Talk:Kyle Field

Largest Training/Rehab facility Claim

I put a "citation needed" ‹The template Talkfact is being considered for merging.›  up a few days ago and still haven't seen a response. I am pulling the claim. If you want to put the claim back up please cite the source. Dothivalla 20:55, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Original Cost

Under cost, Kyle Field was listed as $300,000. This is misleading because the most recent expansion was significantly more than $1 million. Unless someone objects, I recommend changing it to "Original Cost" or "Initial Construction Cost".

Size Vandalization

Someone keeps reducing the offical capacity of Kyle field to 80k, and increasing the offical capacity of DKR (the univ of texas stadium) to 85k. The offical numbers on capacity are 82,650 for KF, and just over 80k for DKR.

Until the improvements to DKR are completed, or Texas changes their offically listed capacity, there is no reason to vandalize either article by posting false claims. --Ancalagon06 13:55, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

The offical website for UT football lists the capacity of DKR at 85,123.[1]. The official Kyle Field page lists its capacity as 82,600.[2] Johntex\^talk 14:03, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

The first game of the newly expanded DKR-TMS in Austin is in the books. Kyle is now officially #2.Es330td (talk) 03:22, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough. I tweaked it a little since the capacity of Kyle Field is just a shade over 83,000. The number of people in attendance is another matter altogether. As an example, Let's say we fill all 83,000+ seats and then invite someone over to stand and watch the game. Then let's say we find him a plastic chair to sit in. At that point we are over capacity, but didn't expand the actual capacity of the stadium. In short, Texas A&M doesn't consider non-permanent seating to be part of the "capacity". Hope this works for you. — BQZip01 — ^talk 15:17, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

HD

Since 12th Man TV has been merged here, I am copying the following discussion from the Talk page.

please keep the part about it being NOT HD.
This does not meet the criteria for a high definition television which includes a minimum specification of 720x1280 for a total of at least 921,600 pixels. Corpx 06:17, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

• I agree. I think it is useful information. Readers will naturally want to know if such a big screen is high definition, or they may even just assume that any screen that big must be high-definition. The comparison of the number of pixels in this screen and the number of pixels defined in the high definition standard is useful information. Johntex\^talk 14:21, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

You are correct, it is not HDTV, but is high resolution. If we're getting technical on these articles, it is my understanding that UT does not yet have the capability to record and transmit an HD signal to their screen. Is that confirmed? -Texink 01:09, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes, we are absolutely supposed to be getting technical with these articles. It is an encyclopedia, after all!

As far as I know "high resolution" does not have an agreed upon definition. What definition are you using for "high resolution" and what is your source for that definition? The ATSC provides a definition for "high definition television" so this is a defined term.

If "high resolution" does not have an agreed-upon definition, then the phrase is just like "high quality" or "amazing sound" and it should be ommitted. As far as I can see, the one reference currently usded for this article does not use the phrase "high resolution".

As far as Godzillatron, I think you are referring to a rumor that was dispelled. What happened was in the first game, UT received a lot of complaints that they were using less than half of the screen to show video. Someone from the athletics department claimed that this was because they were missing a part. However, that explanation was soon revealed to be bogus.[3] They were not missing a part, they just wanted to show a lot of adds. Johntex\^talk 01:22, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

at the ohio state game, godzillatron displayed standard def video, but it was stretched to fit the area inside the ad border. at the iowa state game, high def video was displayed on the screen, along with high def replays Corpx 02:05, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Above discussion bopied from Talk:12th Man TV

I think we should remove the part about the Godzillatron. There is no need for it to be explicitly stated here. Thoughts?

• Somewhere along the line, someone reinserted the claim that this TV is cable of high-definition video. I removed the claim again since it is not true. Johntex\^talk 19:24, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Johntex, yes it is capable of displaying a HD signal. http://www.aggieathletics.com/pressRelease.php?PRID=11654, but one must note that there are 2 issues here.

1. The signal itself can be displayed: though some people get an HD signal in their homes, they cannot use these channels because they do not have the capability to display an HD signal.
2. Then there is the quality displayed. A&M's screen has the capability to display 480p resolution images. While this is definitely the lower end of HD, it is still an HD signal that can be displayed.

