Talk:Southeastern Conference
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Can somebody fix that messed-up table at the bottom? Where the whole bottom of the article is included in the "Tennessee-Vanderbilt" section. It has apparently been that way for months and has not been fixed. All my efforts produce no progress. Thanks. Danthemankhan 18:33, Jan 19, 2005 (UTC) Also, LSU -Arkansas is neither a long standing game, nor even a rivalry for that matter. This was a matchup created by the SEC in hopes of fostering a rivalry between the two schools. Arkansas has not even been in the SEC long enough to establish a traditional rivalry with any SEC school. Arkansas had great rvials in the disbanded conference it formerly belonged to. Most traditional rivals go back for many decades. And the idea of playing for a trophy called the Boot was created by the SEC. The vast majority of fans from both schools still do not consider this game in anyway a tradional rivalry. The entry should be edited to reflect this or better yet that reference to the game as a rivalry be deleted.
Contents[hide] |
[edit] Basketball Rivalries
On the listing of the Kentucky/Tennessee basketball rivalry; does this rivalry even exist? I am from Knoxville and I have never heard of it (I am a football guy though). Also the wording, "This rivalry, also a "border war," has historically been more important to UT fans than to UK fans." is rude and degrading. Again, I am a UT fan, as mentioned, and it's not too important to me. I'm going to adjust this article or maybe delete it if I can't find something to back up the existence of this rivalry. Talk to me. BDSIII 01:26, 26 March 2006 (UTC) (zulu)
- Gone. BDSIII 08:47, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
These two teams have played 201 basketball games, and yet you've never heard of it? You must really be a football guy. I'll remove the wording that it is more important to UT fans (as well as the sentence earlier in the article that the football rivalry is more important to UK fans), but the rivalry itself is an important part of SEC history. BMetts 15:39, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
- Yeah, I am kind of bandwagon with UT basketball. I'm learning though. That sounds a lot better. Thanks Brandon. BDSIII 18:09, 1 April 2006 (UTC) (zulu)
You're from Knoxville and have never heard of the UT/UK basketball rivalry? Welcome to Earth.
Knoxville just recently became a basketball town genius. 131.46.41.71 08:24, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
[edit] National championships
Perhaps this section should be moved to another page and linked to, like this one? The table takes up a good chunk of the bottom portion of the article. BMetts 15:45, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
I removed the non-consensus national championships for football as per http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NCAA_Division_I-A_national_football_championship Dlong 14:36, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Logos
There is a discussion to clarify our policy/guideline on the use of sports team logos. Please see Wikipedia_talk:Logos#Clarification_on_use_of_sports_team_logos if you wish to participate in the discussion. Johntex\talk 16:37, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
- The policy states: "Sports team logos may be used in articles or article sections where the team is discussed", so as long as the teams are discussed (they are in this article), then the logos are ok. (Cardsplayer4life 23:21, 8 August 2006 (UTC))
This is unrelated to logos, but I feel an important point is to be made. The population figures for the cities which house SEC institutions are misleading. Although they are the correct city population figures, metropolitan statistical area population figures would be more instructive. For example, Knoxville, TN is underrepresented as the metro area has a population of 650,000. This is more indicative of the area's true population that the population living within the official city limits. The current figures posted show Athens, GA at around 100,000, possibly leading some to believe that Athens is nearly as big as Knoxville. This is not the case, as the Knoxville area is significantly larger and economically more important than Athens and its environs. There are other examples. Aside from that, great work!
