Talk:2005 Texas Longhorns football team/Archive 1

message: I've got a ton more stuff to add, but this will get us started.  Johntex\talk 13:16, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: John, you've done a fantastic job. Thanks so much for all your work here and elswhere. jareha 06:57, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Start

message: The trouble with Wikipedia's prefered footnote style is that, while they are very informative when done correctly, it is very easy for them to get out of sequence, as they currently are in this article.  Apologies to readers of the article while we get this fixed....  I think all the references are there, just in the wrong order.  So, if you don't find the right reference, please look a bit at the other references.  Thanks, Johntex\talk 18:35, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: They have been converted to  style and they seem to all be OK now. Johntex\talk 18:55, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Footnotes out of order

message: SOmeone should move the full text of the senate resolution over to wikisource, and just leave the conclusions in the article, I think. Night Gyr 21:40, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  senate resolution 

message: I'm confused about the bolding of the top team listed in the game score boxes under the 2005_Texas_Longhorn_football_team#Game_notes section. Why is the top team always bolded? Are they the home team? Typically you would bold the winning team, but that's not the case either. Perhaps someone could clarify this with a note or come up with some system that's obvious? Mecu 02:30, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Fixed.  Bold indicates the winning team.  The visiting team is on top, with the home team on the bottom.  Thanks for pointing out the error. Johntex\talk 03:18, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bolding Teams in Scoreboxes in Game Notes Section 

message: Does the use of the school logos in the game notes section violate the fair use restrictions for logos?--NMajdan•talk 18:07, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think so.  They are used alongside of discussion pertaining to those schools.  The fact that the narrative happens on this page, rather than one titled University of Colorado or Colorado Buffaloes football (etc.) should not be relevant.  On the other hand, it would probably be wrong to use the UC logo on the Buffalo article. (Unless that article had a section about use of the animal in logos, in which case it would probably be permissable again). Johntex\talk 18:24, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

text: I also checked on the magazine covers.  Those magazine issues are specifically discussed in the text of the article, so I think we are fine with them as well. Johntex\talk 01:44, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, just checking. I may do the same thing on the 2006 Oklahoma Sooners football team page and I just wanted to make sure before I went forward with that. Thanks.--NMajdan•talk 19:31, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

text: The logos are not being used simply at the mention of a school.  They are being used in conjunction with discussion of a specific game played by that school against another school.  Johntex\talk 17:08, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

text: We allow a sports team logo to be used in an article about that team.  If we have an article about a particular game played by that team, we would still allow the logo.  In this case, what we have here is thirteen miniature articles about thirteen different games.  If they were split out into seperate articles, there would be no issue with the use of the logos.  The fact that they are merged together into one article covering a single season should make no difference.  The logos still represent the teams being discussed, and the article features discussion on each game.  Johntex\talk 17:16, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I would also suggest of removing the Bevo photo from this article. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 18:14, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: On what basis?  The image is specifically discussed in the article.  It is a single screenshot from a multi-hour program.  It is clearly usable under fair use. Johntex\talk 18:22, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok...i'll remove the website banner. There are several images that display the victory of this team that year. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 18:27, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi ZScout, thank you for discussing this here.  I reverted your removal before I noticed you had posted here.  I think the web banner should stay because it is specifically discussed in the article. Johntex\talk 18:33, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: While, of course, it is discussed in the article, but I personally think that you have magazine covers with the victory, meeting with Bush about the victory; I think that those are good idea in the fair use department (though the Bush photo is PD). Also, it looks a lot cleaner on my screen with the banner image removed, since it is pushing the Bevo photo down towards the scrren, making the "edit" button appear in a strange location. That was one of the reasons why I removed the bowl logos earlier is that the Rose Bowl logo was overlapping a bunch of the text (I am using a 1024x768 screen, Firefox browser). User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 18:35, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you for your thoughts.  I think the website logo adds something different because it is a response specifically from the university.  Also, it probably will not be kept on their website forever, meaning there may be long term value to Wikipedia being the only site to feature it alongside analysis of its design.  I agree with you about formatting concerns.  We should do whatever we can to make sure the article is readable on a variety of browsers and screen resolutions.  I have moved this logo way down the page to sit alongside the text discussing the logo.  Would you please take a look and see what you think? Johntex\talk 18:46, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Looks good. I have no more issues with the article and thanks for hearing me out. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 19:06, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fair use images? 

message: I ran the semi-automatic javascript program "peer review program", and it made the following suggestions for improving this article:
*Per WP:MOS, avoid using words/phrases that indicate time periods relative to the current day.  See footnote
*Please alphabetize the categories.
*Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (numbers), there should be a non-breaking space -   between a number and the unit of measurement. For example, instead of 000 yards, use 000 yards, which when you are editing the page, should look like: 000 yards.
*Per Wikipedia:Context and Wikipedia:Build the web, years with full dates should be linked; for example, link January 15, 2006.
*As per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates), dates shouldn't use th; for example, instead of using January 30th was a great day, use January 30 was a great day.
*This article may need to undergo summary style, where a series of appropriate subpages are used. For example, if the article is United States, than an appropriate subpage would be History of the United States, such that a summary of the subpage exists on the mother article, while the subpage goes into more detail.
*As done in WP:FOOTNOTE, footnotes usually are located right after a punctuation mark (as recommended by the CMS, but not mandatory), such that there is no space inbetween. For example, the sun is larger than the moon [2]. is usually written as the sun is larger than the moon.[2]
*Please ensure that the article has gone through a thorough copyediting so that it exemplifies some of Wikipedia's best work. See also User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 1a.
The script author suggests we may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks, Johntex\talk 18:32, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Semi-automatic peer review script

message: For those of you who think the possessive form of Texas is Texas', you are wrong. Please see this. Please do not rewrite the rules of punctuation for this page. Nova SS 15:34, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proper use of possessive 

message: I moved the text of the Senate Resolution to Wikisource in order to save space in this article.  The article still mentions the resoltuion. Johntex\talk 15:58, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: US Senate Resolution 352

message: The article has an ongoing peer review here. Please stop by and join the discussion.  Thanks! Johntex\talk 15:54, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Peer review

message: In the game notes, the text describes Jamaal as making his first start both in the LALaf. game and the Rice game.  I seem to remember his first start being the Lafayette game, but I'm not sure about that, can someone verify? —bbatsell ¿? 21:34, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I am almost positive he played against LAFaf.  I will double check and then correct it.  Thanks for helping shape up the aritcle!  Johntex\talk 23:09, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Ah, I see now.  On closer review the article is correct the way it is.  Charles did play against LALaf, but Selvin Young was the Starter.  Rice was the first start for Charles.  Do you think we should make any wording change to make this more clear? Johntex\talk 03:41, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, I've changed some of the wording in the Lafayette section.  It previously said that he started; I couldn't figure out the best way to word it, so that's subject to plenty of change.  —bbatsell ¿? 03:58, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Jamaal Charles