Talk:Fightin' Texas Aggie Band/Archive03

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

NOTE: This archive is not strictly-chronological. This archive was done by taking individual older sections where discussion seemed to have ended. Sections where discussion was still ongoing were left on the main Talk page. Johntex\talk 15:49, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Computer Simulation

I took the bit about computer simulation out of the lead -- something like that is pretty specific and should be verifiable somewhere. Who did the simulation? Something... ThreeE 03:40, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Please read the last sentence in the first paragraph. This is also the lead, so specifics should be avoided and expanded upon later in the article. — BQZip01 — talk 03:47, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
I watched the video "reference." It says "a computer will tell you the same thing..." This is not a reference. You could say something like, "the aggies say a computer says this is impossible," but the original words are certainly not appropriate. I am reverting. ThreeE 03:51, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
I read your referenced sentence too. The video doesn't reference "computer programs used to design marching shows" at all. ThreeE 03:55, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
A video is certainly an appropriate reference. The fact must be verifiable, not put beyond all reasonable doubt and satisfies everyone with an academic reference that is completely above reproach. This was brought up in the FA review and reasonably addressed. Accordingly, I am changing it back. Please do not violate the three revert rule. I kindly asked you to discuss this on the talk page first before reverting, but you have went ahead and made changes without any discussion. I am trying to assume good faith here, but you are really pushing a little too hard here. — BQZip01 — talk 04:04, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
Whatever. It's not a reference -- it's an aggie promo video that doesn't even say what you claim it says. It is no different than saying "because I said so." ThreeE 04:09, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
If it is "whatever" then why are you bothering having a discussion at all? The video states "...a computer will tell you the same thing..." that the drill is "impossible." This in conjunction with the added reference that the band uses marching computer programs to design their drills, is the basis for this claim. As such, it is verifiable. — BQZip01 — talk 04:12, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
I think it is appropriate to add the fact that marching computer programs used to design the drills can't handle the formations -- not computer simulations in general. Do you really think that there isn't any computer simulation that can't simulate the band's routine? ThreeE 04:29, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
Please refrain from repeatedly undoing other people's edits. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. The three-revert rule (3RR) prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24-hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. Rather than reverting, please discuss disputed changes on the talk page. The revision you want is not going to be implemented by edit warring. Thank you. — BQZip01 — talk 04:22, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
I added detail, I did not revert. Please state what it was about the detail that was incorrect. ThreeE 04:29, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

I think the current revision is a good compromise: "The complex straight-line maneuvers, performed exclusively to traditional marches, are so complicated and precise that some of them cannot be reproduced by computer marching simulators used to design marching band shows." It is factual. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ThreeE (talk • contribs) 04:35, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

I disagree. Please post them here BEFORE making changes to the main page. If you read the policy, you should reach a consensus BEFORE making such changes in the case of an edit war. Your "compromise" is only a copy of what is stated below. As such, the text below is not an expansion of the lead. Furthermore, "used to design marching band shows" adds nothing to the sentence. What else do these programs possibly do? Do they do quilting designs? Do they make cars? No. Your phrasing is redundant and unnecessary and does not meet the criteria of an FA ("...must be well-written..."). — BQZip01 — talk 04:53, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
As requested: This detail is already present in the text. Including it in the lead is unnecessarily duplicitous. — BQZip01 — talk 05:10, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
Whoever claims it is irrelevant. It is verifiable from a reliable source. As such it may be included in a Wikipedia article. I thought the claim in the video was enough. I have also added the book used for a lot of this as a source in the body of the text. It goes into much more detail on pages 102-104. Since it was used extensively throughout the article, I went with this as the sole reference. Please read the cited source (which backs up these claims in excruciating detail). — BQZip01 — talk 05:20, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

This entire article is basically a cut and paste job by a single editor from a aggie yearbook and a cheerleader's guide. As such, it needs to be carefully reviewed for NPOV and factually inaccurate material. It also warrants a copyright warning banner. ThreeE 05:23, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Then it's amazing nobody at the FAC spotted it. </sarcasm> Resurgent insurgent 05:25, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

This bizarre claim needs a reference. Frankman 06:56, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

The claim about requiring two people to be in the same place at once to sucessfully execute the maneuver sounds like something out of The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy. If in theory it required two people to be in the same place at the same time or one person to be in two different locations simultaneously, there are some 'major' violations of physics, see Pauli exclusion principle. I don't think that Pauli has been disproved by a marching band, and as such these comments seem rather far fetched. Solid mechanics simulations should be able to simulate them. Without a quality reference, such as a scientific publication, i think this sentnence should be removed or significantly altered. There is no way that if you believe in physics, these maneuvers are impossible. They might be hard to simulate, however regardless of what anyone says, if the experiment occurred successfully and repeatably, then in theory it is entirely possible. User A1 11:31, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

This claim is absolutely ridiculous and I recommend that it be removed entirely from the article. If you insist on retaining the claim, then it should be cited by a scientific reference stating that a specific software simulation was unable to replicate the marching maneuvers. In addition, this reference needs to expand on how, in theory, it is possible for two people to be in the same place at the same time. It is not sufficient to site a book without a page number as the only reputable reference.--67.64.77.89 16:10, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

