Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Mdak06 (talk | contribs)
Extended confirmed users
521 edits
→ACC geography: new section
Dexmadden (talk | contribs)
26 edits
Line 70: Line 70:
:::Saying "2014 is the current join date" is an assumption without Pitt, Syracuse, or the ACC stating when the teams will join. It may very well be a good assumption, but an assumption nonetheless. Also, the only place I can find talk of 2014 is in [[WP:NEWSBLOG|newspaper and magazine blogs]], which may or may not fall under the editorial control of their parent, and thus not be reliable sources. At any rate, adding them to the timeline with a specific date that cannot be verified and may or may not be true is misleading. [[User:Spyder_Monkey|Spyder_Monkey]] <small>([[User talk:Spyder_Monkey|Talk]])</small> 21:37, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
:::Saying "2014 is the current join date" is an assumption without Pitt, Syracuse, or the ACC stating when the teams will join. It may very well be a good assumption, but an assumption nonetheless. Also, the only place I can find talk of 2014 is in [[WP:NEWSBLOG|newspaper and magazine blogs]], which may or may not fall under the editorial control of their parent, and thus not be reliable sources. At any rate, adding them to the timeline with a specific date that cannot be verified and may or may not be true is misleading. [[User:Spyder_Monkey|Spyder_Monkey]] <small>([[User talk:Spyder_Monkey|Talk]])</small> 21:37, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
::::According to [http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/20/sports/ncaafootball/commissioner-says-big-east-wont-be-undermined-by-defections.html?_r=1&ref=ncaafootball this article from the New York Times], Big East commissioner John Marinatto will not allow Pittsburgh and Syracuse to leave until June 2014. Even though he's said that, it still doesn't necessarily mean that it's "final." The Big East could still decide to negotiate an earlier departure for the teams, especially if they lose more schools (presumably West Virginia and Louisville) and just decide to give up on sponsoring football as a conference sport. I suppose Pitt and Syracuse could be put back into the timeline, but it probably makes more sense to just leave it as is until this round of realignment is "finished." There's already a section about "future members" so it's not as if we are missing information by not having them in the timeline. [[User:Mdak06|Mdak06]] ([[User talk:Mdak06|talk]]) 15:09, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
::::According to [http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/20/sports/ncaafootball/commissioner-says-big-east-wont-be-undermined-by-defections.html?_r=1&ref=ncaafootball this article from the New York Times], Big East commissioner John Marinatto will not allow Pittsburgh and Syracuse to leave until June 2014. Even though he's said that, it still doesn't necessarily mean that it's "final." The Big East could still decide to negotiate an earlier departure for the teams, especially if they lose more schools (presumably West Virginia and Louisville) and just decide to give up on sponsoring football as a conference sport. I suppose Pitt and Syracuse could be put back into the timeline, but it probably makes more sense to just leave it as is until this round of realignment is "finished." There's already a section about "future members" so it's not as if we are missing information by not having them in the timeline. [[User:Mdak06|Mdak06]] ([[User talk:Mdak06|talk]]) 15:09, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
:::::It makes most sense to add Pitt and Syracuse to timeline. The chart should contain them in some form or fashion, they are confirmed future ACC members. Also the chart should reflect and match "future members" section.[[User:Dexmadden|Dexmadden]] ([[User talk:Dexmadden|talk]]) 16:51, 13 November 2011 (UTC)


==Stop edit warring/Endowments==
==Stop edit warring/Endowments==

Revision as of 16:51, 13 November 2011

Sort order of member list

Since the Atlantic and Coastal divisions exist for football only, shouldn't the member list present all members in a single, alphabetical list? —C.Fred (talk) 23:59, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The divisions are actually used for baseball too. Some other conference pages split member lists even though they too are only use divisions for a few of the sports, so I don't think it matters either way. Yellowspacehopper (talk) 02:47, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

NERD VANDALISM!! "Einstein/Hawkings Bowl"... Cute!! :-p —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.142.59.247 (talk) 08:49, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Navboxes

There are an excessive number of navboxes at the bottom of this article. I think the article would be best served by removing all but the top-level boxes (ACC Members & FBS Members). If there aren't any objections, I'll get to this. MTR (talk) 03:58, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And it's done MTR (talk) 18:51, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

NCAA Championships

Thanks for clarification. I knew they had more listed, but I see NCAA Championships is different than National Championships. Dgreco

The '24 Basketball Championship is not an "NCAA Championship" and should not be reflected as such as doing so demeans the accomplishments of Rosenbluth, Quigg, Jordan, Smith, Williams, et. al. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.77.49.100 (talk) 19:56, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Current champion for men's basketball

Yes, technically North Carolina is the defending champion, since they won the 2008 tournament. However, it seems skewed to list that in the 2009 champion table. It seems to make the most sense to leave the spot blank until Sunday, when the 2009 conference champion is determined. Is there a good reason to list otherwise? —C.Fred (talk) 02:29, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That makes no sense at all. Why would you have a current champion field blank when there is always going to be a current champion for every sport. The only purpose of having a current champions section is so a reader will be able to know who the current champion is. Leaving the field black gives the reader no useful information at all. When the new champion is crowned in a week is the appropriate time to change that. You can change it then. Rreagan007 (talk) 02:34, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've fixed the table to clarify that they are the 2008 champion, then. —C.Fred (talk) 02:42, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Only non-geographic divisioning?

This sentence was newly added to the article:

The ACC is the only NCAA Division I conference whose divisions are not divided geographically (North/South, East/West).

