Talk:Ohio Bobcats

message: :Image:BOBCATS.gif is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page.  Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 00:49, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:BOBCATS.gif

message: I'm disappointed that the editors who are edit warring over the use of "OHIO" don't appear to have tried discussing the issue here (I apologize if you have and I've missed it!).
We are not beholden to the style guide or preferences of the subject; we have our own Manual of Style and a (often overly and confusingly) complex system of policies and community norms that determine how we write articles in this encyclopedia.  In this instance, the most relevant policy appears to be Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Capital letters which states that "Wikipedia avoids unnecessary capitalization. Most capitalization is for proper names or for acronyms. Wikipedia relies on sources to determine what is a proper name; words and phrases that are consistently capitalized in sources are treated as proper names and capitalized in Wikipedia."
So the burden of proof is on those who believe we should make an exception to this policy by presenting evidence that other reliable sources consistently capitalize this word.  I've seen scant evidence presented so far in favor of this idiomatic abbreviation being consistently used by other reliable sources.
It might be an acceptable compromise to add this - the university's stated preference for capitalization - as an endnote because it is slightly interesting and useful information for readers.  If there is evidence that this has been at all notable (e.g., controversial, used prominently only by particular sources or at a particular time in history) then it might even be mentioned in the body of the article.  But we need solid evidence that other reliable sources use this odd capitalization before we force it on our readers and make an exception to our style guide. ElKevbo (talk) 00:48, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure how you can agree with my comments and then again demand that we should ignore our style guide without presenting any evidence that the unusual capitalization is with such frequency and consistency by reliable sources that an exception should be made for this article. ElKevbo (talk) 04:20, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll reiterate what I've already mentioned in previous posts. I can't think of any place that would be appropriate to add, though a footnote is something I would support, possibly in the history section. It's one of those trivial things that might matter to the people in branding and staunch alumni, but to most students and certainly those outside the school it's not an issue. Every third party source I can find is consistent in using "Ohio University", "Ohio Bobcats", and "Ohio". No one uses all caps in regular print, as I've mentioned before. The only time you see all caps is on uniforms, and that's fairly standard for any school. For the color, again, most sources refer to OU's main color simply by the generic "hunter green", which is standard for most schools.  Most, if not all, schools have officially-named variants of colors. Only a select few like "Carolina Blue" are ever used by outside sources, though. But again, it's a moot point because even the OU style guide (referenced in this article) uses "Ohio University Green" to define the color. Again, beside the point that zero third-party sources use all caps, even primary sources are inconsistent. --JonRidinger (talk) 13:16, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  OHIO edit warring 

message: I have twice removed the section on "notable competitors" as it is completely unnecessary. All NCAA Division I schools play multiple "big name" teams every year, so Ohio U isn't unique or unusual in that regard as a Division I member. Further, since "notable" has a distinct meaning here on Wikipedia, pretty much every team OU plays is notable, including every team in the Mid-American Conference. What is needed instead is expansion and organization of the history section, which doesn't flow well at all (and where the mention of the first football game should be). Ohio U does not need to rely on the notability of teams like Georgetown to make the program notable or look good; it's already notable on its own and plenty of accomplishments. Sections like "notable competitors" make it seem like editors are simply trying to add content for the sake of content and to make the program look better than it is (i.e. WP:BOOSTERISM), again, which isn't needed. --JonRidinger (talk) 21:59, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: You still have not offered any reason why the information is needed in the article beyond some claim in the edit summary that I "lack authority" to make such changes (whatever that means). Please explain why knowing that Ohio U has played the likes of Michigan and North Carolina is A) unusual or exceptional for a Division I athletic program and B) that it adds to the readers understanding of the subject. And in what sports is the section referring? Men's basketball? Football? When was the last time OU played Michigan or North Carolina in football? How often have they played Michigan or North Carolina in basketball? And why is Vincennes listed and been included in all three of your reverts? It appears you're not even reading what you're reverting. Another user changed Georgetown to Vincennes, which is why I noticed the section. Even with Georgetown listed, it still doesn't make the section any more necessary. OU is in the MAC, so while it occasionally plays (and sometimes defeats) "big name" programs, they do not regularly compete with any of them. In Wikipedia, the burden of proof is on the editor who wishes to include more information, not on the editor who has given valid reasons why the section is completely superfluous, misleading, and unnecessary. --JonRidinger (talk) 03:48, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry Platoniam but you don't own this article.  The burden of proof lies with the editor who wishes to add or retain information.  What evidence do you have that this information is important for readers' understanding of this topic?  ElKevbo (talk) 04:14, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: The section is 1) mislabeled - I'm guessing that all of Ohio's opponents are Wikipedia-notable; 2) subjective - what is the standard for inclusion in the list; 3) unsourced; and 4) unduly promotional, via the process I've elsewhere described as "gilt by association".  It should come out.  JohnInDC (talk) 04:15, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with JonRidinger.  The section is of no value, as argued. Jweiss11 (talk) 04:17, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Platoniam, the Talk page consensus here is quite clear.  The section is not helpful, and subjective, and has no place in the article.  It's time to drop the stick and walk away from the argument.  JohnInDC (talk) 21:47, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

text: Um - I removed the material a single time, and only after consensus here was plainly in favor of it going.  That's not edit warring, not even close.  I removed it again a moment ago, self-reverting when I saw your note, .  Someone else can remove it!   JohnInDC (talk) 00:57, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, didn't see JohnInDC edit warring, just sticking with consensus. I removed it now that I'm beyond the 24 hours since my last time removing it (even though it's clearly in line with consensus and scope of the article, on top of being unsourced and vague) --JonRidinger (talk) 02:45, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

text: Sorry; wrong John/Jon. :) ElKevbo (talk) 14:11, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Notable" competitors