If you will read above, the page numbers WERE included above in an attempt to address the previous poster's concerns (pages 102-104). In addition, a specific article will be included in the near future. — BQZip01 — talk 16:45, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

I just read the article for the first time and the first thing I noticed is how ridiculous this claim is. If these formations have not been simulated then they are using very bad simulators. This very certainly does not mean they can not be simulated. wagsbags 17:09, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Actually, with current technology, they cannot be simulated. This is backed up by the stated citations in the later sections and by a personal phone call to the band hall (please feel free to contact the band hall yourself if you would like further clarification). They are not "bad simulators", but they simply cannot deal with two people being assigned to be at the same place at the same time. The drawing portion of the program can override this "feature" and draw the drills, but the simulation portion of the program still returns an error. These maneuvers require one person to put his/her foot between another person's feet while both twist their body and move their instrument out of the way (this is mostly done WHILE PLAYING THEIR INSTRUMENTS!!!). As such, they are assigned to the same location because everyone else around them is doing the same maneuver and there is no space to move anywhere else. I hope this clarifies the situation. Do you have a better way to phrase this? — BQZip01 — talk 17:22, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

It doesn't say "cannot be done with current models" it says "cannot be done." Cannot be done implies that it is impossible to program. Your explanation implies that the models simulate people as boxes with no space in between their legs. This is obviously a gross oversimplification and computers can most certainly handle a more complex characterization of the human body than that. I guarantee you that these models could either be modified or another model could be created with minimal effort that can model people as more than boxes. Hence "have not" wagsbags 17:27, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, the fact that all three 'references' refer to Texas A&M publications is kind of embarrassing for a featured article. As a computer engineer I immediately took note (and subsequently issue) of the statement, and now, seeing its backed up only by Texas A&M authority, I consider it laughable. Megacake 17:42, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, where do you expect references from? I'm sure the software companies aren't going to highlight their flaws. Other schools have no interest in this. The only people who would point it out would be thos in the school. This is a verifiable claim (please read WP:V) and, as such, is allowable in Wikipedia. If you are asserting the statement is not true (and I'm not saying you are right, please re-read WP:V. Technically, this is not a requirement of such a claim in Wikipedia.
That said, I appreciate your discussion on the talk page here. I am also a computer science major, but capabilities and actual software products are not the same thing. — BQZip01 — talk 17:49, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
I agree, the claim that computers cannot simulate them is rather hard to believe. Perhaps the problem is that the book used for reference is dated 1994. I suspect that in 1994 it may have been difficult, but given the current state of simulation software available for industry (Arena for example) that it is now possible to simulate these complex maneuvers. Exceptional claims need exceptional references. Arzel 17:57, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
It doesn't say "computers", it says "computer marching simulators" The most recent reference is from 2005, not 1994. — BQZip01 — talk 18:07, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
The programs that exist to chart Marching Band drills make certain assumptions that are not accurate for the drills in question. The one in particular that is violated for these drills is the assumption that all band members occupy all of the space within a radius around a given spot on the field. To the best of my knowledge (as an alumni of a Big Ten band), the Aggie band is the only band where this has been an issue on a regular basis. -- Upholder 18:15, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

What if we said something like "cannot be reproduced using current computer marching simulators" or "reproduced using computer marching simulators currently in use" or, "these routines require band members to step in between each other's legs which cannot be modeled by current computer marching simulators." wagsbags 18:24, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

(Full disclosure: I'm an Aggie and a computer programmer but I was never in the band.) I don't see the point of including "currently." Firstly, "currently" is by default a dated word. "Currently" as of when? We would have to instead use "as of 2007". Secondly, technology changes constantly, and we can't predict what will be possible to do in the future. As wikipedia policy states that WP is not a crystal ball, then I don't think we need to address the assumption that this would change anytime soon (lack of interest in creating another version of the program, or lack of need from other universities may mean there isn't another version for decades).Karanacs 18:58, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
    • One possible solution would be to word the statement in the past tense, something like, "Aggie band directors found that some of these close-quarters drills are so complex and precise that they cannot be reproduced by computer programs that design marching shows;..." Johntex\talk 19:08, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

The only thing these Aggies have proved is that the software THEY USE isn't able to properly model their movements, not that there is no software that could. So maybe it makes more sense to say something along those lines: "The Texas A&M Band uses marching simulation software that is unable to properly model their moves.", which is the literal truth. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.20.237.230 (talk) 19:12, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Wow that makes them sound kind of dumb. Do you really think that there is no software out there which can model their moves? I maintain that there probably is making the statement false. I vote we simply remove it the article already reads like a brochure in many places so the point that they are very good is gotten across multiple times. wagsbags 20:22, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

