Talk:Bluecoats Drum and Bugle Corps

Non-reliable sources

I removed citations to Drum Corps Wiki and the "From oral transmission of Bluecoats corps' traditions" per WP:V and WP:RS with this edit for the following reasons.

The "Drum Corps Wiki" site is currently down, but even if it wasn't it almost surely would not be considered to be a reliable source since it most wikis are user-generated content and not subject to any form of vigorous editorial oversight. The last archived version I could find of the page was here from February 4, 2014 and the last archived version I could find of the Drum Corps Wiki main page was here from December 20, 2014. The creators of the website clearly state that it is intended to be an open-wiki which people can edited as they see fit. This is not how Wikipedia defines a reliable source; for reference, Wikipedia doesn't even consider itself to be a reliable source for the same reasons per WP:WPNOTRS.

The "From oral transmission of Bluecoats corps' traditions" also is not considered a reliable source per WP:OR. Reliable sources are required to be published. Sources can be offline, but there has to be a way for someone somewhere to access them and verify them. Oral tradition is impossible to verify per WP:VNT; There's no way for someone reading the article to go and check to see if the source is used in proper context based upon what someone has said to someone else. There's no way to verify if what has been said has not been embellished or changed by various individuals over the years. Try to claim that such a thing is a reliable source simply does not work on Wikipedia.

If someone feels these are reliable source, then please feel free to ask for other opinions at WP:RSN. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:30, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

2016 Bluecoats Uniform Image

I found this image that I think would work well to show the uniform described in the article, but I'm not sure how to cite the source for it, if it even can be uploaded. Here's the article it's used in.

Gumland (talk) 06:40, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

Great pic... Unfortunately, it is a copyrighted shot, or I would have been happy to upload it... GWFrog (talk) 06:47, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

Unneeded Deletions

Please do not delete information that would lead to a composer's page. I have had to fix it several times because one particular member keeps deleting it. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aaathomas08 (talk • contribs) 17:00, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

User:Aaathomas08 please note: Composers are linked ONCE on a page... Additional links are redundant and against Wikipedia policy... For example, Paul Simon is first named and linked in the 1976 program; there is no reason to link to his article again in 1977 or 2008 or 2013... Just as George Gershwin is first named and linked in 1977, leaving no reason to link to his article again in 1981 or 1996 or 1998... Et cetera... GWFrog (talk) 21:32, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

Formatting changes

I'm not sure why I'm getting pushback on this, but just to recap:

• Proper formatting of lists is just good, semantic HTML. The difference might not be completely obvious to every user, but for users using assistive devices such as screen readers, good formatting is what makes pages intelligible.
• Center-aligned text is harder to read than ordinary, left-aligned text because it forces the reader to look for the start of each line rather than simply return to a consistent point.

This isn't radical or weird or "disruptive". It's just good, reader-centric practice. PepperBeast (talk) 05:47, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

Howdy, like Bgsu98, I am opposed to your formatting for several reasons. For one, names of song titles should not be in italics nor should there be a comma before the recording artist. Secondly, I personally disagree that the right-aligned text makes things easier to read, especially on mobile. When on mobile, the smaller dots (as opposed to the slashes) also made it harder to delineate the entries (at least for me). Lastly, if you are going to change the formatting for this corps, it would also need to be extended to the forty-plus corps that currently have a Wikipedia page. (While not necessarily required, consistency is important between groups of articles.) Why? I Ask (talk) 06:05, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

Strictly speaking, the titles should probably be marked up with quotes, per MOS:TITLE. I think italics is a little more aesthetic, but no markup doesn't really cut it.

I don't have strong feelings about flatlist vs some other list template, but slashes between items is not a substute for proper list markup. It isn't only about looks.

Typographic alignment is pretty much a settled issue. Typographic_alignment#Centered. Multi-lined text should be left-aligned.

I appreciate an eye for consistency, but consistently bad isn't good. PepperBeast (talk) 06:24, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

Having no quotation marks seem to be fine when the songs are in a long list-like format. But if you want to add quotation marks to everything (and the other articles), I am not opposed. It just seems like a tiresome task for little reader benefit. At the very least, there should never be a comma before "by". And yes, left-lined text for paragraphs is superior. But these are all two- to three-line listings (mostly two). The difference in reader speed is negligible. Centered text looks more professional, in my opinion. Again, at the very least, the titles and placements should be centered. Personally, I still find the status quo easier to read. Why? I Ask (talk) 06:55, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

Personally, I like the dots instead of the slashes. I've never been a fan of using slashes to divide up elements as is done on these articles. As for the stylizing of titles, I've done some editing on similar tables (I cannot remember which ones), where things like operas, symphonies, and film titles are italicized, whereas regular song titles are not.

As far as the alignment, the left justification in this case is a no. Bgsu98 (Talk) 07:08, 1 January 2025 (UTC)