since no public domain source is given, and the public domain tag is expired and needs to be replaced.  Each section of the article should contan image of some sort (thought this isn't a requirement) showing the subject of the section (such as a guard image under colorguard), but we definately need more than one!  My second comment is with the new introduction, it's too long and explains too much.  You want to introduction to give a small summary of the article and let the reader continue to read about the subject. -- SmthManly / ManlyTalk / ManlyContribs 21:16, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I like it.  I'm trying to get some of the knowledgeable folks from DCP to come over and offer their assistance, so hopefully we'll get even more good stuff in here.  Oh, and BC, I hope the Kilties are treating you well ;-)--Frontierbrass 17:01, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've rewritten the intro, what do you think?  Tell me if it's missing anything.  As for images, we could always find persons with amateur images and post them on there, or we could ask some corps for permission. -- SmthManly / ManlyTalk / ManlyContribs 22:04, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've been piddling around with the article today, cleaning up a few bits and pieces that seemed ambiguous, misleading, or poorly-worded.  It's probably annoyed the heck out of some of you more experienced wikipedians, eh?  In any case, I just want to make sure that people remember that when we're talking about "modern drum & bugle corps," it's not just the corps at the top level of DCI, which is the feeling I got occasionally, especially from the sentences (which I edited) about the differences between band and corps.  For instance, talking about how much greater the instructors are in drum corps is inaccurate, considering that A) most of those people also work with bands and B) not every corps is a DCI Division 1 finalist.  We need to remember that we're also talking about Divisions II and III, DCA corps, and corps from outside North America. Orpheus73 19:29, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, the bulk of this article was written mostly by tons of random users adding little bits here and there, not two or three major users as this talkpage would have you believe.  Hence the reason why the article has all of those faults you've noted.  Some of the more experienced users here have attempted to uniform it in the past, but really, it seems that none of us are as enthusiastic about editing articles in bulk as we once were, for example, I mostly do "janitoral work" just fixing small errors, changing wording, deleting vandalism and unsourced nonesense to many, many articles including this one.  Once upon a time though, I used to rewrite entire sections and get articles featured (basically I mostly spent my time doing what you have just done to this article here), but I don't do that anymore because Wikipedia has become more of a hobby for me, not an activity as it once was for me a year ago.  I have recently, however, been meaning to get together with the other regular editors to this article to clean it up some, but I just haven't had the time to organize something like that, and as you can see from this talkpage, it has been tried before and failed.  Either way, the edits you've done to this article are great, hence the reason why I encouraged you to register and welcomed you, and I'm sure the other active editors in this article will all do the same.  So don't worry about any of us getting annoyed with your changes and continue to fix and uniform this and other articles I saw you edit because they really need the attention! -- SmthManly / ManlyTalk / ManlyContribs 20:57, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks.  Orpheus73 23:37, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Okay, using Creative Commons search to find images we can use... (Sbutler (talk) 18:21, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Comments on rewrite 

message: I am getting a little concerned, as have others above, about the 'mammothness' of this article. I always look in the multi-volume encyclopaedias to find what they say about DC. The 50th anniversary edition of the World Book had quite a good article. But these articles are a couple of column inches, with a picture if you're lucky. I believe it is possible to have sub-pages coming off this article which are linked to from within the article itself. Keeping the main article simple and adding more information in sub-articles, without getting too complex and replacing drumcorpswiki with a tidy corner of Wikipedia's servers, would help to get across the message. The message is that DC is something, and this is what it is; "it's not just a band, and please appreciate this art form - thank you," or something like that. All while remaining encyclopaedic. So far it's more fanatic. Maybe we're all trying to make up for those omitted definitions in countless encyclopaedias. What do you think?
(Sbutler (talk) 17:56, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mammothness 

message: Is there a reason the link to DrumCorpsWiki: has been removed? I can understand if it's policy to not explicity link to other wiki projects. I am just curious. --Ambassadorhorn 00:11, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Drum Corps Wiki 

message: I reworked the intro earlier today, and I just touched on the history section. That still needs a lot more work. I have the two volumes of A History of Drum & Bugle Corps, which seems like the best possible place for info. I don't know if Catherine considers Drum Corps World to be a shill for DCI, but hopefully not. (I'm sure she does now, even if she didn't before reading this sentence.) I know people that have been in the activity for decades, so I'll talk to them as well. Short of being 20 years older and having been there myself, I'm not sure how else I can make this article any more truthful or insightful. Then ...shudder... I might move on to getting the classic article ready to move to History of drum and bugle corps.—Lazytiger 18:28, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I had hoped you'd be successful in merging the two articles. To keep them separate is misleading and factually wrong.  The "Classic" drum corps circuit is hardly a reality these days anyway. --Eddylyons (talk) 18:27, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  History, merging, etc. 

message: I'm wondering if I could gather some colaborators to create a new soprano/instrument page for an accurate link?  Just let me know.
--C.lettinga 19:40, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  An accurate page on soprano horns 

message: The description of the current divisions is a little vague.  The way the Descriptions for both World and Open class read, the essentially mean the same thing.  Are they? --Eddylyons (talk) 19:40, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Season - Divisions 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Drum and bugle corps (modern). 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/20060109014211/http://www.drumcorps-germany.de:80/ to http://www.drumcorps-germany.de/
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070504090022/http://www.drumcorpsmusic.org:80/ to http://www.DrumCorpsMusic.org/
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110423113844/http://www.corpsconnect.com:80/ to http://www.CorpsConnect.com/
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070820162739/http://www.marchingtvchannel.com:80/ to http://www.MarchingTVChannel.com
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:41, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Drum and bugle corps (modern). 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/20070928142553/http://members.fortunecity.co.uk/dlcapi/ to http://members.fortunecity.co.uk/dlcapi/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:17, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: The term "junior" is used in the article with no explanation other than "(DCI)" placed once parenthetically after it.  This should be explicitly defined.  Thanks, NapoliRoma (talk) 15:19, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Junior" ?