  • I don't think we should remove the statement. This statement is frequently used in regards to this band and it would be a notable hole in the article if the statement were simply removed.
As for other software being able to handle it, that is a difficult question. On the one hand, it is hard to prove a negative. What I mean by that is it is impossible to prove that software to handle this does not exist somewhere.
On the other hand, it seems unlikely to me that anyone has taken the time to make a marching simulation program to handle this problem. Why would they bother? No offense to the Aggie band, but they are the only band that marches this way, AFAIK. What software manufacturer is going to make improvements to their software program to address a market consisting of just one school?
Likewise, A&M would seem to have no incentive to invent such a program themselves. They obviously have the situation covered by current (manual?) methods, and they probably get some marketing buzz out of claiming "We can do things the computers say should not be possible!"
Therefore, my guess is that no-one will ever write software to handle this problem. Where does that leave us?
Let's focus on what makes the article both factual and easy-to-understand. Judging simply by the reaction from readers today, the way it is worded currently is causing confusion. In my opinion, taking the claim out of the article is not a good answer.
I think the solution is to word this in the past tense, as I suggest above. It is a fact that Aggie band directors found the maneuver could not be modeled. Wording it in the past leaves room for the possibility that other people do have software that could simulate this. We don't know for sure. Johntex\talk 20:45, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
I support Johntex's wording suggestion. Karanacs 21:16, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
Agreed that the lead sentence is a little misleading, and Johntex's idea sounds good. I have more of a problem, however, with "theoretically, they require two people to be in the same place at once." This is false - as described above, it simply requires one person to put his leg between other people's legs. This is only the same as two people "being in the same place at once" if you consider the space between your legs to be part of you. Needs to be clarified; right now it is simply untrue. -Elmer Clark 21:17, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
I see your point. I think the problem is phrasing. If place it solely in the past, then there is the assumption that the "glitch" has been fixed, when in reality it hasn't. Why don't we see what we can come up with that addresses both points? Perhaps directly quoting a source would get us out of the hot water and make the phrase more accepted? — BQZip01 — talk 21:20, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
This is directly from ref 6: "Some of the Aggie band's maneuvers are so complex that some drill-charting software says that the drills are impossible because they require multiple people to be in the same place at the same time." would that work for everyone as a direct quote? The other two sources simply back up the claim. — BQZip01 — talk 21:22, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
A source which talks obvious nonsense can't exactly be a reliable source. What we are really saying, obviously, is that the drill-charting software isn't good enough to model maneuvers which involve band members standing with feet interlocking. The wording of the source (and the article) suggests that his band has an exemption from the laws of physics, which is getting people irritated. The Land

I took the time to listen to the WMV file. The context: Someone charged that a particular maneuver was designed on a computer. This statement was followed with the claim: But a computer will tell you the maneuver is impossible because it would require two people to be in the same place at the same time. This is obviously hyperbole that was written in order to flow from the sentence about the charge, and the statement needs to be removed entirely. Tempshill 21:31, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

This is one of three references. Please take the time to go through all three before making such an assertion. The next reference states explicitly: "Some of the Aggie band's maneuvers are so complex that some drill-charting software says that the drills are impossible because they require multiple people to be in the same place at the same time." I have reverted your changes accordingly. — BQZip01 — talk 21:45, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Well you just said it right there. "some" consider it impossible. That is VERY different from "it is impossible to model." I think we should go with Johntex's idea especially the part at the end "by computer programs that design marching shows." wagsbags 21:54, 11 September 2007 (UTC) And to give credit where it's due ThreeE suggested a while back that it is "marching band computer software" not computer software in general that has the deficiency. wagsbags 21:55, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Actually this is just insufficiently sourced. What is the name of the program? Who wrote it? Who, other than the Aggie PR department, has asserted that any of this is true? You're going to force us to actually put an unsourced tag right at the top of this featured article if you insist on keeping such an unsourced statement in your intro. Tempshill 21:56, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
not one of these sources is the "Aggie PR department", so I fail to see your issue. The name of the program and the individual programmers names (even if I knew them) are irrelevant. This satisfies WP:V and is sourced according to WP:CITE and meets the criteria for inclusion in the article. Even if this turned out to be false (and I'm not saying it is) it is verifiable, which is the threshold for inclusion, not truth. ("The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth.") — BQZip01 — talk 22:14, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
Irrelevant? The name of the program is not mentioned by any of your sources, so this puts the sources in the realm of "repeating an anecdote". Tempshill 23:42, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
Why is the name relevant at all to this discussion? Why is the programmer's name relevant in any way? If it is "verifiable" (and in this case it is), then why can't I (or anyone else for that matter) repeat an anecdote? That is not against Wikipedia policy. If I am in error please show me where. — BQZip01 — talk 23:48, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
I resent your implication/slander that I am being in any way unreasonable. As such, this is your third edit attempting to change the article without discussion (1 2 3) and I am requesting that you be blocked temporarily if any further changes along these lines are made. I in no way disagree with changing the text, but the words you have chosen do not convey the appropriate meaning ("allegedly"=implies a claim (a verifiable one at that) and is also considered to be a weasel word; "some" implies there are others that work...I'd like to seem those programs. Can you name them? Their programmers?...just trying to use your standards here). You seem to be the only who believes I am being unreasonable. None of the other 18 editors in the FAC thought I was unreasonable as do a few admins. I respectfully request that you tone down your accusations and WP:AGF. Please discuss any changes here first. — BQZip01 — talk 00:05, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
I think this statement should be removed entirely if it is impossible to determine the name of the computer program. I agree that without such the inclusion of such a statement with any wordings is simply repeating the marketing/PR from the references, which we shouldn't be doing in an encyclopaedia. User A1 00:17, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