Let's not get into a revert war. BQZip01 02:28, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, we won't have a revert war as long as you don't revert me.  :-) Seriously, if you read our article (or any other reputable source) on High Definition, you will notice that 480p does not count as High Definition. 480p is "enhanced definition". Even the original X-Box, the PS2, and most current DVD players can do 480p. It is not High Definition. High Definition begins at 780p. Johntex\^talk 15:03, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

The problem is, I've never actually read anything that states that 12th Man TV is actually a 480p screen. Most people that are attempting to change this article back to stating that the screen is HD-capable are probability using this as a source: [4] (look at the second section, just after the introduction). While I can't find where I read this, I've read that the total resolution of the screen was 1024x768. This presents a problem when trying to describe it as SDTV, EDTV or HDTV: that resolution is enough more than standard SDTV and EDTV resolutions that I would say merely calling the screen EDTV is inaccurate; likewise, that doesn't conform to any HD spec that I'm aware of, and, as such, calling it HD doesn't really work either. I would say that it's best to just remove any mention of this issue from the article all together - having two paragraphs about screen resolution in an article about a football stadium seems absurd, and I don't know if we can do a good, accurate description of the screen's capabilities in less. -EdisonLBM 16:20, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm... Our article says that the Kyle Field screen has 590,000 pixels.

The minimum standard for HDTV is 720x1280 for a total of at least 921,600 pixels. Let's look at just pixel counts for a moment and ignore other portions of the standard such as aspect ratio, refresh rate, etc.

• If our article is right and the screen has 590,000 pixels that would be 64% of the 921,600 required for high definition.
• If you can find a source that says the screen really has 1024x768 that is the XGA standard. 1024x768 works out to 786,432 pixels, which would be 85.3% of the number required for high definition.

So, either way it is not high definition. For the article, we could simply say that the screen has "higher resolution than Enhanced-definition television but less resolution than High-definition television". Johntex\^talk 18:27, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Interesting bit on that press release's pixel count not matching the 1024x768 number - I could swear that I had read that from some place reputable - perhaps that's the count of only the part of the screen used for video during a football game (and not counting the part used only for the scoreboard)? At any rate, I'm not sure that it matters, as I think we can all agree that the screen is somewhere between EDTV and HDTV at this point. I think your sentence works well enough.. I would phrase it something along the lines of ".. has a resolution in between that of Enhanced-definition television and High-definition television" just because I think that sounds smoother, but that's just getting picky and I really would say that your way of saying it is factually accurate based on the information we've dug up.

Since it seems that there has been at least one other user looking at this part of the article recently, I'll wait until tomorrow to give them a chance to weigh in before I make the change. - EdisonLBM 01:15, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Sounds good. Your wording is fine with me. Johntex\^talk 01:28, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Expansion

Looks like Kyle is going to get expanded in the near future.[5] Someone want to add this information? I'm too busy right now. Blueag9 03:17, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

It's already there. The article says 'In late 2004, various expansion plans for Kyle Field were communicated to the public, with the final capacity possibly expanding to 115,000.[5] The expansion plans are indefinite with university officials saying, “Anything could happen, but there’s no definitive time line to make this go. It’s a vision, and much of it depends on the success of the football program.'" Johntex\^talk 15:26, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Kyle Field as a Living Memorial

On game days, about 55 US Flags are flown from the top decks of Kyle Field. These flags represent the 55 Aggies killed defending our country during World War I. This is also why the Corps of Cadets stands together in uniform, again showing patriotism and respect to those Aggies who gave their lives in defense of our freedom.

• I added this info with sources to the header section.Karanacs 18:25, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

12th Man

Would someone want to add a section briefly talking about the 12th Man? I think it's important that we mention who the 12th Man is (since Kyle Field is the home of..), and talk about the huge number of tickets set aside for students (unlike at that other school in Austin). Maybe we could also bring up the College GameDay appearances, and some of the info that is in the introduction. I've already done a lot of tweaking today, so if someone else has time to write this I'd be thankful! Gig 'em! Karanacs 18:33, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Kyle Field Capacity

I restored cited information about Kyle Field previously being the largest in the state but now being the second largest. This is certainly a topic we can expect readers to care about. It may be better somewhere else besides the lead, but the lead is really short so I left it there. Johntex\^talk 18:17, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

While it is a fact, it's POV, since half the sentence refers to another stadium for another school. Perhaps a link to a page with the largest college stadiums would be less POV (you don't need to show how A&M is less than your alma mater. Seems kind of petty and unnecessary to add it to every webpage including "Kyle Field") BQZip01 18:31, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Please by careful with saying words like "petty", they don't aid the conversation. A fact by itseld is not POV. Giving a fact undue weight can be POV. As I mentioned, I have no objection to moving the information further down the page. You may not be aware of the history of the article. There was a time when authors kept trying to say that Kyle Field is the largest in the state. If authors are mistaken about this, other readers surely will be as well. Adding the information to the article helps inform these misinformed people. Johntex\^talk 19:10, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