[edit] Yearly Champs
I realize we have the SEC Champions page, but I thought it would be a lot easier if every year we had a section in the page we updated to include the regular/postseason champions in every sport. Any input on this idea would be great, I'm hoping to input it into action probably in the following week. (mastrchf91) 23:19, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Conference Sports Pages
I was thinking it would be a good idea to have pages on individual SEC sports, for example: SEC football, SEC men's basketball, SEC women's basketball and SEC baseball. Of course, those four sports are probably about the only ones that might warrant their own page but I wouldn't be against pages for softball, swimming and diving, etc. I just think that the main Southeastern Conference page doesn't really cover the depth of the SEC in regards to the individual sports. There could be sections on conference and national champions, rivalries in that specific sport, history of that sport in the conference, info on venues, and much more info. Anyone with me? If there's some support for this I'll get started on the football page since that will obviously attract the most attention. I'll also start work on the baseball page since that interests me greatly and the season is currently ongoing. Seancp 04:15, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
- Missed this when I was on a Wiki-vacation this spring, but it definitely makes sense and is completely in line with typical wiki-structure. It's analagous to how we have the Auburn University --> Auburn Tigers --> Auburn Tigers football drill-down heirarchy, where you start at a summary level and articles becomes more focused and detailed.AUTiger » talk 20:36, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
[edit] References
The {{refimprove|May 2007}} tag that removed has been restored; that tag isn't just for use when {{fact}} tags are used. As it happens there are no general references (at least cited as such) for the article either. I didn't even realize there wasn't even a References section on the article when I updated the revenue numbers weeks ago and added the cite as a matter of habit. It seems that footnote for it has ended up as part of the legend following the rivalries table. Somehow that will need to be untitled, because the article should be referenced properly (WP:Verify, WP:Cite). The general standard for citing has been steadily rising generally across wikipedia (which is a good thing) and while a lot of this article is "common knowledge" to SEC fans, they aren't necessarily so to everyone. Beyond that, there is plenty that is challengable and should be referenced, even if just with a general ref like the SEC website. AUTiger » talk 15:03, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
- Sorry, I was the one that removed it. I wouldn't mind trying to look up some references for things if you could point out some of the specific problem areas. I am unsure what currently needs citations, but if you either list them here or put some {{fact}} tags at the appropriate places, I can try to make it better. Thanks! (Cardsplayer4life 03:58, 14 July 2007 (UTC))
- I went ahead and added a bunch of references for a bunch of things. (after making a reference section at the bottom, of course) I think I got the majority of stuff, but if you see anything else, like I said; Point it out and I will be more than happy to try to find a reference for it. Thanks. (Cardsplayer4life 00:28, 17 July 2007 (UTC))
- Thanks for the new refs and effort CardsPlayer. The things to generally be worried about for in-line cites are 1)stats and figures, 2)assertions of notability, and 3)controversial/likely-to-be-challenged statements, which in sports-related articles is almost always going to be related to superlatives and records. Good indicators for a cite is anytime you read something that makes you go "Wow! or Really?!"
- We still need to untangle the facilities footnotes from the references; I'll have a look at that a bit later. AUTiger » talk 20:31, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
- No need to untangle it; That was part of what I did as well. ;) (Cardsplayer4life 22:53, 17 July 2007 (UTC))
- Mmmm.. but I still see those venue notes (clarifications, not references) down in the reference section. They shouldn't be commingled. AUTiger » talk 04:40, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
- Hmmm. I guess I don't understand what you are talking about, but if you see something that needs to be changed, then by all means go for it. (Cardsplayer4life 08:41, 18 July 2007 (UTC))
- Take a look at the facilities sections now; I've used an older footnote template system to separate the facilities table notes from the references footnotes. About to do the same for rivalries.AUTiger » talk 20:13, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
- Oh I see. That definitely does look a lot better. Thanks for taking the time to do that. :) (Cardsplayer4life 07:41, 24 July 2007 (UTC))
- Take a look at the facilities sections now; I've used an older footnote template system to separate the facilities table notes from the references footnotes. About to do the same for rivalries.AUTiger » talk 20:13, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
- Hmmm. I guess I don't understand what you are talking about, but if you see something that needs to be changed, then by all means go for it. (Cardsplayer4life 08:41, 18 July 2007 (UTC))
- Mmmm.. but I still see those venue notes (clarifications, not references) down in the reference section. They shouldn't be commingled. AUTiger » talk 04:40, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
- No need to untangle it; That was part of what I did as well. ;) (Cardsplayer4life 22:53, 17 July 2007 (UTC))
- I went ahead and added a bunch of references for a bunch of things. (after making a reference section at the bottom, of course) I think I got the majority of stuff, but if you see anything else, like I said; Point it out and I will be more than happy to try to find a reference for it. Thanks. (Cardsplayer4life 00:28, 17 July 2007 (UTC))
[edit] Future WikiProject
Has anyone thought about creating a wikiproject page especially for the SEC? Dawg1279 10:15, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Category Living people?
Why is this page in the category of living people? And how can one edit this? --Pluckerwank (talk) 00:59, 22 May 2008 (UTC)