For what it's worth, during my time in the band the drum majors told the assembled band that standard marching band programs didn't work because they didn't allow members to stand as close together as we did on the field. We called our slight blurring of straight lines and our modified paces the "Aggie Band Fudge Factor." They never told us what programs or who tried, just that everything was done by hand. I'm quite sure that simulation programs exist that could model our fluid movements across the field. If the narrator in the "Aggie Band Show" video was (Maj)LtCOl Brewer, as it often was, I have known him to exaggerate for effect. pb - ACO97 Pbmax 00:32, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Again, why is the name of the program relevant in any way? Even if this is merely "marketing/PR" (which I do not agree it is), it is still verifiable and meets the threshold for inclusion IAW WP:V (please read above). — BQZip01 — talk 00:28, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
I think that the name of the computer program would be great to add, but I don't think it is in any way necessary. Consider the following hypothetical parallel examples:
Andy Warhol mixed his own paint because he felt that commercial paints did not give suitable results.
J. K. Rowling thought her word processor was too cumbersome so she started working with pen and paper.
The pilot felt his navigation software was in error so he ignored it and proceeded safely to the airport.
We can read the above (fictional) examples and wonder what the commercial products were, but we don't need that information if the source does not provide it. Likewise, the name of the "marching band computer software" is not needed. What the source says is that software was tried and it gave a certain result. Johntex\talk 00:54, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
BQZip01, don't take this too personally, but for me personally, as someone that does simulations analysis as part of my job, the underlying claims as such just do not seem reasonable. The primary reference is not easily referenced by anyone without the book, and other references don't adequately answer the primary question and respond to the issue many people have. I believe you are working in good faith, but there is also a certain amount of WP:COI regarding your personal feelings. I would prefer to restate the claim as something along the lines of:
The straight-line maneuvers, performed exclusively to traditional marches, are so complex, that existing marching simulators have difficulty simulating all aspects of the drill.
Your explanations of why they cannot simulate certain aspects points to what seems like a flaw in programming of the simulation software, and not neccessarily an issue that they cannot be simulated which is what is implied. As such the current wording seems incredulous, and since it is not easily referenced most will simply not believe that it is a true statement (regardless of whether it is verifiable). Arzel 01:00, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
No one is saying it will NEVER be accomplished, but that current computer programs are inadequate...hmm...how about something like that?!?
As for pb (A-Co '97...here we go again: another infantry band vs. artillery band feud...hmm...except this time, we have a point of reference where people might have some kind of clue as to what us BQs are talking about), I got to see the diagrams and how they were printed. The only way the computer could handle the 4-way was to split it into two drills. The "infamous" Aggie Band Fudge factor was how we accomplished "the impossible." I am also quite sure that some simulation programs exist somewhere that could model the Aggie Band across the field, but they are likely not programs designed for marching. I heard it through the grapevine that the Aggie Band may have found some software where the spacing issue could be overridden, but couldn't find anything online. The narrator of the video was not one in the series of the Aggie Band Show, but part of a special produced by the Association of Former Students. If you would like to view it, a link is in the references. I know Lt Col Brewer can exaggerate (he once said A-Co was the best outfit...just screwing with your mind. lol), but he was not the narrator in this video. — BQZip01 — talk 01:51, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Obviously this whole computer simulation thing needs to be taken out of this article. Clearly, the aggie band uses this myth as a promotional line. There's really nothing wrong with that, but to say in an encyclopedia that people marching around are impossible to simulate is patently false. Perhaps somewhere in the article it could be said that the aggies say this -- and that is all. I'll be removing this line from the article. Again. Clearly there is a consensus that it doesn't belong.

Additionally, this whole article should be carefully reviewed. As another commentor has pointed out, it is basically a reprint of a single aggie book. The article is written mostly by a single author who demonstrates the best and the worst of wikipedia -- he is very passionate about the subject and refuses to accept NPOV edits. I believe the author is part of the organization being written about -- it is not surprising that the article is heavily POV.

Thankfully, this article is no longer on the front page. ThreeE 03:19, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Agreed, I don't think he's been acting in good faith. I base this statement only on the defense of the unsupportable computer software line. Tempshill 03:52, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
I have tried to be reasonable here. I simply addded "used by the band." To the intro line in question. I suggest everyone weighs in here to support this compromise change. ThreeE 03:36, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
Thumbs up from me if the sources support it. It eliminates the ridiculous grandiose posturing. Tempshill 03:52, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
See below — BQZip01 — talk 05:35, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree with everybody else. This ridiculous statement should be removed entirely. Egumtow 19:56, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

  • That is an interesting statement, Equmtow, but it does not agree with the discussion here. "everybody else" does not agree this should be "removed entirely". To the contrary, this section contains people supporting the wording, and suggesting compromise wording. Please re-read the discussion more carefully before making such sweeping and inflammatory declarations. Johntex\talk 21:19, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Compromise

Let's all agree on a few things here.