I do not say that it is the largest in the state (and yes I saw the discussion), but to point out that it is second to DKR is POV IMHO. I have NO problem whatsoever stating it is the second largest (it is), but DKR has little place on the Kyle Field page (and vice versa). We won't be having this problem once they build Kyle Dome (capacity 185,000+). Special waivers from NASA as it interferes with Satellite orbits. The 6 jumbotrons having from the ceiling show the game to those who can't see well up in the coulds on 4th & 5th deck...just kidding, but my point is that a reference to DKR is unnecesary. BQZip01 08:24, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Ah, you had me going until the 6 jumbotrons. Surely a stadium like that would have at least 9 jumbotrons.  :-) I think it would be awesome for any stadium in Texas to eclipse those guys in Michingan, Tennessee, etc. The Lone Star State deserves the biggest stadium.

I think a good solution would be to find or create a list of the biggest college football venues. Then we can leave in mention of it being second biggest in the state, leave the reference (since it supports the standing within the state), but link to the list instead of to DKR. If they want to know what the biggest stadium is they can either consult the reference or the list. Johntex\^talk 15:06, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

BTW, if you look at Gaylord Family Oklahoma Memorial Stadium - it says it is the 3rd biggest in the Big12, and prominently lists both DKR and Kyle Field in the lead. Johntex\^talk 15:19, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

IMHO it doesn't need to be there either, but unless there is an objection, I guess we can leave it, but yeah, leave the link and take out DKR is fine with me. BQZip01 15:48, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

OK, I have posted at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject College football#Stadiums and attendance my intention to create a List of college football stadiums. A draft is already available at User:PSUMark2006/Sandbox2. As soon as this moves to article space, I will swap out the link. Johntex\^talk 16:09, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Perfect!!! BQZip01 17:20, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

• The list is now available at List of Division I-FBS college football stadiums. It is still growing, but I went ahead and made the change to this article. Johntex\^talk 19:15, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

1904 or 1927?

The infobox currently says that Kyle Field was built in 1904, but the athletic department dates the current facility to 1927. Seems to me that it would be more accurate to say that football has been played at the current site since 1904, or at least the stadium has existed in rudimentary form since then. This appears to be a similar situation to Cincy's Nippert Stadium, which was built in 1924. Blueboy96 10:26, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Hmm...didn't see this one earlier. The current concrete structure first was built in 1927 but a facility existed prior to that. Hope that answers your question. — BQZip01 — ^talk 02:27, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Kyle Field Expansion Photo

File:Kyle Field Expansion.jpg

Is there any reasoning for including this photo in the article? As far as I know, there have never been any discussions about expanding the stadium to include a fourth deck and given that, I think it misleads readers into believing the photo represents a realistic view of a future expansion. -Texink^[talk] 02:14, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Wraparound seating in The Zone and a fourth deck have both been discussed. No consensus has yet been reached. Fourth deck (as shown in the computer generated image), may be nothing more than luxury boxes. — BQZip01 — ^talk 02:20, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Do you have a source that an entire fourth deck has been discussed, as is insinuated by the photo? -Texink^[talk] 03:23, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

I can't seem to find the article I read. I think it was in the Houston Chronicle, but, of course, I don't have access to their archives without paying a little. If you look at the pictures in this article, they show, not just a single level of luxury boxes, but three layers (how they could see the field, I don't know). This easily would have the capacity for another deck. Again, though, it is just a rendition, not a defined design that WILL be built and is used for illustrative purposes only. — BQZip01 — ^talk 03:35, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

I still would like to see a source before we include what I still believe is a misleading photoshop and pure fantasy. Every material I've read on expansion discusses building a south end zone without mention of a fourth deck. -Texink^[talk] 02:11, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

This article talks about expanding to six decks (but that may include 3 of those decks being luxury boxes), but there's the prima facia case for 6 decks. I think 4 is simply an impression of the description. I don't want this to turn into an argument. It is one artist's conception of how it COULD look during its expansion, not how it is GOING to look. As long as the disclaimer is there, I don't see a problem. Additionally, there are no overhead shots of the stadium and this is the only one. Thoughts? — BQZip01 — ^talk 03:16, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

It's obvious we're not going to agree on this as long as you think an illustration with four decks is a possible expansion plan, which it is not. I still believe the photo should be removed based on a lack of documentation that a fourth deck is even a possibility. I could add a dome to that photograph and call it "expansion" and it would fit your vague criteria of "how it COULD look..." -Texink^[talk] 06:38, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

