Talk:Seventy-Six Trombones
 | This article is rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
| |||||||||||
Weasel words[edit]
"... if such a band actually existed, it would be at least a tenth of a mile long."
Assuming what? The band members marching in single file? Ten abreast? At what spacing? This statement should be qualified or removed from the article. —QuicksilverT @ 15:11, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
76 and 110 marching how?[edit]
Well, I know I knew this song in high school, and indeed I marched in the band. And only four-plus decades later do I notice a problem: It's not possible for 76 trombonists and 110 coronetists to be marching in the standard rectangular marching formation, unless it's rows of 2 abreast, with 38 rows of trombonists and 55 rows of coronetists. (Long formations like this are a problem for marching bands: Sound takes time to travel, so if everyone keeps the beat by seeing the drum major's baton, the sounds from other ends of the band arrive off beat, which makes it really hard to keep in step.)
I explored wedge-shaped formations, which start narrower and expand. One could start narrower and add one more person in each successive row. However, there's only one of those that adds up to 76 (8 rows, with 6, 7, 8 ...13 people in a row), and no multiple of 13 people can contain the 110 coronetists. Besides, if the formation is centered, it shifts people half a width each row, which makes it hard to keep position.
One could start narrower and add two people in each row. There are no such "wedges" starting with an odd number of people in the first row, and only one "wedge" starting with an even number: a row of 16, then 18, 20, and 22 people. Then come five rows of coronetists, 22 people in each row. A fairly wide formation, but maybe workable for "the cream of every famous band". --CambridgeOrbital (talk) 18:27, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
include "the other sister" in pop-culture appearances[edit]
As the song is an important gesture in the film. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.155.184.178 (talk) 06:57, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
Requested move[edit]
- The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the move request was: page moved. I note that this reverses a previous move, but the reasons for that move are not at all clear. Andrewa (talk) 14:30, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
Per http://www.chicagomanualofstyle.org/about16_rules.html. This particular case doesn't seem to be addressed directly by MOS:CT, unless I'm missing it. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:01, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
- Support It is, and it supports your proposal. "In hyphenated terms, capitalize each part according to the applicable rule (e.g. The Out-of-Towners)." Granted, that's not the clearest language I've ever seen, but the gist of it seems to be that you capitalize as though the hyphen weren't there. --BDD (talk) 23:38, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.