  1. We would all like to be in agreement on this.
  2. We want to agree on the phrasing
  3. No one has said that "no computer program can replicate what these guys do"
  4. Personal attacks have no place in Wikipedia.

So, can we all agree to talk about this situation/phrasing on this talk page and then make the appropriate/corresponding changes? (I have reverted changes until a consensus can be reached) — BQZip01 — talk

I propose rephrasing the initial line (the following line in the text can be addressed once we put this to rest) to read: "The complex straight-line maneuvers, performed exclusively to traditional marches, are so complicated and precise that, as of 2005, some of them could not be reproduced by commercially-available computer marching drill programs."

My logic is as follows:

"The complex straight-line maneuvers..." the maneuvers are all straight-line, many are complex in nature.
"...performed exclusively to traditional marches..." That is all they use
"...are so complicated and precise..." They are both complicated/precise
"...that, as of 2005..." specifies a date suggesting that this will not be forever and that this was true at some point in the past.
"...some of them..." Not all
"...could not be reproduced..." they "couldn't", not "never will"
"...by commercially-available computer marching drill programs..." Not all possible programs, but specific programs built for a specific purpose. I have three reliable sources (two of which are above reproach and are of a kind specifically mentioned in policy) that state this is so.
From Wikipedia:Reliable sources:
"In general, the most reliable sources are peer-reviewed journals and books published in university presses; university-level textbooks; magazines, journals, and books published by respected publishing houses; and mainstream newspapers." — BQZip01 — talk 07:18, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Does anyone else have a constructive suggestion? Please, just talk about it here.— BQZip01 — talk 05:35, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry to come late to the show here, but to my mind, the larger part of the problem with this statement is the imprecise way in which the issue is addressed. In particular, the phrase "so complicated and precise" suggests that it is general complexity and precision that makes the moves hard to simulate, when reading the above discussion it is clear that the difficulty is specifically with the action of one member placing a foot between those of another member. Likewise, it's not specifically the "complex straight-line maneuvers" that are difficult to simulate, just that particular feature. I would therefore go along the lines of "Some of their maneuvers involve one band member placing a foot between those of another band member - an action that could not be simulated by commercially-available computer marching drill programs as of 2005." Clear, concise, and factual. 62.219.111.151 08:27, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
The fact that they perform complex straight-line maneuvers to traditional marches belongs in a separate sentence, since this is not relevant to the computer simulation issue. 62.219.111.151 08:32, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
...better late than never...!!! Excellent suggestion!!! Originally, I think this was two-three sentences that were combined. "So complicated and precise" and "complex straight-line maneuvers" were intended to be "general" terms in the lead (from WP:LEAD: "...summarizing the most important points..."). However, there are two components to this: the first is the stepping between feet, but that individual part CAN be replicated...by itself. The problem arises in the 4 way when this is done in an alternating sequence every 2 two steps and when the drum major stands in the middle of it, thereby increasing the complexity beyond the capabilities of the software. the "[some] complex...maneuvers" implies that not all of the maneuvers are problematic, but only some of the maneuvers. Since it is more complex than simply "one foot, two foot" I think this would be excellent specific phrasing for the later paragraph, but not the lead.
That said, I'm not too proud to tweak the phrasing, if that will fix the problems. So taking your advice in the lead and splitting to two sentences, it would read, "The band's complex straight-line marching maneuvers are performed exclusively to traditional marches. Some of these maneuvers involve actions that could not be simulated by commercially-available computer marching drill programs, as of 2005." Does that work for everyone in the lead? — BQZip01 — talk 09:58, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

It's a good suggestion. I'm not sure the 2nd sentence will satisfy everyone but I believe we should split the sentences and bicker about the 2nd sentence after that is done. wagsbags 12:36, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Since I am somewhat late to the discussion, I can only say that the revised version "The band's complex straight-line marching maneuvers are performed exclusively to traditional marches. Some of these maneuvers involve actions that could not be simulated by commercially-available computer marching drill programs, as of 2005." is much better and resolves the issue I came to the talk page to complain about. =) --Xeeron 14:12, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
This line is much better than what is there now and it should be inserted immediately. There is still a problem with sourcing. Tempshill 14:33, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
I inserted the new line. Tempshill 14:35, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
Was this sentence what prompted the neutrality review request? →Wordbuilder 14:36, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
I don't know, but I believe that tag was in error. I have removed the tag, and I've explained my actions about 3 sections down. Johntex\talk 15:02, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
by commercially-available computer marching drill programs, as of 2005. That's ambiguous. Are the drill simulating programs still available as of 2005, or are they no longer available but you're still using them as of 2005? For the former, you'll need a reference. Egumtow 20:03, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