It originally asserted "only NCAA conference"; I added the text "Division I", because there is a D-III conference that uses non-geographic division names. However, my source for this information is searching football, basketball, and hockey standings tables - i.e., original research. Has anybody seen this assertion in print? —C.Fred (talk) 17:01, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Duke actually has 12 championships

in addition to the basketball championship won yesterday, they won a national championship in platform Diving last week.

source - http://www.goduke.com/ViewArticle.dbml?SPSID=27943&SPID=2182&DB_OEM_ID=4200&ATCLID=204918139 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.68.91.130 (talk) 21:20, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's an individual title in diving, though, as opposed to a team title. Duke finished 18th in the team competition. —C.Fred (talk) 21:25, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
And we have excluded other individual titles in the past. For men's swimming alone, if we add individual titles, it will inflate the counts by 27 for Miami, 7 for NC State, 6 for Florida State, 4 for North Carolina, 3 for Virginia, and 1 for Georgia Tech, exclusive of their performances in 2010. [1] —C.Fred (talk) 21:35, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Current Championship Tally?

I thought it would be a good idea to add another table to the Current Champions section showing the number of championships each school has won during the current academic year. But I wasn't sure if that was forbidden for some reason, so I thought I'd ask here. Just seemed like the kind of thing people would be interested in, and the current format doesn't allow you to really easily count them up yourself. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.120.250.151 (talk) 14:15, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Map Change

Can anyone make a change to the map and make it simpler and easy to Understand. I recommend making it similar to the Big Ten's map on wikipedia. All one color for the states that have ACC teams. Then use three different color dots where the actual universities are located. One color signifying the "Atlantic Division" and one color signifying the "Coastal Division" and a third for Pittsburgh and Syracuse signifying "To Be Determined". I don't know how much work this is but who ever has done the other conferences does a great job (I just wish the ACC map was easier to read. I hope this helps.--Craiglduncan (talk) 16:01, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Timeline

Given the uncertainty about the date of entry for Pitt and Syracuse, should they be listed on the timeline at all yet? —C.Fred (talk) 22:13, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The only thing certain about the date is that it hasn't been announced. It cannot be verified in reliable sources, so it should not be in the article. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Spyder_Monkey (Talk) 22:49, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The 2 teams are going to join, and they are definitely joining by 2014 according to all the sources I've seen. It could happen earlier, but right now reliable sources say the big east plans to force them to stay until 2014, so 2014 is the current join date. If that changes and they get permission to move sooner, then we can always change the article then. Rreagan007 (talk) 13:20, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Saying "2014 is the current join date" is an assumption without Pitt, Syracuse, or the ACC stating when the teams will join. It may very well be a good assumption, but an assumption nonetheless. Also, the only place I can find talk of 2014 is in newspaper and magazine blogs, which may or may not fall under the editorial control of their parent, and thus not be reliable sources. At any rate, adding them to the timeline with a specific date that cannot be verified and may or may not be true is misleading. Spyder_Monkey (Talk) 21:37, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
According to this article from the New York Times, Big East commissioner John Marinatto will not allow Pittsburgh and Syracuse to leave until June 2014. Even though he's said that, it still doesn't necessarily mean that it's "final." The Big East could still decide to negotiate an earlier departure for the teams, especially if they lose more schools (presumably West Virginia and Louisville) and just decide to give up on sponsoring football as a conference sport. I suppose Pitt and Syracuse could be put back into the timeline, but it probably makes more sense to just leave it as is until this round of realignment is "finished." There's already a section about "future members" so it's not as if we are missing information by not having them in the timeline. Mdak06 (talk) 15:09, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It makes most sense to add Pitt and Syracuse to timeline. The chart should contain them in some form or fashion, they are confirmed future ACC members. Also the chart should reflect and match "future members" section.Dexmadden (talk) 16:51, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Stop edit warring/Endowments

Please stop edit warring. If you don't like another editor reverting your input, the appropriate response is not to simply revert it back, but to take your case to this talk page per WP:BRD. Doing it that way seems like vandalism. Also, please, anyone who reverts edits should put a reason why in their edit summary. Even if it is somewhat obvious why, it would still be helpful to put something there even if it is just for vandalism. As far as the input of the Endowments in a separate table, I really don't think that is needed. Partly since the article is primarily about an athletic conference and because the info was already there. Thank you. -- JoannaSerah (talk) 18:37, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

ACC geography

Currently, the infobox uses this information for the ACC's regions:

South Atlantic (11 schools)
New England (1 school)
Mid-Atlantic (2 schools in 2014)

I do not agree with these definitions. I have lived most of my life in Maryland and I have always heard it referred to as a mid-Atlantic state. The state of Virginia is also considered mid-Atlantic most of the time. Even North Carolina is considered mid-Atlantic by some folks. The only time I hear Maryland referred to as "south" is when someone is distinguishing the south from the north (and not calling anything mid-Atlantic).

I'm aware that the US Census' "South Atlantic" area includes Maryland, Delaware and Virginia, but that doesn't mean we have to use that definition. If you say to someone in Georgia that Maryland is "south Atlantic" they'll laugh at you.

I propose we either use these regions:

Southeastern U.S. (8 schools)
Mid-Atlantic (3 schools; 5 schools in 2014)
New England (1 school)

... or just go back to using the "East Coast of the United States" for the entire group. Calling Maryland "south Atlantic" is something that many people will disagree with. Mdak06 (talk) 01:25, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Allikas: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special%3ADiff%2F460461447
No tags for this post.