Talk:Oklahoma State Cowboys football

Image copyright problem with File:Osu ath brand.png

The image File:Osu ath brand.png is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

• That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
• That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --23:10, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Most moronic ommission

So they're the Aggies or the Cowboys? Looks like they changed their team name. WHEN???!!! How the hell can you leave something like that out of the article? 98.82.93.3 (talk) 21:37, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Oklahoma State Cowboys football. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20070804174725/http://www.heisman.com:80/winners/b-sanders88.html to http://www.heisman.com/winners/b-sanders88.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 09:10, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Split proposed

• The "Allegations of misconduct by Sports Illustrated" section dates to September 2014 [1] from Special:Contributions/24.248.243.102
• Ok St particulars aside, almost every FBS football program has violations NCAA.org shows 300 Major Violations in Div-I football
• 8 paragraphs against 120 years of football is WP:UNDUE

So the existing section should be pruned, possibly with the full content merged into a standalone article. UW Dawgs (talk) 01:38, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

Excuse the necropost, but quite frankly the section simply doesn't belong here at all. Oklahoma State was cleared of these allegations more than a decade ago. So even if we were to talk about violations, this would not be relevant as the accusations were never supported by any evidence. 12.76.10.90 (talk) 01:13, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

Disagree, this is a well-sourced and well-written section about allegations. glman (talk) 18:44, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

Kind of disagree on wholly removing the section and I don't think there is enough there to warrant a standalone article, it could use more of a rewrite more then anything and being merged within the history section.--Dcheagle • talk • contribs 04:10, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

What exactly warrants the existence of the section? Whether you think it's well written or not is irrelevant. The allegations were never substantiated, thus nothing happened of substance. Why are we including sections about things that never happened? Wikipedia isn't the place for things like that. It's not important to the overall profile of the program nor its history. By all means, make a case for its relevance. 12.76.10.90 (talk) 04:58, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

National Champ. Section

I feel that certain users are struggling to remember that Wikipedia is a tool used for quick information for a casual reader. Separating the tables makes it very clear and obvious that each section is talking about the 2011 unclaimed season and the 1945 claimed season. There is no reason to combine both seasons together when they were nothing alike, rather than briefly explain both in their own individual paragraph. Combining looks extremely sloppy, not to mention the grammatical errors in the text. In addition, the mention of the Blue Ribbon commission is entirely unnecessary. The section is about national titles awarded, and the details of each can be conveniently found in the links attached to the section. It’s short and sweet and informative and gives the reader all the information needed, with the inclusion of the links, rather than spiderwebbing off into talking about a “Blue Ribbon Commission” when the section is simply about national titles. Dugout10 (talk) 08:23, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

For example, the Oklahoma football wikipedia page completely separates claimed and unclaimed titles. There is absolutely no reason to push them together when one is claimed and one is unclaimed. They are nothing alike.

My edits do a perfect job of mentioning the national champion selector and a quick summary of the season that Oklahoma State had to get them that title selection, and to very clearly mention if the title was claimed or unclaimed. That’s all it needs to be, no reason to mash it all together. Dugout10 (talk) 08:24, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

Wow can't even attempt to not make it look like your not a sockpuppet, hello Dylan Dcheagle • talk • contribs 08:52, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

Allegations of misconduct section

This section serves absolutely no purpose within this page. Oklahoma State was cleared of any wrongdoing more than a decade ago (see the link below). At best, this section is entirely irrelevant. At worst, it borders on libelous. If you want to undo its removal, give a valid reason why. Don't just call the edit not constructive. Prove why it belongs here. Otherwise, leave it out.

https://footballscoop.com/news/ncaa-third-party-enforcement-group-clear-oklahoma-state-wrongdoing-following-sports-illustrated-investigation 12.76.10.90 (talk) 01:10, 5 August 2024 (UTC)