Talk:Bedlam Series

Lopsided

Took out information that seemed slanted in favor of OSU even though the football series is extremely lopsided - not "slightly misleading" as someone described —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.119.9.189 (talk • contribs).

Logos

There are only two teams participating in this series. Those teams are each discussed at some lenghth in this article. Being as the logos represent the two teams, I believe the use of both logos is easily allowable under fair use and Wikipedia policy. There is no free equivalent for a logo. Sports-news websites (E.g. Sports Illustrated[1] and ESPN[2]) routinely use both team's logos alongside information about a specific game. Johntex\^talk 21:19, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Tone and sources

I added the {{tone}} tag to the recent history section. There are phrases there that sound more like gushing fan-sites or sports announcers trying to get you to stay up to watch the 11:00pm sportscenter broadcast. This section needs to be written in a more serious tone. Examples of problem phrases are:

• "the rebirth of the Oklahoma State football program"
• "a shocking loss for OU."
• "Oklahoma had no answer for star Cowboy, Rashaun Woods."
• "The final score was Oklahoma State- 38-28, but the score is deceiving, as Oklahoma State's victory over OU was pure domination."
• "One of the most hyped and anticipated matchups going into the game"
• "This matchup in Stillwater featured an all-time classic in Bedlam football history between the two schools."

Some of the above might be allowable if they were sourced, but not otherwise. In general, sourcing for this entire section should be provided. Johntex\^talk 19:58, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Response to tone complaint

I removed the 4th item on the list you made note of. Other than that, the statements are factual. Either you're not from Oklahoma, or don't care for football, or both. Every other statement is something that would be widely agreed upon by anyone knowledgeable to these games or the series in general. If anyone has any valid arguments against these statements, and not just complaints, I would consider them in a redraft, but a tone tag here is unnecessary for now.

Also, I'm not the author of all of them, but I do think they are now all correct.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Cgaultokstate (talk • contribs)

I restored the tone tag since you did very little to address the issues. Please familiarize yourself with the meaning of the tone tag, there is a link within the template itself that will take you to a page explaining the style of writing we use on Wikipedia. You say above that the statements are factual. Please note that I did not dispute their accuracy. If I disputed their accuracy I would have used a totally different tmeplate. Your assumption about where I am from and what I know about football is totally beside the point. For one thing, our articles are not intended solely for people who already know all about the topic. They are intended for a general audiance. The article should be written to sound like an encyclopedia article, not like a sports blog. Johntex\^talk 06:11, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Tone

This article's tone is bad making it sound far from encyclopedic. I see the tone tag was added but quickly removed (it really shouldn't have been). -- Ash Lux ^{(talk | contribs)} 17:25, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Add the tone tag to a specific section. We've been back and forth editing this page to a tone most of us have finally agreed upon. Just jumping in and adding a general tone tag is not helpful. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Cgaultokstate (talk • contribs).

Cleanupsfan site tag, unreferenced tag, cleanup-confusing tag

Here's some problems I've noticed:

• This article does not cite its sources.
• The "points system" section is confusing. What is it? How does it work? Who runs it? etc. In fact, the exact point system really isn't all that important and probably shouldn't be here (especially if it changes).
• In the "football" section, the importance of the games isn't clear. Are we really going to describe each of the 100 or so games? The tone is bad and not appropriate for an encyclopedia (just fine for a sports blog, however). What happened during the first Bedlam game is not clear (nor the rest of the games).

-- Ash Lux ^{(talk | contribs)} 20:58, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

The point system

The point system is set by Ford and the Bank of Oklahoma, as well as the two universities. It is used to determine an "overall" Bedlam winner, and has only been used for a few years. I agree the way it currently appears on the page is very confusing, even to someone familiar with it. I say we just delete the point breakdown, and keep the current list of winners, with maybe a small explanation of the purpose. What do you think? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Cgaultokstate (talk • contribs).

I agree the chart should just be removed in favor of a description of the point system. This isn't basketball, golf, etc. so just a short description should suffice. This information may be better suited as a subsection of the history section. -- Ash Lux ^{(talk | contribs)} 20:48, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

The point system actually does cover all sports, tennis, women's, etc, but I still think deleting is appropriate. (Thanks for the signing tip ashlux, I had no idea how to do that)

-Cgaultokstate 15:43, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

I removed the previous point breakdown. It was also just a cut & paste from okstate.com. The new section is in my words, but a paraphrase of info available at OSU and OU's athletic sites. If citing is still necessary, I'm unsure how to do that.

- Cgaultokstate 19:30, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

I just noticed the info I put in there is redundant, and appears in the history section. Would it be more appropriate to move that paragraph down here, or just say "See History"?

