Talk:Big 12 Conference/Archive 1

Big Twelve > Big 12

Shouldn't it "Big 12" (i.e., should be the "twelve" be the number, not the word)? User:Ttownfeen 02:35, Mar 8, 2005 (UTC)

Yes it should be numbers. See [1] in the section "Big 12 ... As Easy as 1-2". I'm not sure the best way to make a change like that, however. Ash Lux 22:23, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

I suppose the best way to do it would be to copy all the current info onto Big 12 Conference (currently a redirect page), and make the current page into a redirect page. I'm not going to do it personally, in case there is any dissent or steps which I may not be accounting for, but that would be the easiest way in my mind. EWS23 | (Leave me a message!) 02:52, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

Do NOT do a copy+paste!

READ How_to_move_a_page. You use the "MOVE" button, at the top of most every page, this moves the talk pages, the watch pages, the links, everything. If the page you want to move to has never been edited, any user can do it. If it has, or there is content there you have two choices:

You can use: Requested moves

and/or

Go to the admin page and see who is online now, then hit one up. Or an admin you already know. It is ten to 100 times faster than putting it on "Requested moves" I have seen pages stay on there over a month.

Once the page has been moved, go to and click "What links here" in the toolbox on the left pane. Then you can begin your link fixes, fix the "re-directs" (I recommend looking at this list before the move). I wouldn't worry to much about the "user" pages, if any, that are linked to that particular page, those users can fixs the re-directs if they want to. WikiDon 03:46, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

Page-move Vote

Thanks for your help, WikiDon, and I apologize for my uneducated comments earlier. I'll start out the voting for this discussion.

• Support, as this change would make the page name more in line with the Big 12's official policy (see the external link in the section above).

A VOTE IS NOT NECESSARY The name is...:

"When referring to the Big 12 Conference, please remember the conference name (which is a registered trademark) should be listed as follows:

Big 12 Conference

The following should NOT be used in text when referencing the Big 12:

• Big XII
• Big Twelve
• The Big 12

The page MUST be moved. WikiDon 04:04, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

Move. Well alright sounds good to me! -Scm83x 05:37, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

MOVED I updated about half the links, the other half need to be done. WikiDon 06:07, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

About 20 more need to be done, but my pillow is calling...WikiDon

ALL re-directs done, except one I can't seem to do, and four Wikiproject deletion pages (which I don't care about). I thought someone else might chip in. I am disapointed in the "team". WikiDon 19:23, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

National championships

Should football championships be counted on this list? According to the NCAA, they are unofficial, which is why the football champion does not get a trophy, as in other sports.

They are not NCAA official, but the NCAA provides a list of orgs that award national championships. Schools recognize this list NCAA.org Div I-A Past Football Champs when declaring how many football national championships they've won. General125 14:51, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

College Names

Oklahoma State was Oklahoma A&M in 1945 and 1946 when it won the NCAA Basketball titled. Should this be reflected on the list of titles with an asterisk or not? Bsd987 02:40, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Football scheduling

Does the Big 12 use the same type of football schedule that the SEC and ACC use?

(i.e. 8 conference games in which 5 are intra-division, 1 permanent inter-division rival, and 2 inter-division games rotating among the remaining teams)

If so, could someone add that info to the article, to be consistent with the SEC and ACC articles.

128.192.128.123 14:09, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

No, the Big 12 conference schedule is 5 intra-division and 3 inter-division games. –Swid 17:48, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

This means that each team plays all the other teams in their division, + half the teams from the other division. Johntex\^talk 04:41, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Conference champions

In sports where there is a "regular season" champion and a "tournament" champion, I think we need to determine which one we're going to put in the conference champions table, and then probably note that on the tables so that there's no confusion/edit conflicts. Currently it seems like the de facto method is regular season champions (see 2005 men's baseball and basketball, where there were co-champions). We also have the option of listing BOTH sets of champions, but this sets up the possibility of having 3 different teams in a single box (e.g.- 2005 men's basketball, where Oklahoma State won the tourney). Obviously JUST listing the tourney champion would always yield only one team. Any thoughts? EWS23 | (Leave me a message!) 05:54, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