IMHO this statement is like saying a 2007 Prius gets 150 ponies to the tail. That statement is arbitrary. It means nothing unless you define a pony and a tail. In our case, we need to define the computer program. Does it have a name? When was it made commercially available? Otherwise, every marching band in existence can claim some computer program somewhere says their marching formations violate collision rules. Egumtow 22:38, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

WP:V starts with "his page in a nutshell: Material that is challenged or likely to be challenged, and all quotations, must be attributed to a reliable, published source." This claim has multiple published sources to back it up.
WP:V continues with "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth." (emphasis in the original) Johntex\talk 23:09, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] BQ

The BQ link doesn't get anywhere meaningful. I suspect the destination article needs an edit to incorporate BQ. What is a BQ? -- SGBailey 09:39, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

BQ = "Band Qualified" (colloquially, "Band Queer"). →Wordbuilder 13:42, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for bringing this up. There used to be a list of terms with BQ among them. I will work on a better wikilink for that in the VERY near future. — BQZip01 — talk 16:47, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
Linked to disambiguation page where a definition is provided — BQZip01 — talk 17:36, 11 September 2007 (UTC)


[edit] "I need a fish!"

From the article:

To assist in removing their boots, seniors are allowed to yell "I need a fish!" at which point all available freshmen in the senior's outfit will race, and sometimes fight, to assist.

This definitely needs a solid, verifiable reference. It's far too unusual a thing to just let pass without one. Loganberry (Talk) 13:59, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Being a former Aggie, I can verify this. I wish I could find a documented reference. Spryde 14:33, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
Agreed with Spryde - the terminology and behavior isn't unusual for TAMU. I can verify that even non-reg's had fish do stuff for them.—Mrand T-C 14:43, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
This isn't from this article, it is from another article. As such it has been "removed" from this article. — BQZip01 — talk 16:46, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Largest military matching band?

The article has the following sentence in the lead section:

Composed of over 400 men and women from the school's Corps of Cadets, it is the largest military marching band in the world

I am not familiar with matching band and I understand that a 400-people band is enormous, but is there any reference to such a claim? Perhaps in Guinness World Records? Dono 16:57, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

This is referenced later in the article per WP:LEAD (...at least at the time of its FAC..there is currently some discussion on references in the lead...). Please read further and you will find that information. If you cannot locate it, please contact me on my talk page and I will be happy to direct you to an appropriate page. — BQZip01 — talk 17:36, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

according to guinness, the record for largest military band is something like 3,000. There might well be larger marching bands that technically fall under military classification i.e. civilian marching bands that play military-style music, march in mostly straight-line formations and have similar instrumentation. It seems likely that this band is the largest permanent military band. If there is any actual proof from a source other than the band, the wording should be changed. Djgranados 18:47, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

The "largest military band" was likely seated or standing, not marching. While I understand there is an implication that military members can march, pretty much by definition, a concert is not the same as a marching performance. Additionally, do you have a reference to back up your claim? I checked their website and could not find anything. The "largest marching band" in 1984 consisted of the KSU marching band and 67 local high schools' bands forming a 3,144 piece band. The distinction between military marching and others is the types of maneuvers and generally the music.
As for the source of the information, here is an additional source that is not University affiliated. Would this be sufficient to satisfy your verifiability? If not, why not? — BQZip01 — talk 23:13, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Hazing

Like many college organizations, hazing seems to be a concern in the band. Given our members here, what was the outcome of these allegations? [1]? ThreeE 05:26, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Hazing is a concern, but it is more of a concern with respect to the Corps.
Interesting you should bring this up, because the people involved were from my outfit. I did not know the freshmen, but they were the only class I didn't know directly. This was more of a prank than hazing. This was not someone being roughed up as part of some ritual or treatment by which to belong to some organization, but simply a joke on a guy on his birthday. Personally I never thought much of some of those guys in the class below me (too many were insubordinate and showed no respect for legitimate authority). More details: the brain donor took these pictures using a camera owned by The Aggieland (Texas A&M's yearbook) and left them on the memory card before turning it back in at the end of the year. The senior in question was stripped naked, duct taped, and dropped off campus with a set of boxers and a cell phone. He got free, called a buddy, and they picked him up. No one said anything about the incident until it was found on the camera.
That said, these cadets DEFINITELY violated Corps policy (there are rules against taping someone up, parading them in public in a state of undress, and dropping someone off campus against their will). The problem is that they consider a LOT of things "hazing" that do not fall under state law in any way. Additionally, the rules are so poorly phrased that simple acts are considered hazing. Forcing someone to wear a seatbelt is hazing (restraining someone against their will), detaining someone who commits a crime (see previous), forcing a cadet to do 41 pushups as punitive physical discipline (mind you 40 is acceptable, but 41 is not), etc.
No charges were ever filed under any law, but punitive actions (undisclosed) were initiated by the University and the Corps of Cadets. — BQZip01 — talk 05:43, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
Since this was an isolated incident, I don't think it is necessary to bring it up — BQZip01 — talk 05:45, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
I agree. ThreeE 05:49, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Nullifying the Disaster

"The disaster was nullified." Someone explain what this means. Was it expunged from the history books? I think you mean "The came back strong next week." Why not just say that? ThreeE 20:24, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