- Cgaultokstate 19:34, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

• You should just merge "Bedlam Series winners" into "History". And you're welcome for telling you about ~~~~! :-) -- Ash Lux ^{(talk | contribs)} 01:20, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

• At the very least I would think the article should explain the who, what, where, when and, why the series name is Bedlam. I am a native Oklahoman, attended OSU, have a son who graduated from OU and, I still don't know why just these two schools have a bedlam series. Other states don't have colleges that compete against each other in multiple sports? I can see how the 2nd and 3rd definitions of the word from Merriam-Websters ((2) a lunatic asylum. (3) a place, scene, or state of uproar and confusion) could be applied to just about every sporting event and rivalry so, how come just the OU-OSU rivalry? Is it refrence to how insane we Oklahomans are about sports? Perhaps a refrence to Griffin Memorial Hospital in Norman, Oklahoma, which was Oklahomas asylum at one time? That is what people want to know. --RokitSinTst (talk) 14:24, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

The football section

I attempted to clean it up a bit, but it still sounds bad. The story about the players jumping in the water etc, is interesting, and I think should stay, but there's not near enough factual info about the game to justify it staying. What was the year, score, etc? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Cgaultokstate (talk • contribs) 18:37, 1 March 2007 (UTC).

This article is a fan site and should be deleted immediately. These are subjective statements that have no place on Wikipedia. Please, delete this content immediately.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Trigam41 (talk • contribs)

Deletion of yearly sections under football

I deleted all the sections under History since 2000 under the football section because it is unnecessary. It would be one thing if full game summaries were provided, but all of those were 1-3 sentences and not deserving of its own section. Plus, the section reeked of recentism. Please, if you disagree with my move, lets discuss it here before restoring.↔NMajdan•talk 19:59, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

I added the complete series scores, attendance, rankings at time of playing, and outcome. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.15.106.205 (talk) 23:58, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:OSU.PNG

Image:OSU.PNG 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) 14:23, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:OU-Logo.PNG

The image Image:OU-Logo.PNG is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

• That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
• That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --08:48, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Copyright problem removed

Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. The material was copied from: http://www.okstate.com/trads/douglas-cup.html. Infringing material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.) For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences or phrases. Accordingly, the material may be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. Hipocrite (talk) 13:08, 5 December 2011 (UTC) Hipocrite (talk) 13:08, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

I just re did this how far do you want it to be done it seems you want it done the the point that it doesnt make any since.--Dcheagle 19:21, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

You are not permitted to copy text from other sources that are not compatible with our license into the encyclopedia, at all. Hipocrite (talk) 19:41, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Just to be clear, the best thing for you to do here Dcheagle is to re-write the text in entirity from scratch. Minor tweaks are not acceptable. Worm^TT · (talk) 14:14, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

I have rewirten the text four times now I'm done its obvious that you two to cant see that so im done forget it this page will just have to go with out it. And thanks to you to I will be leaving wikipedia for good. Thanks for ending two great years.--Dcheagle 16:02, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

I only looked at the text today - the 4th re-write? - and I can still see significant close paraphrasing, to the point that this is a copyright violation. If you want help re-writing, then let me know. If you want to storm off in a huff because you've been called on violating a core principle of wikipedia, then I'm not going to stop you. Worm^TT · (talk) 16:11, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Attendance

I happened to come across a report on the attendance of the 2012 Bedlam game which conflicted with the one posted here. I looked it up and found the same record on ESPN.com here: http://espn.go.com/ncf/boxscore?gameId=323290201. Who's been putting the attendance, and where are they getting it from (there's no cited source)? I corrected that mistake and verified the past 20 years of attendance records, and I haven't found any more mistakes, but that still doesn't excuse the first mistake. A source needs to be cited, and the rest of the attendance records need to be checked.--Kobra98 (talk) 02:12, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Bedlam Series/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

==Assessment== The article contains a lot of useful informaiton, but there are serious problems with the tone of the article, as I have explained more fully on the article's talk page. Also, more sources should be easy to find for such an article. There is only 2 now, which is slim for such a substantial article. I'm rating "Start" in quality. With regards to importance, I don't think this is one of the more famous rivalries in college football, so I am ranking "Low". Johntex\talk 20:01, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Last edited at 16:53, 27 February 2007 (UTC). Substituted at 09:19, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Bedlam Series. 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/20121119064444/http://www.okstate.com/ot/bedlam-series.html to http://www.okstate.com/ot/bedlam-series.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111123221319/http://www.soonersports.com/ot/bedlam.html to http://www.soonersports.com/ot/bedlam.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: 18 January 2022).

• 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) 03:48, 16 January 2018 (UTC)