This photo is satirical and should be removed. The intent of the photo editor was to lampoon Kyle's existing third deck with its steep pitch and seemingly endless access/egress ramps by adding fourth decks which would be even more extreme. Actual plans to expand Kyle center around permanent seating in the south endzone. Cbellomy 05:44, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Uh, the expansion also calls for additional sky boxes above third deck, though their configuration (skyboxes or traditional seating) certainly hasn't been determined. As for the photoshopped image, determining the author's intent...well, maybe you should ask? — BQZip01 — ^talk 11:08, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm sure you're aware that sky boxes are not the same thing as an entire deck. There have never been plans of adding a complete fourth deck as far as you have produced evidence. -Texink^[talk] 06:41, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

I am just going to add that the photo itself is a terrible photoshop job if I have ever seen one and an all around eye sore on the page.-Pirates010 03:35, 20 December 2007

Concur. -Texink^[talk] 19:14, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

See also Wikipedia:Images_and_media_for_deletion/2008_January_7#Image:Kyle_Field_Expansion.jpg—G716 <^T·_C> 05:36, 7 January 2008 (UTC) PHOTO REMOVED IAW THIS DISCUSSION 131.44.121.252 (talk) 22:55, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

"Intimidating venue" section

First, let me state that I object to BQZip01's immediate reverts to my edits under WP:OWN. This user clearly did not take time to understand the objections I was making without automatically reverting them. Most of the information in this section is WP:OR, meaning that it is somebody's opinion and is not (and cannot be) supported by citation. Secondly, saying that a reputation was deserved or not is also WP:OR and the statistics that follow are therefore irrelevant since they don't have anything to do with the information about the venue. Last, the title "Intimidating venue" is POV since it is somebody's opinion and is not supported by citation. Attempting to support the section header with sources that claim people have been intimidated or that the crowd and fan levels are high is synthesis and also cannot be included. If you revert these edits again I will make an RfC and, if necessary, RfMs and RfAs because of BQZip01's many and numerous violations of WP:OWN. Thank you. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 01:07, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

1. CC, near as I can tell, we haven't ever had any interaction (at least over the past 2 or so months), so how you think you know how I think is mystifying.
2. Your post violates WP:NPA and WP:AGF. No one can possibly know my motivation for changing something or reverting your changes. I have never claimed ownership of said article; that I am active in many A&M pages is immaterial. It is an interest, nothing more. Threats to take me to an RfC, RfM, or RfA if I ever revert one of your changes ever again are simply out of line and appear to be an attempt at bullying. I don't respond well to such attempts.
3. Categorizing my edits as "immediate" and "automatic" reverts is a bit disingenuous, since your next edit was to revert my changes in only 9 minutes. I am attempting to go by WP:BRD. If you have a problem with what I reverted, then let's have a discussion here. There is no need to get hostile.
4. That Kyle Field is intimidating is a fact backed up by numerous opinions. Reference #22 in the version before you changed it specifically uses that word. With very little effort, I additionally found and added numerous sources stating Kyle Field is intimidating. These sources range from sports writers to A&M fans, to A&M opponents, and blogs. I have added some of these to the original text.
5. Furthermore, The recent record at Kyle Field is important for perspective. Few stadiums have ever had a 93% winning record over a decade, at least in the past 50 years or so. This information is applicable. Note that it also states that this record has dropped considerably over the past ~7 years. It is a referenced statistic and can certainly be included.
6. Your edit summary also was misleading "nothing mentioned crowd noise level" because...well crowd noise isn't something directly discussed at all. It has no bearing whatsoever on the section at hand and is disingenuous.
7. Accordingly, I have reverted your changes again. Perhaps a {{cn}} tag would be more appropriate in the future.
8. Additionally, I request you remove the last sentence of your post as a personal attack and as unfounded allegations. In the future please assume good faith of anyone's actions. — BQZip01 — ^talk 10:11, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

• You continually revert editors without explanation on both Aggie Bonfire and Texas A&M University (here is a good example). In this case, you wasted little time in considering why I had made those changes before reverting all of them. This is symptomatic of an editor laboring under the belief of ownership over an article. Saying "this reputation was deserved" is your opinion and is unsupported by citation. Adding a reference to the record at Kyle Field is unpublished synthesis of material. "Intimidating venue" establishes a POV which I now challenge as being inappropriate and unsupported within the text. I would recommend you brush up on these protocols before you start revert changes like that again. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 17:00, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Would it be more appropriate to state (with references) that Kyle Field is "viewed by many" as an intimidating venue? That way, we are stating a fact -- that many people see it that way -- rather than expressing a single POV. Raetzsch (talk) 19:32, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