  • I agree with ThreeE that the ablove sentence could be improved, I suggest: "The band showed great improvement when they attempted their most complicated drill the following weekend and performed flawlessly." Johntex\talk 20:32, 14 September 2007 (UTC)


  • I am a little concerned about the final sentence in the same paragraph, which says, "The band weathered the catastrophe and emerged with a greater legacy." That sentence is unsourced and seems a little grandiose. Johntex\talk 20:32, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Referring to the event as a "disaster" also overstates the issue a bit. It's surprising to see no mention of the fact that a female band member was part of the ensemble during the game, and that a cartoon in The Battalion eerily foreshadowed the band's misfortune! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.212.191.154 (talk) 20:48, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
interesting...unsourced though..can't be used in WP — BQZip01 — talk 09:32, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
I've removed the last sentence for now; it's not really necessary. Karanacs 21:06, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
The sentence in question was added IAW the FAC review. It was intended to be a conclusion of the above paragraph. If it is causing problems, I certainly have no problem with its removal. — BQZip01 — talk 04:21, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Suggested Correction

The line "The Aggie Band is unique among college bands; no other band eats and lives together as a military unit, even at the Service Academies and military colleges." is incorrect.

At The Citadel, (possibly VMI and other SMC's) the band, The Regimental Band and Pipes, also sleeps and eats together as a military unit. They occupy the entire first level of Padgett-Thomas Barracks and eat together in the mess hall at meal times as do all cadet companies at The Citadel. Casualcat2001 23:28, 11 September 2007 (UTC)casualcat2001

I'd be happy to clarify this/correct it, if it is in error. Are they their own separate unit in the Corps? Or are they pulled from each of the units in the Corps? If it is the latter, then we can simply rephrase to be more specific. — BQZip01 — talk 23:43, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
They are a separate unit (in this case a company) within the Corps of Cadets. Each member is a member of the Regimental Band and Pipes only with no affiliation to any other cadet company. —Preceding unsigned comment added by

Casualcat2001 (talk • contribs) 21:35, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

I will be happy to personally incorporate this into the article as soon as a source is brought to show this claim to be true (request also left on user's talk page). — BQZip01 — talk 07:39, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
It is first hand knowledge as a Citadel Alumni. Much as a good portion of this entry is your first hand knowledge. I do find it odd that you are now requesting a source when you are making sweeping statements about uniqueness among SMC's while only having attended one... "The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material." Casualcat2001 22:59, 15 September 2007 (UTC)casualcat2001
This statement in reference is from a book, not my opinion/experience. Discussion above certainly is, but not what is in the article. My claim had a reference; yours did not. Ergo, it needs a reference — BQZip01 — talk 23:45, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
This link should be sufficient though as a courtesy: http://www.citadel.edu/pao/band/regimental_band.shtml Casualcat2001 additionally this link: http://www.citadel.edu/r3/about/facts/index.shtml under the cadets section mentions living together as a company in the barracks 22:59, 15 September 2007 (UTC)casualcat2001
I will be happy to incorporate this in the near future. Would "among division I-A schools" be sufficient? — BQZip01 — talk 23:45, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
I believe that change would make the statement accurate. Thanks. (I think the NCAA is using a new naming convention other than I-A and I-AA now, though I cannot recall off-hand.) Casualcat2001 23:45, 18 September 2007 (UTC)casualcat2001
Depending upon where you place that change and what you take out, I would probably remove "military colleges." To my knowledge, of the SMC's, only Texas A&M is a I-A school. I can check further if you prefer. Casualcat2001 00:28, 19 September 2007 (UTC)casualcat2001
Is the band connected to the football program? Classification of schools (div I-A, I-AA, now Bowl Championship Division, and the Championship sub-division or something like that) relates only to the football programs (maybe some others as well, but I don't think so). Basketball, for example, has no split classification, they are all Division I. If the band is not part of the football program, then it probably doesn't apply. Arzel 00:38, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
That is a valid point. The I-A distinction may not be the best way to handle the change to that sentence. Texas A&M is a I-A school and The Citadel is a I-AA school but the behaviors and cultures claimed to be unique have little if nothing to do with their football status. Casualcat2001 01:17, 19 September 2007 (UTC)casualcat2001
Perhaps the sentence could be changed to something like "The Aggie Band is unlike most other college bands since the band eats and lives together as a military unit."Casualcat2001 01:29, 19 September 2007 (UTC)casualcat2001
"Most" is a weasel word and leaves some ambiguity. How about "The Aggie Band is one of only two college bands..."
FYI: Virginia Tech is also a senior military college. — BQZip01 — talk 02:27, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
Sounds good to me, we just need to be sure that there are not others. Arzel 03:09, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
That is my concern. I still suspect VMI may be setup the same way, but I have not been motivated enough to research their setup. I'm fairly certain though that the service academies use active duty military bands as opposed to cadets/midshipmen.Casualcat2001 03:18, 19 September 2007 (UTC)casualcat2001
The service academies use cadets/midshipmen, but they are pulled from individual units. VMI appears to be the same as The Citadel/A&M. Perhaps rephrase to something like "...the only school without an all-cadet student body..."? — BQZip01 — talk 04:12, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
That seems reasonable. Will this comment be noticed now that this section is archived? Casualcat2001 21:45, 24 September 2007 (UTC)casualcat2001


