Jump to content

Talk:Big Ten Conference

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by SineBot (talk | contribs) at 20:49, 12 March 2011 (Signing comment by 98.212.25.109 - "→Which new logo version?: "). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Untitled

The NCAA Championships and Big Ten Championships sorely need updating; the last time was in 2008.VictorsValiant09 (talk) 10:10, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Expansion

No official announcement has been made regarding the expansion. The Kansas City radio station report has not been confirmed. Every story about the expansion refers to the 810 WHB's story. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.52.215.153 (talk) 12:26, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Shouldn't we wait to add Nebraska until they've actually joined? Macmanui (talk) 13:29, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, we should. It is not official yet and we do not know when they exactly will join. It is also likly the Big Ten will extend more invitations in the future. Bcspro (talk) 16:26, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I just removed the following text that appeared immediately above the "Expansion" section of the article. It was redundant and I think it was all speculation (even though cited). I've also requested page protection for this article due to the non-stop barrage of Nebraska-related stuff. I am putting this text here so that someone can easily review what I took out, if you like.

The University of Nebraska announced their intent to join on June 11, 2010 to become the conference's 12th team. These other schools have been rumored to be good choices for additional teams:
These schools all belong to rival BCS conferences, with the exception of University of Notre Dame football which is independent (all other Notre Dame sports teams compete in the Big East). Notre Dame and UConn are the only known potential invitees who are not members of the Association of American Universities.

1995hoo (talk) 21:28, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Big Ten Women's Basketball - Section Needed

Any Wikipedian, please create this section if you have time.


13:40, 12 June 2006 (UTC)13:40, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

I disagree. The only sections written for any sport are under the heading "rivalries," for which I think, only football should be listed. The Big Ten has long been known for its intense football rivalries, but men's basketball has been tepid at best (I'm talking about rivalries, not level of play). I think the men's basketball section should be removed, if anything. While I agree that women's basketball is an important sport for the conference, the overall repuation of play and fan interest simply doesn't support a section for that moreso than any other sport. The Big Ten is by no means known for its women's basketball, ranking typically between the 6th and 8th best conference in the country. I'd suggest instead a list of the national championships and other national accolades won by memebers of the conference across all sports.

-m

13:40, 12 June 2006 (UTC)13:40, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Western Conference

Why does Western Conference redirect to this article? --All in 03:55, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The conference’s official name throughout the time was still the Intercollegiate Conference of Faculty Representatives and was also known as the Western Conference. It did not formally adopt the name Big Ten until 1987 when it was incorporated as a not-for-profit corporation. ... but it needs to be a dab. -- Jjjsixsix (t)/(c) @ 03:59, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
But there are other Western Conferences. I think "Western Conference" should be a disambig page. For example, in the NHL, NBA, WHL, etc. I'm sure there are many others. --thirty-seven 00:10, 18 May 2006 (UTC)--thirty-seven 00:09, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, I noticed this the other day but did not have time to fix. I created the disambig page now. (Terryn3 22:44, 18 May 2006 (UTC))[reply]

Not the Oldest

The Big Ten is not oldest college athletic conference. That title goes the the Michigan Intercollegiate Athletic Association, founded in founded March 24, 1888. MIAA History. The Big Ten was founded on January 11, 1895 Big Ten History. --Colslax 23:05, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The article states that the Big Ten is the oldest DI athletic conference. The MIAA is not Division I. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 128.101.181.114 (talk • contribs) 05:11, 30 November 2006 (UTC).[reply]

Logos

Fair use images are allowable where no free alterantive exists. By definition, there is no free alternative to a logo. Therefore, logos would be usable here under fair use if the team they represent is discussed (not just mentioned). Johntex\talk 21:29, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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 16:35, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Penn State Enrollment