1. How on earth is this a good example of anything other than a simple mistake? I included an edit summary stating my reasons ("she is not the president yet"). It turns out I was mistaken (I had some information that had the wrong date of when she took the reins at A&M) and corrected it on my own one minute later.
2. In this case you took little time considering why I made changes and reverted them. Inflicting the same action on me does not assume good faith. We both had reasons for why we did something. Why not simply discuss it in the talk page of the article (or my talk page) instead of starting with accusations and threats?
3. Accusing me of a vague violation of WP:OWN ("...you wasted little time in considering ...[t]his is symptomatic of an editor laboring under the belief of ownership over an article" Just because I didn't spend a lot of time thinking about your changes, doesn't mean I violated Wikipedia policies or guidelines.
4. "this reputation was deserved" is appropriate in this instance as it serves as a bridge of thought from the last paragraph to this next. Would something else be more appropriate instead of a simple break in thought? How about "Such a reputation for a difficult arena was best exemplified in the 1990s when..." or "Contributing to its reputation..." or something similar?
5. "Intimidating venue" is perfectly appropriate and is sourced. You declaring it to be POV doesn't make it so.
6. As for it being "unsupported" in the text, what else can I possibly do to show you? It is a fact backed up by numerous sources that it is an intimidating venue in which to play football. I provided a Google link for you to see other opinions as well. On the first two pages, it varies from sports writers to A&M pages (not a real big surprise there) to opponents.
7. "viewed by many" uses a weasel word ("many") and doesn't really solve the problem, IMHO. Considering that reputable sports writers and publications view the facility as "intimidating", it is perfectly appropriate to conclude it is, in fact, "intimidating". That some people don't find it intimidating has not been established by anyone.

I'm going to revert these changes one more time, except a change to the first few words of the second paragraph. Is this better? No one is trying to draw a conclusion, but to bridge the two thoughts. — BQZip01 — ^talk 19:49, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

• I find it interesting that you logged out of your account to avoid WP:3RR violations which, I now realize, we are both guilty of. Since I've violated that protocol, I will no longer attempt to make any further changes to this article for quite some time, but this should not be taken as a sign that your edits satisfy any of the concerns I've made. "This reputation is well deserved" or any variation thereof is original research. It is your opinion on whether or not that reputation is deserved. It is unsupported by citation and should be removed. Again, I will not make these edits since I have violated WP:3RR. Titling a section "Intimidating venue" presumes that all the content beneath will concern who has been intimidated at Kyle Field, why and how often. This is not the case and none of these sources support that statement. You have attempted to assemble references which talk about the crowd noise, fan involvement and the win record of A&M on Kyle Field and with these things together, establish that the field is "intimidating." This is unpublished synthesis and original research. It is not a fact because you think it is. This is your opinion that you are trying to insert into the article. Claiming that it is intimidating because nobody has declared that it isn't is first a logical fallacy and second a violation of policy. You have not made any attempt to correct these errors and have instead continued to restore the version of the article you want to retain. This is a violation of WP:OWN. I will be filing an RfC shortly to correct these concerns. Please refrain from making any edits to this section in the meanwhile as they would qualify as further WP:3RR violations. Thank you. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 00:00, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

1. I am not guilty of violating WP:3RR. I have reverted three times (not a violation of WP:3RR), no more, and have made no attempt to conceal the fact that I am editing from an IP address (even going so far as to sign my signature). The reason I edit from an IP address is that I cannot log in from work. Your accusation of sockpuppetry is way, WAY, WAY out of line and blatantly violates WP:AGF.
2. Apparently you have not read any of the sources provided. ALL OF THEM state that Kyle Field is "intimidating" (yes, that exact wording) from various perspectives. Your posts do not reflect that you are paying attention to what I wrote. I am not claiming that it is intimidating because no one has argued otherwise, but I was trying to point out that your removal of said text has nothing to do with anything citable (that would be your responsibility, not mine). I have made several corrections, but the basic material is accurate. You ignoring such changes makes me question what is actually going on. — BQZip01 — ^talk 03:51, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps WP:REICHSTAG applies here? 131.44.121.252 (talk) 21:34, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Request for Comment

• I believe that the "Intimidating venue" title of this section is POV and some of the statements made within it represent an opinion in contradiction of WP:OR. Another editor has disagreed and believes this material is verifiable and necessary to include in this article. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 15:48, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Cumulus Clouds is mistaken (see above for more clarification). For more clarity, here are the sources used to justify the "Intimidating" claim.

