Talk:Western Athletic Conference

message: Why no reference to the athletic boycotts and protests against BYU in 69-70?
===School type/religious affiliation===
The religious affiliation or designation as "non-sectarian" is not so clear cut. For example, Duke University describes its ties with Methodism as "formal, on-going, and symbolic"  while Wake Forest University maintains "a dedication to the values rooted in its Baptist heritage" . Both schools can be considered "non-sectarian" in that they are no longer under the direct auspices of their founding religious organizations. Likewise, Boston College maintains its Jesuit identity in spite of the fact that it severed its formal ties with the Jesuit Order (and thereby the Catholic Church) in the 1960s when it was independently incorporated under a lay board of trustees. Unlike the Catholic University of America, which is under the direct auspices of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, or the University of Notre Dame, which is governed by "fellows" who must be priests of the Congregation of Holy Cross, The Trustees of Boston College (BC's governing body) operate independent of any religious jurisdiction. This arrangement is probably similar to that at Duke or Wake Forest, except that the BC trustees have voluntarily chosen to elect members of the founding religious organization to the presidency (though they are not required to do so). In fact, similar arrangements exist at other Jesuit colleges and universities, where both women and non-clerics have been elected to presidency (most recently at Georgetown University). All of this is to say that I think the nature of a school's religious affiliation is beyond the scope of this article, and that "public" or "private" suffice in the context of the members table. --24.63.125.78 10:22, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Opening heading 

message: The religious affiliation or designation as "non-sectarian" is not so clear cut. For example, Duke University describes its ties with Methodism as "formal, on-going, and symbolic"  while Wake Forest University maintains "a dedication to the values rooted in its Baptist heritage" . Both schools can be considered "non-sectarian" in that they are no longer under the direct auspices of their founding religious organizations. Likewise, Boston College maintains its Jesuit identity in spite of the fact that it severed its formal ties with the Jesuit Order (and thereby the Catholic Church) in the 1960s when it was independently incorporated under a lay board of trustees. Unlike the Catholic University of America, which is under the direct auspices of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, or the University of Notre Dame, which is governed by "fellows" who must be priests of the Congregation of Holy Cross, The Trustees of Boston College (BC's governing body) operate independent of any religious jurisdiction. This arrangement is probably similar to that at Duke or Wake Forest, except that the BC trustees have voluntarily chosen to elect members of the founding religious organization to the presidency (though they are not required to do so). In fact, similar arrangements exist at other Jesuit colleges and universities, where both women and non-clerics have been elected to presidency (most recently at Georgetown University). All of this is to say that I think the nature of a school's religious affiliation is beyond the scope of this article, and that "public" or "private" suffice in the context of the members table. --24.63.125.78 10:22, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: School type/religious affiliation

message: The "University of Hawaii" has two I's... i've been trying to figure out how to change it but to no avail...
How can we add another i to Hawai'i? The Animal 11:01, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  WAC Correction on Mini-Box 

message: 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 16:38, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Logos

message: :Image:Logo WAC.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 this Wikipedia article 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 23:34, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:Logo WAC.gif

message: :Image:Logo WAC.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 this Wikipedia article 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 ensure 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 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 lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot (talk) 12:57, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:Logo WAC.gif

message: I can't find any basis for Cal State Northridge being an associate member for track and field. The change was added by an IP-editor in this edit without any source. Both the school's website and the Big West website report that it competes in the Big West Conference track championships. If no one objects, I will remove this. Racepacket (talk) 15:55, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Cal State Northridge

message: c 4 urself —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.127.183.232 (talk) 23:39, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Conference facilities" table sorting is messed up 

message: This article looks well put together so I thought I'd leave the edits to the usual contributors. Here's a ref from a reliable source (ESPN). OlYellerTalktome 19:29, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah, I see what you guys did. Makes sense. Nothing to see here. OlYellerTalktome 19:33, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nevada & Fresno St. Leave for Mountain West 

message: The phrase "it is not a member of the Bowl Championship Series (BCS) selection system" is inaccurate, as all FBS schools are technically BCS members (please refer to bcsfootball.org for details). A more appropriate phrase would be "it does not receive an automatic bid in the Bowl Championship Series (BCS) selection system." For the record, I am not endorsing the BCS in any way. Nwebster84 (talk) 16:28, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  BCS Member 

message: I've made a lot of recent changes to this article. I hope most of you approve of the changes. There is still a ways to go to improve this article and other WAC-related articles.
*I rearranged the order of the sections and subsections to be displayed in what I think is a more logical sequence.
*I eliminated the section of old rumors.
*I did a complete makeover of the outdated bowl information.
*I added new WAC-related templates at the bottom of the page. Please add any of the articles that you feel comfortable doing. Two in particular that need to be written are the Fresno State Bulldogs men's basketball and San Jose State Spartans men's basketball articles. Other templates are for baseball, women's basketball, mascots, and marching bands of the WAC.
*I cleaned up the football rivalries section, but I'm not knowledgeable about rivalries in the other sports as I only have a few listed.
*I added the national championships won by current WAC schools while not a member of the WAC.
*I added the current conference champions section.
*I added the media section.
*This article still needs a lot of references.
*Fresno State, Hawaii, and Nevada are still full WAC members for the next year and should not be listed as former members. This is the same reason why Seattle, Denver, Texas State, and UTSA should not be listed with the current WAC members.
Any comments, ideas, suggestions, and/or help is greatly appreciated!
Thanks -AllisonFoley (talk) 05:43, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Improvements 

