Talk:The Cavaliers Drum and Bugle Corps

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search


The history section is inaccurate on championships and undefeated seasons. The Hawthorne Caballeros have many undefeated seasons and many many championships. 01:04, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Cavaliers Drum and Bugle Corps[edit]

The information is accurate because the Cavaliers and the Caballeros belong to separate organizations and thus do not compete against each other. The reason that the Hawthorne Caballeros' championships are not considered here is that the Cavaliers are a junior drum and bugle corps, in which members are not allowed to march past the age of 21, while the Caballeros are a senior drum and bugle corps, in which there is no upper level age restriction.

  • Just to add to that, the two organizations are Drum Corps International and Drum Corps Associates, for Junior and Senior corps, respectively.

The Blue Devils are a Junior Drum and Bugle Corps, and they had 2 undefeated seasons ALSO... 1982 and 1994. In the Cavaliers history it mention that Cavaliers are the ONLY junior corps to achieve this... That is FALSE!

Best Decade[edit]

Just to confirm, with five world championships in this decade (2000, 2001, 2002, 2004, 2006), is that the best decade for any DCI corps?

  • Looking at the list of DCI Division I World Champions, it seems like that would be an accurate statement. Previously, the greatest number of wins in a decade was a tie, with the Garfield Cadets in the 80's and the Blue Devils in the 90's having four wins each. In the seventies, Bd's and SCV each had 3.

Alright thank you. Green Machine 6 06:11, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

    • I just added a section about the best decade, I called it Winning Decade, but someone else may have a better name for it. If anyone makes any changes to it, please mention them here so that way, something important isn't inadvertantly deleted. Thanks. Green Machine 6 06:35, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
    • Technically, the Cavies are tied for the winningiest decade as 2000 is not part of the same decade as 01, 02, 04, & 06. Decades end in 00's and being in 01's.
      • Not necessarily. Discussions of "calendar decades" are irrelevant and misleading. In common parlance, and in discussions of history, decades start on a year evenly divisible by 10. E.g., The 2000s decade started at the beginning of 2000 and ended at the end of 2009.
        • A couple of things to note then. If you go by decade being XXX1-XX10 then you should mention that Cadets have the record, 5 in the 80's ('83, '84, '85, '87, '90), and the Devils have done 4 in a decade three times, 70's, ('76, '77, '79, '80) 90's ('94, '96, '97, '99) and 00's ('03, '07, '09, '10). If you the decade as XXX0-XXX9 then yes Cavies hold the record with 5 ('00, '01, '02, '04, '06). However if you do a '10 year period' then all three of them have 5 because you add '82 for the Devils —Preceding unsigned comment added by Loosie (talkcontribs) 16:01, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Championship Years and Repetoire Sections: Overkill for Wiki?[edit]

These sections are great but seem like a bit of overkill for a wiki article, IMHO. Seems like they would be more appropriate on the regular cavies site?

Brad Halls 14:01, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:CavaliersStandingMan.gif[edit]

Nuvola apps important.svg

Image:CavaliersStandingMan.gif is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 05:44, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Cleanup shows[edit]

I went ahead and cleaned up and wikified the table of shows. I didn't spend a very long time on it, as it was really tedious, but you will probably want to look it over for errors. Mynameisnotpj (talk) 03:39, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Brass Philosophy[edit]

The reasons behind the removal of the brass philosophy section were listed as:

1. Removed brass philosophy section since this entry should be a high level overview of the corps
2. The brass philosophy changes multiple times a decade

I've reverted the change and here's why:

The current brass philosophy is a very distinctive part of the new identity the corps has forged over the last decade or so. It has led to the corps' first and second brass trophies (in 2002 and 2006, respectively) of the DCI era.

While there have been a few changes in the brass approach the corps has taken over the course of its history, "the brass philosophy changes multiple times a decade" is not a factual statement at present. The current philosophy is now going on its eighth season, with no evidence to suggest any imminent danger of extinction.

Jaymendoza (talk) 05:59, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Needs major cleanup - October 2012[edit]

Just a casual glance at the article shows it needs major cleanup.

  • History section is far, far too long. Needs to be cut and/or subsectioned off.
  • Bad form to have citations in headers. Link to more specific statements.
  • The Table needed to be wikitable class (fixed), it was a bright green before.
  • References section is full of bare URLS. Need to be converted to Template:Citeweb or similar.

ALTON .ıl 23:22, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

  • Cut History into 5 sections.
  • The problem with cites in the Show Summary header is that all 41 entries in the section have the same 2 cites.
GWFrog (talk) 18:39, 12 October 2012 (UTC)


I'm sorry to have to add the {{multiple issues}}, and it pains me greatly to do this, but consider it an escalation amongst the team. Nobody's responded to my requests for collaboration over the last few months and I'm not fluent in (and don't have any onhand) Cavaliers literature. This is probably the single most blatantly unencyclopedic article I've ever seen, but it's great. I love it. I upgraded its status, but with constructive criticism. It should exist in its current form on the Cavaliers' web site if it doesn't already, where there are no encyclopedic restrictions. I don't have any drum corps literature, but I am friends with Mitch Markovich and others who are former members and who have books. If you knew of sources that you don't have access to, I'd be willing to try to dig some up.

  • reliable sources and in-line citations: needs more numerous and diverse sources, and then we can tolerate a few less-reliable and first-party sources such as authoritative weblogs, forums and the organization's own web site.
  • promotion and bombast: needs none. be neutral.

This can be hard about such an inherently bombastic topic. The tutorials I just listed, and those listed in the warning atop the article, will help. I struggle a lot with this in my articles, which are all about awesome stuff. In the meantime, I have written Mitch Markovich and Frank Arsenault from scratch, and I've significantly contributed to Marty Hurley and others, with the goal to keep escalating them. Please let me know if I can aid in any technical tedium. Thanks. Smuckola (Email) (Talk) 08:25, 12 April 2013 (UTC)