• Matt Hayes from Sporting News.com "...top three most intimidating places in the country."
• Further opinion from Matt Hayes at Sporting News.com "...top 10 most intimidating stadiums in the nation..."
• MSNBC "...a huge north end zone seating section that is a wall of noise...Fans: Insane." While not explicitly stating as such, it certainly backs up the previous claim (In the interests of full disclosure, I made a mistake in stating all cites showed the word "intimidating"; this one doesn't explicitly)
• Random Lycos site (just a general website outside the U.S. showing this is not limited to the U.S.) "...intimidating..."
• Comment from an opposing team's punter "It's a real intimidating place to play. It's very loud, to say the least." and their school paper "Kyle Field a daunting stadium"
• Additional references can be found with the previously stated simple google search:

• University of Kansas newspaper "...the Jayhawks must be prepared to face an intimidating crowd on Saturday...The intimidating atmosphere has not suited the Jayhawks well in the past."
• Joe Castiglione, the athletic director from the University of Oklahoma "Kyle Field clearly can be the most intimidating place to play..."
• Texas Tech head coach Mike Leach "Kyle Field is 'quickly gaining the reputation as one of the nation's most intimidating road venues.'"
• and I simply have no desire to continue quoting. My point has been made clear.

I have made my case above for violations of WP:AGF, WP:NPA, etc. of :Cumulus Clouds, but have no intention of seeking administrator intervention at this time.

Furthermore, his accusations of numerous violations by me are completely unfounded and outright incorrect.

I am concerned that CC does not appear to be listening to what I say in discussion and is simply assuming I am in the wrong. As such, a discussion seems fruitless if oen side will not listen to the other. This RfC seems to be a first resort to a perceived obstacle. So, I am concerned that this RfC simply wasn't necessary. However, now that it is here and done, let's see what others have to say.

As I have stated on other RfCs I always welcome outside opinion. After all, this is Wikipedia. 131.44.121.252 (talk) 17:55, 11 January 2008 (UTC) (User:BQZip01)

• You have previously used those sources to assert that Kyle Field is "the most intimidating" venue. None of these sources back up that claim (specifically) and it is therefore unpublished synthesis. Also your use of statistics to make your case for the field being intimidating is your own personal research on the topic and thus unacceptable to include in this article. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 21:05, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Please feel free to check the history of this article. You will not find any statement where it states that Kyle Field is the most intimidating venue. This is now your third statement/assertion that later turned out to be not to be true, yet you never address blinding evidence that said statements are misleading/false. Furthermore, it only states that it is an intimidating venue. The sources state that it was, at one point "ranked" #1, but more recent reviews consider it #3-#4. This does not detract away from its status as an intimidating venue. — BQZip01 — ^talk 20:47, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

• Removing the word "often" brings this article farther away from being neutral since it implies a universal view that everyone regards Kyle Field as one of the most intimidating venues. There is no source for this (and there can never be an authoritative source for it) so it should be (at the very least) reinserted or (ideally) removed with that entire sentence and/or section. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 23:19, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

The removal of the word "often" was done IAW WP:WEASEL. There are plenty of sources which state that the stadium is an intimidating venue. If you would like, I can probably find at least one instance from each game over the past few years. Its reputation is indeed universal amongst athletic experts with regards to professional opinions of the stadium, which you continue to ignore. Of course, individual opinions may vary and Joe Schmo might say, "Eh, I've seen worse and I don't find it intimidating." If you have a better way to phrase it, I would be happy to hear any suggestions. — BQZip01 — ^talk 20:47, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

I am responding to the RFC...and I am very confused about the section. What exactly are you trying to talk about? it starts out with the quotes about how it is 'one of the most intimidating venue ever" and then there is a quote about how Kyle field is the nations best, with atmosphere tradition fans...and then it runs down a bunch of statistics that say the aggies had a better home record in the 90's then they do now, and then we find out that it is #4,1,17, and 15 on verious listings in the catigories of stadium, intimidating in the big 12, home field advantage, and home team turnout...

it looks like this section is beeing used to cram some trivia in to the middle of the article, and dangorusly close to WP:SYNTH in the title selection, since the statistics don't have anything to do with intimidation, and the quotes have very little to do with the statistics. Thats my opinion, Gig'em Coffeepusher (talk) 07:43, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Coffeepusher, thank you so very much for your input. A fresh outside opinion is always welcome. The statistics are designed to reinforce reasons (as stated in some of the cited sources) that the stadium is an "intimidating venue". The statistics themselves are there only to more explicitly show some of the reasons as stated in the articles that show it to be intimidating. Would something like "Intimidating venue and recent successes" or "Intimidating venue and recent record" work better as a section title for you, since it would still incorporate the quoted material, but would allow readers to draw their own conclusion on any linkage between the two? How about simply "Intimidating venue" in quotes as a direct quote? — BQZip01 — ^talk 20:47, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