Listing Penn State's enrollment as 82K is misleading and not consistent with how the other institutions are listed. This incorporates all the affiliated campuses, evn those with distinct names (Dickenson, Penn Tech, Hershey, etc.) and probably distinct sports teams and conference affiliations. This is not done for any of the other Big-10 schools (many of which would get larger if it were done), and smells of one-upsmanship. The List_of_largest_US_universities_by_enrollment page doesn't do this either, so there is precedent and consistency to maintain. It is probably correct as well, given this is the Big 10 page: only the University Park campus is affiliated with the Big 10 athletic conference. Nestify 15:01, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The previous editor states.... "probably"...which is not correct as it is defintiely not included in the compilation of Penn State enrollment figures nor athletic conference alignment or membership. As all NCAA FBS schools are listed as members based upon first their affiliation with varsity team sports and football as primary. Thus, as Penn State was established as The Commonwealth University many decades ago, their unique branch campus system is inclusive of their entire university and makes no distinction in degrees granted or administration of academics or policy. There is no "transfering" of credits or students from one campus to the next, rather an "assignment" of the students classroom; (i.e. a class one blcok away is the same as a class 150 miles away). These figures however do not included distance learning or online classroom enrollments but actual physical attendance in the classroom. Thus, The Pennsylvania State University has an annual enrollment that now exceeds 87,000. For a list of specific classroom totals, please see the www.psu.edu.

The previous editor of this information notates the "List_of_largest_US_universities_by_enrollment page doesn't do this either, so there is precedent and consistency to maintain." This same standard indicates that the University of Arizona State has an total enrollmentn of over 60,000 but which is enmassed over 4 different and distinct campuses. This does not indicate consistancy. Precedence is thus to those figures which are indicative of a singular university entity, not a system, and not an independent campus. Thus Penn State not being a university system, comprised of a single adminstrative and academic entity with non-independent campuses fulfills the previous editors requirement —Preceding unsigned comment added by Uniservallaw (talk • contribs) 17:48, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Notre Dame not officially invited

I removed this phrase:

the Big Ten extended an official invitation to Notre Dame

Per the citation ( http://www.mndaily.com/daily/1999/02/08/sports/irish/ ), the Big 10 did not officially invite ND. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.92.53.49 (talk) 10:07, 8 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]

History

Nearly all of the "History" section is lifted verbatim from the Big Ten History page on the conference website. This needs to be rewritten by someone a bit more familiar with the topic than myself. -- PSUMark2006 talk | contribs 02:04, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Comparing the two only this "At the 1895 meeting, a blueprint for the control and administration of college athletics under the direction of appointed faculty representatives was outlined. The presidents' first-known action "restricted eligibility for athletics to bona fide, full-time students who were not delinquent in their studies." This helped limit some problems of the times, especially the participation of professional athletes and "non-students" in the universities' regular sporting events. "

seems to be cut and paste and perhaps part of the first para should not be to difficult to fix it give it a shot Smith03 03:19, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is a gap in the University of Michigan's membership in the conference on the time line graphic. Perhaps there should be a discussion regarding their departure and return. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.88.170.178 (talk) 01:22, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In the discussion of potential new members, it might be best to place it under its own heading separate from the history section. Also, "Other possible universities that have gained favor for any possible expansion for the 12th spot in the conference include:" should be reworded (without "other"), as several of the universities subsequently listed were discussed in the paragraph immediately prior. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.88.170.178 (talk) 01:35, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

University of Colorado

How could the University of Colorado even be considered to join the Big Ten if it isn't in or next to the current territory, as the next paragraph states is required? The inclusion of University of Colorado on the list of schools that may join the Big Ten is a little hinky to me. -- Guy Without a Wikipedia Account —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.214.15.100 (talk) 17:13, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I remember Colorado was disscussed on ESPN's College Football Live with Mark May and Lou Holtz saying that Colorad was up for consiteration. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rick lay95 (talk • contribs) 17:12, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No redirect

It says at the top of this page that "Big Ten" redirects here. Well, having just come here from that page I can tell you that it definitely does not. Just a heads up. 138.69.160.1 15:40, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Research Expenditures

Do Big Ten research expenditures really exceed the Ivy League on a per-university or per-capita basis or total basis? This unsourced claim seems somewhat... questionable. Cornell, Columbia, Harvard, Penn and Yale all spend in the 500-600 million dollar range while even the little ivies like Princeton and Dartmouth spend over 200 million each. UW-Madison certainly pulls its' own weight at 800 million, but using system wide numbers for Michigan, OSU and PSU seems pretty shady. Thoughts?Jeh25 (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 19:36, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OSU vs TOSU

