Wikipedia

Talk:12th man (football)/Archive 2

< Talk:12th man (football)
Latest comment: 7 years ago by InternetArchiveBot in topic External links modified
Archive 1Archive 2

Protected edit request on 2 February 2014

Latest comment: 10 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
you use the word boeing freighter in this article about 12 man

should be fighter unless boeing is making ships.– bgoldstone@goldmangruderwoods.com ----

24.228.25.128 (talk) 23:49, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

I checked the sources used in the article. The term used in both of the cited sources for that material is "freighter". The jet in question is also stated in those sources to be a 747-8 cargo jet - so clearly not a fighter. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 23:59, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Aggy Bias

Latest comment: 9 years ago5 comments5 people in discussion

I think it is clear that a particular user is here with the goal of diminishing Texas A&M's claim to the trademark of the twelfth man. I'd like to think that any article or reference that uses "aggy" should be eliminated from this page. SimpsonsDidIt

Please see WP:Verifiability and articulate your issue. UW Dawgs (talk) 05:23, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
Anything that comes from hornsports.com should be considered a self published source.SimpsonsDidIt (talk) 05:41, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
"aggy" is a derogative term of a student from Texas A&M University, and thus any potential website that would be used as a source that allows perjorative terminology such as "aggy" is inherintly biased against the school. This violates WP:NOTRELIABLE. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.196.190.8 (talk) 21:05, 14 February 2014 (UTC)


Interesting that you think that, given the fact that the TAMU official sports websites uses "Aggies". In a sports context, I have never heard them referred to anything other than "Aggies", and as far as I can determine, that is the official term for their sports teams. Wschart (talk) 14:02, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
At TAMU (or at UC Davis, for that matter), the singular version of "Aggies" is "Aggie" not "aggy." Spelling it wrong is what is perjorative. 23.121.112.123 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 14:31, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

Texas A&M Trademark

Latest comment: 8 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion

It has been suggested that the citation used to discuss the details of the Texas A&M trademark license to Seattle is "not good enough" and that a citation is needed for the prohibition of Seattle selling any items with the "12th Man" term. I'm not certain why the cited source isn't suitable considering that they have included a copy of the actual legal document and also, as part of that agreement, article 9.1.b specifically states that Seattle is prohibited from selling "12th Man" merchandise. Macae (talk) 15:25, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Your [recent edit] split the preceding sentences from their two supporting citations of http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=2437992 and http://www.goodbullhunting.com/2014/1/19/5271954/12th-man-trademark-licensing-agreement-texas-am-aggies-seattle-seahawks .
There are two components to your edit:
"The agreement limits the Seahawks usage to seven states in the Pacific Northwest and forbids them from selling any "12th Man" merchandise."
Neither are supported by the ESPN citation, with the second supported by the existing GBH PDF citation. Hence WP:Citation needed. You subsequently included a new citation which supports both. Note, WP:REFNAME is helpful for re-using the same citation throughout an article, which was another option in this case. UW Dawgs (talk) 19:27, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
Fixed per WP:REFNAME. UW Dawgs (talk) 20:27, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Some of the information regarding the trademark and lawsuits is repeated in two separate sections. Thoughts on perhaps making brief mention of lawsuits in the team section and then reserve the more specific details and results for the trademark portion of the article? Macae (talk) 22:32, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

MDY format vs DMY format

Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Presently, the article has both DMY (17 February, 2014) and MDY (February 17, 2014) formatting.

MOS:DATEUNIFY says:
Dates in article body text should all use the same format: Julia ate a poisoned apple on 25 June 2005, and died on 28 June (not ... on June 28).

WP:STRONGNAT says:
Articles on topics with strong ties to a particular English-speaking country should generally use the more common date format for that nation. For the United States, this is month before day; for most others, it is day before month.

WP:DATERET says:
If an article has evolved using predominantly one format, the whole article should conform to it, unless there are reasons for changing it based on strong national ties to the topic or consensus on article talk.

The date format chosen by the first major contributor in the early stages of an article should continue to be used, unless there is reason to change it based on strong national ties to the topic or consensus on article talk.


Reviewing the article, #1 is presently an issue. There is only one section of four paragraphs related to association football, with a handful of other references throughout. Nearly the rest (80%+) of the full article text is about American football. So #2 applies. A review of the article history does not indicate #3 has ever applied re first major contributor.

So, as date formats should be consistent within the article, and the content is predominantly about American football, and American football is tightly tied to US English date formats, I would like to standardize on the MDY format.

Opening on the Talk page for feedback and consensus. UW Dawgs (talk) 21:46, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Standardizing with the MDY format seems reasonable and logical. 22:40, 17 February 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Macae (talk • contribs)

American bias

Latest comment: 9 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Not once in the history section is football mentioned, only American football. Where's 95,6 % of the world in this?

Oh, great, there's a two paragraph long section, only slightly bigger than some obscure Texas A&M trademark issue that would not meet the criteria for Wikipedia's cherished so-called "notability" anywhere else in the world. The article reeks from self-importance, not neutrality. RhoDaZZ (talk) 16:39, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

See Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football#improve "12th man (football)" article. I don't think that there's much to add here. --Super Nintendo Chalmers (talk) 14:36, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on 12th man (football). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:09, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on 12th man (football). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:53, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:12th_man_(football)/Archive_2&oldid=1258086743"