I think that it is still unclear what this section is supposed to do for the article. All the quotes talk about "intimidating" coming from the croud, not the stadium itself (referances to noise etc.) and the statistics don't connect to the quotes at all (at least not the ones that I have been supplyed with). in order to clear this up, I think it should become clear what you guy/gals are trying to accomplish with this section. If you are trying to talk about kyle fields record then go with it, if you want a collection of outside opinions on playing in kyle field format it as such, but I think as it stands it definatly lacks cohearance to the reast of the article. Thank you for listning, and I hope that you guys can work together on this...I remember when Step13 and I came to terms on an edit war, and now I respect his contributions for the fact that he sees things that I can't because of my viewpoints. Coffeepusher (talk) 07:10, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

How about renaming it "Home field advantage" or something like that? I think that terminology would nicely link the data. — BQZip01 — ^talk 19:16, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Furthermore, the design of the stadium (fans are less than 10 yards from the entire field. Being close to the field affects the volume of sound. This is a bit of WP:OR, I admit, but could also give some perspective. — BQZip01 — ^talk 06:33, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Upon re-reading, I didn't address the assertion that the crowd was what was intimidating, not the stadium itself. That is why the word "venue" was chosen. It incorporates the crowd, the band, the structure, the atmosphere, the smells, etc. Additionally, the quotes indeed do say the stadium/venue is intimidating. Nitpicking whether it is the crowd at the stadium or the stadium itself is too picky, IMHO. The two are synonymous. If you say "Kyle Field is a tough place to play" they mean the venue (to include the crowd, band, etc), not the structure exclusively. — BQZip01 — ^talk 06:38, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

---

1. Making changes in the midst of an RfC is disingenuous.
2. To claim the RfC said to do what you did is misleading at best.
3. The RfC has been open for a little over a week and still isn't closed, my comments have not been addressed, and alternatives other than "your way" have not been discussed. This is not a consensus and no attempt has been made to compromise. Please let the RfC run its course and we will see where it leads. — BQZip01 — ^talk 00:15, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

• This is because there is no good reason to contain those statistics in this section. How long should we wait until you're satisfied that this discussion has "run its course"? Cumulus Clouds (talk) 01:38, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

• There is also nothing to suggest that your revisions are the ones that should remain in the article while this RfC is open. I don't appreciate you implying I violated any rules in making changes to this article. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 01:43, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

I never said there was anything in my reversions to suggest mine is "right", but you are making arbitrary changes in the middle of a discussion with no discussion. How is this productive? I have offered several compromises, but you have not seen fit to respond to them

I never said you violated any "rules", only that your edit summary was misleading when you claimed to make changes based upon the RfC. Near as I can tell, there is no consensus from the RfC either. — BQZip01 — ^talk 22:49, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

• Here is my response: your proposal for the inclusion of the statistics and for the naming conventions of that section are inadequate. Myself and another user have both asked you why they need to be included and you have not provided a sufficient explanation. As it is, that section does not adhere to NPOV. The portions of that section including the statistics should be removed or placed somewhere where they would be relevant, as I have suggested above. The section should then be renamed. If you have any questions, feel free to ask. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 08:05, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

• Very well, can we handle each section separately for clarity then? — BQZip01 — ^talk 03:22, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

---

Inclusion of the statistics

I feel they add to the results of the intimidating venue. Some of the links make that distinction. IMHO, it is not WP:OR. How could it be better phrased? — BQZip01 — ^talk 03:22, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

• "Adding to the results" is another way of saying the information is unpublished synthesis of information. I've already gone over in great length why this isn't permitted, so I'm not going to quote that policy (or any others) for the duration of this discussion.