Another suggested correction is to change the spelling of "Minstrel Turns" under "Typical Half-time Shows." Minstrel has nothing to do with the turns. We called them Menstrual turns and were reminded "If you [mess] up, someone bleeds!" pb A-Co'97 Pbmax 00:41, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

If you'll look at the version hours before it was featured, that's what I originally had. I know it's right, you know it's right. The problem is finding a source to back it up. I went with what I could verify, IAW WP:V — BQZip01 — talk 01:51, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] POV Check Template

I have removed this template because (a) it was not explained here on the talk page and (b) it is probably the wrong template anyway. Following the link to the template it says:

The POV check template, {{POV-check}}, may be added to an article which you feel may need to be edited to comply with Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy. Add the template at the top of the article, and then explain your reasons on the talk page of the article that needs checking ... The POV check template is not for disputes. ... For situations where you or other editors disagree on NPOV status, or need to reach consensus on neutrality, instead use the neutrality dispute template, {{POV}}, and explain the reasons on the talk page.

So, this template is not for disputes, and the person using it is supposed to explain themselves. For that reason, I've removed the template.

Let's all remember that templates are not a substitute for discusssion. The discussion is already ongoing, so perhaps we can focus on that instead of template boxes? Johntex\talk 15:00, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

The banner should not be removed until the dispute is resolved. There are plenty of places on this talk page where the POV disputes are explained. ThreeE 20:19, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
There is a lot of discussion on this page and changes have been made to the article. You placed the tag so it's incumbent upon you to detail what you feel is still POV. Until you do so, I do not believe the tag is appropriate. →Wordbuilder 20:26, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
Start with this statement: "theoretically, they require two people to be in the same place at once." Then move on to anything related to the impossible computer simulation. Then go to the overall boosterism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ThreeE (talk • contribs) 20:32, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for your reply. Can you point out exactly what you feel is boosterism? →Wordbuilder 20:37, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
  • ThreeE, please read the tag you placed. It says, "The POV check template is not for disputes." If you have a dispute, then this tag does not apply. Johntex\talk 21:16, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Archive?

Can I suggest that someone with more skills do an archive on this page? ThreeE 18:31, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't think it is considered appropriate to archive discussions that are ongoing. Once things have been resolved and the discussion is no longer active, that would be the proper time to archive things. -- Upholder 19:10, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
That's fine. I was hoping to make navigation easier, but no worries. ThreeE 20:24, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
Archiving is not an all or nothing affair. We can archive individual sections where there has been no recent discussion. I have archived a few just now. Johntex\talk 15:39, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Comments on RFC

And we don't have to have an RfC every time someone disagrees with your opinion. ThreeE 16:02, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
Again, excessive hyperbole that isn't true. I've filed only one in my entire history of Wikipedia. Feel free to check my history... — BQZip01 — talk 16:09, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
Well you've done it twice three times on this article as well as made a request for a Checkuser. You've spammed over 30 user talk pages to drum up support and haven't gotten any -- in fact, you've gotten the opposite. Look, we're done sparring with you. The article is POV and unreferenced. It uses unattributed quotations to make disparaging remarks about other schools. It claims the band amazingly does the impossible.
1) This one
2) Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Fightin' Texas Aggie Band and ThreeE
3) Wikipedia:Requests for comment/ThreeE
—Preceding unsigned comment added by ThreeE (talk • contribs) 11:29, September 21, 2007
As noted, I've only filed one RfC (it was on you, not this article). I did not start this RfC, Karanacs did (all I did was fix minor technical issues...admittedly, it took me 5 attempts...). WP:ANI is not an RfC. A checkuser is also not an RfC. I requested input from the Wikipedia community and people I trust to make an honest assessment (I never asked them to support me in any way); to call that spam is ludicrous. As for your comment that disparaging remarks about Arkansas are disparaging, I would be happy to change it to "a SWC school", but you also are requesting specificity everywhere else, so I feel I am in a no-win situation here and you are going to continue to complain about everything anyway (if you have a suggestion on phrasing...please state what it is). There are numerous references that you claim are nothing but lies "myths", but you have no evidence to back up your claims. Every single quote is attributed (that is also one of your "problems" with the article). The article doesn't state "the band does the impossible," merely that a computer has not been able to replicate it. That said, if you are "done sparring," then I guess I won't hear anything back regarding this. — BQZip01 — talk 16:48, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
Please keep your comments relative to the content -- not me. You disagree with many editors -- not just me. Your reaction has been to take this disagreement to another parent and another and another parent whenever you don't get your way. ThreeE 17:54, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment - if neither BQ nor ThreeE object, I am going to archive this sub-section. I don't think this section gets us anywhere. Johntex\talk 21:15, 21 September 2007 (UTC)