The Big 12's website seems to indicate that the conference tournament champion is THE conference champion, regardless of who the regular season champion was. Indications of this are at [2], where the upcoming basketball tournament is called the 'championship' (as opposed to the 'Conference Tournament' or something else), and at [3], where OSU is listed as the 2005 Men's Basketball champion (the 2005 regular season champions are currently in the article) and Texas is listed as the 2005 softball champion (where Texas A&M actually won the regular season). I'm not going to make the change until I can find a Big 12 site that has all former champions listed, so this will give some time for any dissenting views to be voiced. -- EdisonLBM 19:59, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Most schools hang "Big 12 Championship" banners for regular-season championships only. If they also hang banners for tournament championships, they are typically called "Big 12 Tournament Champions" in those. I would prefer to stick with regular-season championships. (ESkog)^(Talk) 21:41, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

True, the regular season champs do tend to be advertised more - would it be ok if I added something to make it clear what the table actually is? Something to the effect of "Big XII Men's\Women's Regular Season Champions?" -- EdisonLBM 00:30, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

On the suggestion of another user, I added the links to all the record books on the Big 12's website. I'm still not sure if they are organized in the best manner (splitting them up into men's and women's sublists might be a good idea, for example). However, this leads to an interesting solution to this problem: the record books contain all the conference standing data for both the regular season and the tournament for all the years of the Big 12's existence. With these lists added to this page, does this argument become moot? A reader could very easily access any information on championships that they desired directly from the Big 12, and this would allow us to remove the championship tables altogether. - EdisonLBM 05:06, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

I'd prefer to keep the championship tables. If we eliminated all info that could be found at external links, Wikipedia would become a link repository. :o) Feel free to add a clarification note above the champions table, as I think that would be very appropriate. EWS23 | (Leave me a message!) 05:14, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

The only problem/inconsistency with calling the charts "regular season champions" is that the charts list the winner of the football confernce championship game. I think everyone agrees that the regular season champ is generally the champ in most sports - like basketball - but the championship game winner is the champ in football. Not sure how to capture all that in a header. Kgwo1972 21:11, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

• Footnoted. How does that look? (ESkog)^(Talk) 21:15, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

FYI, wherever the Big 12 lists "All Time Championships" it lists regular season champions for all sports except football, just as we have here. I have finally knocked out the last of the inaccuracies in the chart. As long as nobody edits back in tournament champions, it should stay accurate, so don't touch it. Thanks. Kgwo1972 21:24, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Recent expansions by User:66.232.195.64

Hello, I have left a note for User:66.232.195.64 asking for a source for some recent expansions. It is a shared IP, so if this person does not come back after a while then we will need to do some fact-checking. I'm assuming good faith about the new informaiton for now. Johntex\^talk 18:18, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Logos

I have restored the team logos to the page. Fair use images are usable when there is no free alterantive to the image. By definition, there is no free alterantive to a logo. However, I think the logos would be better here if alongside additional commentary about the team they represent. Can we expand the article to make a brief mention of each team? Johntex\^talk 21:27, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Our policy only "permit[s] some non-free material for critical commentary." - WP:FUC. ed g2s • talk 03:25, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Ed, you are acting unilaterally in your interpretation of policy yet again. There is no consensus in support of the actions you are taking. You are well aware of the ongoing discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Logos#Clarification_on_use_of_sports_team_logos. Johntex\^talk 16:05, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

This issue was discussed and decided at Wikimania. This usage is NOT acceptable. Anyone who reverts my last edit removing the gallery, or otherwise recreates the gallery, will be blocked. This is now policy. Kelly Martin (talk) 13:55, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

I wasn't aware Wikimania was a discussion forum for establishing Wikipedia policy. I bet a lot more people would have attended. =) If it's policy, I assume you'll direct us to the relevant policy page? Powers 14:23, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Just an FYI the specific policy says "Sports team logos may be used in articles or aticle sections where the team is discussed", so it is ok, as long as the individual team is discussed, which they appear to be in this article. Logos are ok. (Cardsplayer4life 22:48, 8 August 2006 (UTC))

• I have decided to file a request for comment at Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Kelly_Martin2. Johntex\^talk 22:54, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Oh, joy. =) Powers 01:23, 9 August 2006 (UTC)