Okay, so which is it? Ohio State University or The Ohio State University (not to be confused with Ohio University)? Whole lotta reverting goin' on... Dagordon01 (talk) 19:10, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's Ohio State. See Ohio State University. HoosierStateTalk 20:50, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The official name is The Ohio State University (as obnoxious as some people make it sound), but you can get away saying "Ohio State University", or just simply "Ohio State." Likewise, Penn State is officially known as The Pennsylvania State University, but that's a mouthful. The reason I've heard for saying "The" like "Thee" is because it sounds more pleasing to the ear to stress the word "the" prior to a word that starts with a vowel. (shrugs shoulders). I went to Ohio State and the emphasis on that word drives me nuts. You're right though, it'd be easier if they were the University of Ohio, but they are older and had first dibs, so we'll respect that. Besides, we could have wound up as Ohio A&M. Frank12 (talk) 03:37, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
We were Ohio A & M for a time, or so says the bronze historic plaque at the head of Mirror Lake. I was a student when the administration started using the "The". I remember the comic strip "Potshots" in the Lantern had a great strip making fun of it. I always considered it a creation of the public relations office. I, too, found it annoying but have grow accustom to it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.88.170.178 (talk) 01:18, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If, as stated above, Penn State is actually "The Pennsylvania State University" as well, then The Pennsylvania State University's name should be written likewise as well. It makes no sense to have a double-standard simply to pander to fans of a particular college over another. Either both must include "The" or neither should include "The". Scipio Carthage (talk) 03:48, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

U of Chicago returning as the 12th member?

Did anyone else read the reference article (here) and think it was a tongue-in-cheek joke written by a U of C student? They made it sound nice, but I don't think it holds much merit. Frank12 (talk) 03:37, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have heard that according to the Big Ten bylaws, the U of Chicago can return to the Big Ten. Can anyone confirm this, as I haven't been able to finf the Big Ten's bylaws. It's unlikely as they would have to move up to D-I, and have shown no interest in doing so.--RLent (talk) 17:38, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nebraska

Just saw that Nebraska was added as the 12th team to the conference. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.50.126.191 (talk) 21:41, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nebraska was removed from the grid as this is not official. See the discussion under #Expansion on this page. Teetlebomb (talk) 17:49, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rose Bowl participation

The first and last lines of this paragraph contradict each other:

"The Big Ten did not allow their schools to participate in bowl games, other than the Rose Bowl, until the agreement struck with the Pacific Coast Conference for the 1947 Rose Bowl. From 1946 through 1971, the Big Ten did not allow the same team to represent the conference in consecutive years in the Rose Bowl with an exception made after the 1961 season in which Minnesota played in the 1962 Rose Bowl after playing in the 1961 Rose Bowl due to Ohio State declining the bid. It was not until the 1975 season that the Big Ten allowed teams to play in bowl games other than the Rose Bowl."

So from what year were Big Ten teams allowed to participate in bowl games other than the Rose Bowl? Was it 1947 or 1975? Can someone with knowledge of the situation update the article? Thanks

BMetts (talk) 20:22, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Time line

I shrunk the time line because it was causing lest to right scrolling on the page. However, I don't know how to change the location of the text for Nebraska's bar so it all shows up. Thus, I'm deferring that to someone else. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Michealin (talk • contribs) 16:24, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Rreagan007 (talk) 16:46, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Edit request from Jswede1, 18 June 2010

Nebraska Join Date

I believe that Nebraska is already actually an official member of the conference academically. It is only joining in 2011 in athletics, to my knowledge. However, I can't back this up, so I won't make the assertion in the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.127.164.186 (talk) 19:13, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

{{editsemiprotected}}

hi - under Endowments, the Wisconsin Alumni Research Foundation should at least be footnoted, if not included for Wisconsin. UW's Endowment is really in 2 parts, and this article leaves over half ($2bil) of it out.

Jswede1 (talk) 02:33, 18 June 2010 (UTC)jswede1[reply]

 Not done: Please provide a reference to a reliable source. —Mikemoral♪♫ 02:52, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Divisions

There are two tables listing the new divisions, one in the Expansion section, and one in the Football section. Shouldn't they be consolidated? Can we have the expansion section link to the Football section? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Literaldeluxe (talk • contribs) 13:44, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why 12 Teams?

