Talk:Army Black Knights

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Fair use rationale for Image:ArmyBlackKnights.png[edit]

Image:ArmyBlackKnights.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 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 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 19:45, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Name reverting back to Cadets[edit]

Per this tweet by Army football beat reporter Sal Interdonato, West Point will reverse the 1999 name change and go back to calling their athletic teams the Cadets. DarkAudit (talk) 15:05, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Or not. See Rebrand section below. So it goes. DarkAudit (talk) 13:27, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Rebrand[edit]

Per their press release, the athletics program is now known as "Army West Point." However, the nicknames "Black Knights," "Cadets," and "The Corps" it looks like they will be used interchagably. What say ye, Wikipedians? Tom Danson (talk) 07:03, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 14 April 2015[edit]

The following is a closed discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was not moved. --BDD (talk) 18:43, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

– Per the fact sheet attached to their rebrand, they state that teams are to be referred to as "Army West Point." Tom Danson (talk) 16:17, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose. We use common names, not official ones. And the new name is officially dumb. Calidum T|C 17:20, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • While it may be dumb in your opinion, keep in mind that WP:NPOV still applies here...also, what you quoted is a mere essay (not a policy nor a guideline), and as such this is still open for debate. Tom Danson (talk) 18:46, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • WP:UCRN is a policy and says basically the same thing. Calidum T|C 18:52, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        • Point taken...but still, it's gonna take more than just the two of us to reach a consensus. Tom Danson (talk) 19:12, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, at least for now, per WP:COMMONNAME. Let's wait and see if any third-party sources actually start calling them "Army West Point" instead of just "Army." One PR release does not wipe out 100+ years of history and common usage. And, yes, the new name is incredibly dumb and confusing, though that is neither here nor there in terms of this discussion. Ejgreen77 (talk) 22:19, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support; change in common usage is likely to be inevitable, and we should favor the institutions preferences absent contrary evidence. Powers T 00:14, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose at this time. After further reflection, I've decided I can't reasonably consider the changeover in common usage to be inevitable, given the unwieldiness of the new names. Let's give things a year or so. Powers T 01:51, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support at the very least the current article needs renaming, since an army of black knights frequently occurs in fantasy fiction and non-historical medieval romances. -- 65.94.43.89 (talk) 13:27, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment is the rugby club also called "Black Knights"? If so, shouldn't it also have "Black Knights" added to its name? -- 65.94.43.89 (talk) 04:42, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. The main article might be better at the more specific title, but not the various sports teams, where "concise" is being stretched too much. 173.160.224.84 (talk) 15:58, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose all, strongly - WP:CONCISE and WP:COMMONNAME reign here. Any confusion with "an army of black knights" is kind of absurd - seriously. Plus, WP:DIFFCAPS would differentiate them anyway. Red Slash 02:27, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose all. Agree with Calidum and LtPowers on further reflection. Andrewa (talk) 03:53, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Fixing the WP:Red links[edit]

Tom Danson, regarding this edit you made, and what I stated here, are you going to fix the WP:Red links you created? And by that, I mean either returning those links to their original names or creating WP:Redirects for the new names to point to the original names. Flyer22 (talk) 23:18, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I fixed them...next time, be more civil, please. Tom Danson (talk) 23:49, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

NFL draft ?[edit]

Is there any arrangement for elite Army players to be drafted by the NFL ? Would they have to wait for their agreed army service to end before they could join the NFL, play part-time, or some other arrangement ? I've heard of one player who did the first option, served in Vietnam before joining the NFL... would be good to have this issue discussed in the article. I assume the same applies to Navy and Air Force : the three appear to be the only colleges not normally in the NFL draft ? Rcbutcher (talk) 09:34, 26 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Can privates and NCOs represent Army ?[edit]

Can enlisted men play for Army, or just officer trainees ? If not why not ? Rcbutcher (talk) 08:17, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Army Black Knights. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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) 08:15, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Army Black Knights. 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:

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) 09:58, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Army_Black_Knights&oldid=1205349783"