Talk:Bedlam Series

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:
University of Oklahoma WikiProject (Rated Start-Class) This article is within the scope of WikiProject University of Oklahoma. If you would like to help, you can edit this article or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale. See comments College football WikiProject      (Rated Start-Class) College football Portal Bedlam Series is part of WikiProject College football, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to college football on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale. Assessment Comments The following comments were left by the assessors: (edit · refresh) Contents 1 Assessment 2 Lopsided 3 Logos 4 Tone and sources 5 Response to tone complaint 6 Tone 7 Cleanupsfan site tag, unreferenced tag, cleanup-confusing tag 8 The point system 9 The football section 10 Deletion of yearly sections under football 11 Fair use rationale for Image:OSU.PNG [edit] Assessment The article contains a lot of useful informaiton, but there are serious problems with the tone of the article, as I have explained more fully on the article's talk page. Also, more sources should be easy to find for such an article. There is only 2 now, which is slim for such a substantial article. I'm rating "Start" in quality. With regards to importance, I don't think this is one of the more famous rivalries in college football, so I am ranking "Low". Johntex\talk 20:01, 11 January 2007 (UTC) Oklahoma WikiProject Oklahoma Portal This article is part of WikiProject Oklahoma, a WikiProject related to the U.S. state of Oklahoma. ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the assessment scale.
This article has an assessment summary page.

[edit] Lopsided

Took out information that seemed slanted in favor of OSU even though the football series is extremely lopsided - not "slightly misleading" as someone described —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.119.9.189 (talk • contribs).

[edit] Logos

There are only two teams participating in this series. Those teams are each discussed at some lenghth in this article. Being as the logos represent the two teams, I believe the use of both logos is easily allowable under fair use and Wikipedia policy. There is no free equivalent for a logo. Sports-news websites (E.g. Sports Illustrated[1] and ESPN[2]) routinely use both team's logos alongside information about a specific game. Johntex\^talk 21:19, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Tone and sources

I added the {{tone}} tag to the recent history section. There are phrases there that sound more like gushing fan-sites or sports announcers trying to get you to stay up to watch the 11:00pm sportscenter broadcast. This section needs to be written in a more serious tone. Examples of problem phrases are:

• "the rebirth of the Oklahoma State football program"
• "a shocking loss for OU."
• "Oklahoma had no answer for star Cowboy, Rashaun Woods."
• "The final score was Oklahoma State- 38-28, but the score is deceiving, as Oklahoma State's victory over OU was pure domination."
• "One of the most hyped and anticipated matchups going into the game"
• "This matchup in Stillwater featured an all-time classic in Bedlam football history between the two schools."

Some of the above might be allowable if they were sourced, but not otherwise. In general, sourcing for this entire section should be provided. Johntex\^talk 19:58, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Response to tone complaint

I removed the 4th item on the list you made note of. Other than that, the statements are factual. Either you're not from Oklahoma, or don't care for football, or both. Every other statement is something that would be widely agreed upon by anyone knowledgeable to these games or the series in general. If anyone has any valid arguments against these statements, and not just complaints, I would consider them in a redraft, but a tone tag here is unnecessary for now.

Also, I'm not the author of all of them, but I do think they are now all correct.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Cgaultokstate (talk • contribs)

I restored the tone tag since you did very little to address the issues. Please familiarize yourself with the meaning of the tone tag, there is a link within the template itself that will take you to a page explaining the style of writing we use on Wikipedia. You say above that the statements are factual. Please note that I did not dispute their accuracy. If I disputed their accuracy I would have used a totally different tmeplate. Your assumption about where I am from and what I know about football is totally beside the point. For one thing, our articles are not intended solely for people who already know all about the topic. They are intended for a general audiance. The article should be written to sound like an encyclopedia article, not like a sports blog. Johntex\^talk 06:11, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Tone

This article's tone is bad making it sound far from encyclopedic. I see the tone tag was added but quickly removed (it really shouldn't have been). -- Ash Lux ^{(talk | contribs)} 17:25, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Add the tone tag to a specific section. We've been back and forth editing this page to a tone most of us have finally agreed upon. Just jumping in and adding a general tone tag is not helpful. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Cgaultokstate (talk • contribs).

[edit] Cleanupsfan site tag, unreferenced tag, cleanup-confusing tag

Here's some problems I've noticed:

• This article does not cite its sources.
• The "points system" section is confusing. What is it? How does it work? Who runs it? etc. In fact, the exact point system really isn't all that important and probably shouldn't be here (especially if it changes).
• In the "football" section, the importance of the games isn't clear. Are we really going to describe each of the 100 or so games? The tone is bad and not appropriate for an encyclopedia (just fine for a sports blog, however). What happened during the first Bedlam game is not clear (nor the rest of the games).

-- Ash Lux ^{(talk | contribs)} 20:58, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The point system

The point system is set by Ford and the Bank of Oklahoma, as well as the two universities. It is used to determine an "overall" Bedlam winner, and has only been used for a few years. I agree the way it currently appears on the page is very confusing, even to someone familiar with it. I say we just delete the point breakdown, and keep the current list of winners, with maybe a small explanation of the purpose. What do you think? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Cgaultokstate (talk • contribs).

I agree the chart should just be removed in favor of a description of the point system. This isn't basketball, golf, etc. so just a short description should suffice. This information may be better suited as a subsection of the history section. -- Ash Lux ^{(talk | contribs)} 20:48, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

The point system actually does cover all sports, tennis, women's, etc, but I still think deleting is appropriate. (Thanks for the signing tip ashlux, I had no idea how to do that)

-Cgaultokstate 15:43, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

I removed the previous point breakdown. It was also just a cut & paste from okstate.com. The new section is in my words, but a paraphrase of info available at OSU and OU's athletic sites. If citing is still necessary, I'm unsure how to do that.

- Cgaultokstate 19:30, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

I just noticed the info I put in there is redundant, and appears in the history section. Would it be more appropriate to move that paragraph down here, or just say "See History"?

- Cgaultokstate 19:34, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

• You should just merge "Bedlam Series winners" into "History". And you're welcome for telling you about ~~~~! :-) -- Ash Lux ^{(talk | contribs)} 01:20, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The football section

I attempted to clean it up a bit, but it still sounds bad. The story about the players jumping in the water etc, is interesting, and I think should stay, but there's not near enough factual info about the game to justify it staying. What was the year, score, etc? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Cgaultokstate (talk • contribs) 18:37, 1 March 2007 (UTC).

This article is a fan site and should be deleted immediately. These are subjective statements that have no place on Wikipedia. Please, delete this content immediately.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Trigam41 (talk • contribs)

[edit] Deletion of yearly sections under football

I deleted all the sections under History since 2000 under the football section because it is unnecessary. It would be one thing if full game summaries were provided, but all of those were 1-3 sentences and not deserving of its own section. Plus, the section reeked of recentism. Please, if you disagree with my move, lets discuss it here before restoring.↔NMajdan•talk 19:59, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

I added the complete series scores, attendance, rankings at time of playing, and outcome. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.15.106.205 (talk) 23:58, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:OSU.PNG

Image:OSU.PNG 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 this Wikipedia article 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 ensure 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 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 lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 14:23, 8 March 2008 (UTC)