Why does this article reflect what's going to happen next year? Isn't it still currently an 11 team conference? The first few sentences make it seem as if 12's current. Ommnomnomgulp (talk) 03:57, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why wouldn't reflect what's going to happen? And how is it confusing? DC T•C 06:43, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Are you serious? Ommnomnomgulp (talk) 17:56, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Are you? What part of "Its eleven member institutions are located primarily in the Midwestern United States" is confusing? Or how about "Despite the conference's name, since Penn State joined in 1990, there have been 11 schools in the Big Ten. The University of Nebraska–Lincoln will join the conference as its 12th member effective July 1, 2011"? DC T•C 20:52, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
err.. some quick detective work would have made it clear that _I_ changed it from "twelve" to "eleven" and took out the reference to Nebraska being the western-most state. However, the part about Penn State, 11 schools, and Nebraska joining the conference, I left as it was. These made it confusing with the parts that I changed, and you've just confirmed that my changes made sense. Good job--that's mighty fine police work there, Lou ;) Ommnomnomgulp (talk) 01:01, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Gotcha. I agree the previous version was confusing and wrong. DC T•C 01:12, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
My apologies if I seemed flippant in my previous post. Was trying to be ha-ha sarcastic, nothing more. Ommnomnomgulp (talk) 01:40, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The new big ten logo is currently not the official logo of the big ten, The hidden 11 logo is the current logo until Nebraska officially joins on July 1, 2011. If you check bigten.org the 11 logo is still in use. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 140.182.181.231 (talk) 07:11, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It seems that now Bigten.org has switched. What should we do about pages like 2010–11 Big Ten Conference men's basketball season?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 16:49, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Teams' basketball courts still reflect the pre-Nebraska logo. Bcspro (talk) 19:07, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The conference tournament's courts are using the new logo. I think it is safe to say they switched. Daniel J Simanek (talk) 03:12, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The 2011 Big Ten Conference Men's Basketball Tournament uses the new logo, although the flywheel only has the school colors of 11 teams.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 04:35, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Which new logo version?

I uploaded File:Big Ten Conference logo (2011).png on January 27; it was taken directly from several new logo versions posted on the Big Ten website here. Another user claims the Big Ten has "abandoned" most of those versions because they are no longer viewable on that page; he/she has also used their absence to justify replacing my upload. I disagree. The initial press release for the new logo/divisions, also on the Big Ten website, still states the following:

"The new logo... provides the flexibility of multiple versions which can be used horizontally, vertically and within new media."