• I'm getting very tired of you putting words in my mouth and intentionally/negligently misquoting me and my contributions. This is not "unpublished synthesis" of any kind. I stated that there were sources to back this claim up in conjunction with the word "intimidating", ergo, no original research or unpublished synthesis. From the search mentioned above: here's one...here's another...and another...do I need to go on? — BQZip01 — ^talk 05:07, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

---

Section title

Given the numerous references (including from the opponents), there is no reason it cannot be included. Why should it be renamed? I have not heard a single reason. — BQZip01 — ^talk 03:22, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

• I've already explained why the title isn't neutral. You're trying to establish a POV section about the field with a bunch of useless statistics and, like Coffeepusher said above, it doesn't add anything meaningful to this article. Again, I'm not going to quote any of those policies at this point because I don't see what good it would do. I've already attempted to change the title twice and you apparently didn't like either suggestion and won't compromise so I don't see what the point is in me offering any other options. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 04:23, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

• You mean this explanation: "Last, the title 'Intimidating venue' is POV since it is somebody's opinion and is not supported by citation. Attempting to support the section header with sources that claim people have been intimidated or that the crowd and fan levels are high is synthesis and also cannot be included."? Very well, let's break that down:

1. "...the title 'Intimidating venue' is POV since it is somebody's opinion and is not supported by citation." I provided 20+ opinions (varying from professional sports writers, coaches, opposing players, sites outside the U.S., the A&M webpage, etc. all supported by citation). I asked what else you wanted to back it up. No response from you.
2. "Attempting to support the section header with sources that claim people have been intimidated or that the crowd and fan levels are high is synthesis and also cannot be included." I supported this with direct quotes ad nauseum. I offered several alternatives. You have proposed no alternatives other than the one you want. Again, no response.

I don't know what you possibly want to accomplish here, but I satisfied all of your criteria...and you still insist I've done nothing. Wow. — BQZip01 — ^talk 05:07, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Building height

I would like to find a source for the height of Kyle Field listed in College Station, Texas#Tallest buildings. If you have any suggestions, please reply on that talk page. Thanks and Gig 'em! EagleAg04 (talk) 02:51, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

"Home of the 12th Man" nickname

About the nickname in the info box: I don't think it should be there. Sure, Aggieland is the home of the 12th Man, but that's not a nickname for Kyle Field. Nobody says "Let's go to 'The Home of the 12th Man' to watch the game." No, they say, "Let's go to 'Kyle' to watch the game." To me, a nickname is a name that is commonly used to refer to something/someone and it is usually shorter than the actual name. In the case of sporting venues, something like "The Q" for Quicken Loans Arena in Cleveland is what I'm thinking of. People commonly refer to it as "The Q." Even "The Holler House" for our own G. Rollie White would work. But as much as Kyle Field is the home of the 12th Man, I do not think that is a nickname. Just wanted a little discussion before removing it. Ensign beedrill (talk) 22:30, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

I'll concur it isn't a nickname, but another title for the stadium. It's placement is appropriate, IMHO. — BQZip01 — ^talk 02:17, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Hey, another comp sci Aggie grad. Howdy!
I'm just a bit of a stickler, so when it says "nickname" in the box, that's what I expect to see. I can see your argument, though, and you obviously have more experience with this sort of thing than I do, so I'll concede to your position. Thanks for the quick response and gig 'em. Ensign beedrill (talk) 14:19, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Best in the Big XII

one more ref: [6] — BQZip01 — ^talk 04:34, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

2010 Kyle Field Record

90,079 people are in the stands at kyle field 11/20/10 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.194.37.213 (talk) 04:02, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Adding to 2013-2015 Renovation/Expansion

Would it be ok for an editor to add a citation about how Populous is the designer/Architect for the 2013-2015 expansion/renovation?

As outlined in my user page, I would like to disclose here that these contributions are made on behalf of Populous and in employment with them, and I intend to follow all of Wikipedia's guidelines, including those on WP:COI, WP:RS, WP:V and WP:NPOV, very closely. My aim is to work with and seek advice from impartial editors to make positive contributions to Populous' article and projects, hopefully leading to improved articles. Brianfolkers (talk) 17:07, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

References

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Kyle Field. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070930165108/http://www.news8austin.com/content/your_news/default.asp?ArID=150435 to http://www.news8austin.com/content/your_news/default.asp?ArID=150435
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060918092937/http://www.aggieathletics.com/pressRelease.php?PRID=11654 to http://www.aggieathletics.com/pressRelease.php?PRID=11654

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) 06:56, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Kyle Field. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090607045322/http://www.aggieathletics.com/sports/m-footbl/spec-rel/112699aaa.html to http://www.aggieathletics.com/sports/m-footbl/spec-rel/112699aaa.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140710233813/http://collegesportsblog.dallasnews.com/2014/02/texas-ams-kyle-field-will-be-home-of-largest-video-board-in-collegiate-sports.html/ to http://collegesportsblog.dallasnews.com/2014/02/texas-ams-kyle-field-will-be-home-of-largest-video-board-in-collegiate-sports.html/

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) 21:35, 13 December 2017 (UTC)