message: I noticed that conferences in List of NCAA conferences have articles, usually including a membership timeline. While some of the decisions made for each conference make some sense, there is a wide variety of styles for the various timelines, particularly involving color choices, but also other matters of style that could be more consistent.
for example, a school with a yellow bar means:
* An associate member in one sport (if part of the BE)
* A former member of the conference (in the SEC)
* A future member of the conference (in the SEC and Big West)
* A football only member (in the Sun Belt)
* A team that has moved to another conference (in the WAC, NEC)
* A full member of the Big Sky
Some graphs have captions, some do not, and none are centered.
To see the variety of styles, review Current conference timelines
I think it would be worth discussing how best to provide some measure of consistency, recognizing that there may be legitimate reasons for some differences from a standard presentation (for example, some conferences show the name of the new conference for former members. In some cases, this makes sense, in other, it may not.)
I've produced a draft of how the timelines would look with some consistency added.
Please see Draft proposal of conference timelines.
I propose a discussion to see if there is consensus on improving the consistency.
Because it would not be practical to have this discussion on each and every conference talk page, I suggest centralizing this discussion at the Talk page of Project College football SPhilbrick(Talk) 21:40, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposal to make timelines more consistent 

message: I would like to remind the editors of this page that all content must conform to Wikipedia guidelines. Keep in mind the following these policies:
* Wikipedia articles must be written from a Neutral Point of View. Content for this page cannot appear to have been written by a biased fan of the conference. It has to be objective.
* Wikipedia is not a soapbox or means of promotion. Opinions and/or fluff are not appropriate. Promotion of the WAC is not appropriate.
* Content must be verifiable. All content must have a verifiable source. Original work is not appropriate, nor is speculation.
None of these phrases or statements are verifiable:
* the teams which left the WAC may be having second doubts about leaving one the Premier Athletic Conferences at the Division I level
* it is a great athletic conference
* It is likely to survive
* Schools like Boise State were strengthened and tempered by their association and development within the WAC.
These phrases or statements are opinion and/or speculation and/or fluff:
* (all of the phrases or statements listed above that are unverifiable)
* It is highly likely that New Mexico State and San Jose State will join Notre Dame, BYU, Navy and Army as Premier Independents in College Football until the WAC is able to attract the next generation of umcoming division I college football powers.
* the WAC is likely to remain one of the Premier Athletic Conferences in the USA at the Division I level
* the academics of the WAC universities is second to none
* The WAC has certainly shown that previous defections have not hurt it, but made it stronger.
* The next generation of universities which also strive to even surpass Boise State would be well advised to join the WAC.
Please do not include information on this page that violates Wikipedia policies. Thank you. Mdak06 (talk) 00:04, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Please follow Wikpiedia policies when editing this page 

message: I think the Idaho changes are premature - they have requested and were granted permission to go independent in football and to try to rejoin the Big Sky with their other teams, but I have yet to see a formal announcement that they will carry through with this plan. It may be a foregone conclusion, but stating it as a fait accompli is getting ahead of things, I think. Agricolae (talk) 23:25, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Idaho status 

message: The conference said it will no longer sponsor football beginning next year. Is that true?
174.1.237.86 (talk) 01:07, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: The conference did not say this.  On 20 Aug., Comm. Hurd indicated that it was unlikely they would have enough teams for the 2013 season.  Unfortunately, the Denver Post misunderstood this, and reported that the WAC had announced they were dropping football.  Hurd later clarified that his was a description of likely outcomes and not a formal decision.  So as of now, while the writing is on the wall, it is not formally dead. (As to Idaho, they have received permission from their regents to go independent in football and to negotiate with the Big Sky for everything else, no formal announcement has been made that they are definitively going to do this.  Agricolae (talk) 01:17, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  No more football in WAC 

message: There are two issues with the membership timeline that have been disputed.  1) How far into the future it should go.  At times this chart has gone all the way to the 2020s and beyond.  This is not only unwise given how quickly things are changing, it is effectively a violation of WP:CRYSTAL in predicting the future.  We need to document what has formally been decided and announced, and make no further predictions.  Since you have to go a year past a change to see the new color, then that puts it currently at 2015.  2) Abbreviations. The WAC is the WAC, the ACC the ACC, but the Big Sky is not the BSC nor the Big East the BEC.  The Mountain West is more like the latter, and to call it the MWC makes it less obvious.  There are space constraints that force abbreviation, but to abbreviate just for the sake of consistency when we don't have too is not doing a service to the reader. (If you think otherwise, let's discuss it, rather than just calling me a Nazi in a revert edit summary.) Agricolae (talk) 17:27, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Membership timeline 

message: Please join the discussion at the College Basketball Wikiproject for forming a consensus on the creation of a basic navigation template for college basketball teams. CrazyPaco (talk) 09:12, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  College basketball team navigation templates 

message: I see five references on wacsports.com to the new WAC logo being either on a white or transparent background.  There are now competing edits using a black background vs a white background. 
In my view, the white/transparent background appears correct.  
If possible, perhaps one of the involved parties can link to a press release and/or brand guidelines to clarify. UW Dawgs (talk) 00:45, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: They are not competing edits... The new logo was deleted for lack of a non-free use rationale; when the rational was added, the new logo was returned...  GWFrog (talk) 00:55, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: As for the logo with the black background--- it came from the WAC, as did the white and transparent... GWFrog (talk) 01:01, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  New WAC logo, on white background vs. black background