There is nothing online (or in print) which indicates the Big Ten has "abandoned" all other versions of the new logo (perhaps the Big Ten simply did not want multiple, relatively high resolution graphics up indefinitely). The real issue here is which version of the new logo should be used in the infobox. The version I uploaded includes the words "Big Ten"; the other does not. I also was not the first to upload my preferred version; another user uploaded the same version, though at a lower quality, the very day the new logo/divisions announcement was made on December 13. Levdr1 (talk) 15:04, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The version you have uploaded no longer exists anywhere, the Big Ten clearly quit using it. Stop being stubborn and accept reality. Look at the header on the Big Ten website. Look at the court at Conseco Fieldhouse. LOOK AT THE PAGE LITERALLY LISTING ALL THE NEW LOGOS WHERE THERE IS ONLY ONE: http://www.bigten.org/genrel/121310aaa.html How stupid can you be? Eightball (talk) 01:31, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Considering that is what the Big Ten says their logo is, I would say change it. I will say, however, that calling someone stupid over this is taking it a little far, especially since there was no announcement of any further changes, in print or otherwise. Be civil, people — it's just Wikipedia. Daniel J Simanek (talk) 02:08, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
First, the Big Ten has not said anything, except what I already included above ("multiple versions"). The only difference between now and January 27 is that the Big Ten website no longer lists multiple high resolution versions of the new logo. "B 10" versions, "Big Ten" versions, some black and blue, some only blue -- all were among those which were present on that page up until just recently. Given the fact there has been no announcement declaring that all logos aside from the black-blue "B 10" logo have been "abandoned", we have no reason to think they have been. Even if we accepted that link (which has already changed once) as completely reliable, does that mean we drop all other sources contradicting the link? The Big Ten Network special airing on or around December 13 made it clear that multiple versions will be used. Here's an article containing video from that day: [1].
I realize that the Big Ten website now uses the black-blue "B 10", but again, that does not mean that all the other versions have been "abandoned" (perhaps the Big Ten plans to roll out a different version each month over the next several months). I also stand by my argument that for the purposes of this article, the appropriate version from the "multiple versions" the Big Ten says it will be using (again, see this link) should read "Big Ten". I'm restoring the logo again, if for no other reason than to generate a more thorough discussion. Levdr1 (talk) 10:35, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
What is the fair-use rationale for the logo? To "...assure the readers that they have reached the right article..." and "...illustrate the organization's intended branding message..." To be true to the latter, we should use the new one. wjematherbigissue 11:04, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Eightball, the single-line B10 logo is preferable. Both logos are nice but why would we possibly display the two-line version when nobody seems to use it? –CWenger (talk) 14:08, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
As an example, take a look at Nike, Inc. Its infobox uses the plain "swoosh" logo, no need to add the text "Nike" to it. –CWenger (talk) 14:16, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
At this moment, I would have to agree that the single-line B10 logo is preferable. Yes, we have no idea if the two line version has been abandoned or not. Whether it has been or not is irrelevant in my opinion. At this time, the single-line version is the one predominantly featured on their official website, basketball courts, championship releases [2], clothing [3], etc. Until they start using the two-line version more than the one-line version, I believe the single-line version is the one wikipedia should also use.Americanhero (talk) 15:51, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I feel like we have a consensus for the previous, one-line B10 logo here, so I went ahead and changed it back. –CWenger (talk) 15:59, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate that you guys agree but really your opinion is irrelevant, the old "new" logo is nowhere to be found on the Big Ten's website, they CLEARLY are not using it anymore, this Levdr10 guy is an absolutely delusional moron. Eightball (talk) 19:23, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That is an unacceptable personal attack and a violation of Wikipedia policy. This is/was a legitimate disagreement over improving the article. –CWenger (talk) 19:35, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have reported this at Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts#Talk:Big Ten Conference#Which new logo version?. –CWenger (talk) 19:43, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Gee whiz, CWhizzer, you're right about the logo, and you're right about Eightball's comment, but you're acting like a ninny to be lodging a formal report on Eightball (and I'm probably next for saying you're acting like a ninny). I'm glad you know where such things can be reported (I don't didn't), but that doesn't mean you are required to do so. You could have just struck his comment from here, let 8Ball know on his talk page, and perhaps inform Levdr10 where he could bring it up if it's important enough to him to do so. Instead you jump and make a federal case of it. Maybe if Lev wants to complain, he should do so, but your overreaction accomplishes nothing positive as far as I can see. HuskyHuskie (talk) 19:52, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If it was just once I might have gone a different route but this was two obvious personal attacks on somebody trying to improve the article. I have zero tolerance for that and deferred the matter to administrators who are familiar with the appropriate course of action. –CWenger (talk) 20:02, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Looking through the history, I suppose it's this edit to which you're referring. Yeah, 8Ball's definitely committed an annoying scratch there (pun intentional). And I see that Daniel J Simanek addressed it appropriately at that time, so yes, I stand corrected; you probably did the right thing. Sorry to have jumped to conclusions. (But you may want to actually include both statement in your posting; I likely would have reacted differently if I had seen both statements there. No worries.) I mean, I do think we overconcern ourselves with personal attacks around here, but 8Ball was clearly in the wrong here. Oh well, children will be children. HuskyHuskie (talk) 20:15, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
LOL, no, this is not a legitimate disagreement about improving the article. This is one editor being 100% factually wrong and somehow unable to see that despite all evidence to the contrary. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.212.25.109 (talk) 20:48, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  1. ^ "What the Big Ten Would Look Like With a 12th Team". Retrieved 2009-11-12.
  2. ^ "If the Big Ten does expand, it could do far worse than to present a new Husky image". Retrieved 2010-03-11.
  3. ^ "Big Ten Expansion a Vision Test for UConn". Retrieved 2010-03-11.
  4. ^ a b "Conference network could prompt bigger Big Ten". Retrieved 2007-07-27.
  5. ^ a b c "Alden: Big Ten has not contacted Mizzou". Retrieved 2007-07-27.
  6. ^ a b http://www.crimsonquarry.com/2007/07/expansion-talk-again.html
  7. ^ "The Big Twen?". Retrieved 2007-07-27.
  8. ^ "Georgia Tech and Big Ten Expansion". {{cite web}}: |access-date= requires |url= (help); Check date values in: |accessdate= (help); Missing or empty |url= (help); Text "http://blogs.ajc.com/techfans/2010/05/12/big-ten-expansion-and-georgia-tech/" ignored (help)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Big_Ten_Conference&oldid=418508488"