Talk:2009 Rose Bowl

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

Teams[edit]

  • Official or technically official. Or is it not official? Ucla90024 (talk) 05:45, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • No purpose served by jumping the gun and list Penn State as a participant. After all, the game still has to be played. There is a whole month left before it will be played. We are still busy with all the arranagements and preparations. Just like Obama is not the president yet until he takes office. Ucla90024 (talk) 00:27, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Penn State will serve as the home team, based on the alternating format between the champions of both leagues" doesn't appear to be correct. According to Tournament of Roses: "Penn State will wear its white jerseys and use the west bench on game day. USC will wear its dark jerseys and use the east bench on game day." Ucla90024 (talk) 07:11, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Shouldn't someone change the information? 206.170.104.63 (talk) 01:33, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

New Infobox[edit]

Someone please explain to me why the single game infobox template is better than a multiple game one? I added it and it was reverted. The benefits of a multiple game header over the single game one: navigation between years the game is played at the bottom, more fields with more information (link to college football season, optional subheader, the amount paid to each team, etc.), the incorporation of the Cfb-link template to auto generate the link to the best team-directed link, etc. Please don't say that the header says "95th Rose Bowl", because that is a recent incorporation (all Rose Bowl game articles before 2004 list "(Year) Rose Bowl"), as well as not being standard across wikipedia bowl game articles. Before I re-added it again, though, I thought I'd give people a chance to voice why they think listing the Rose Bowl as a single game instead of one in a line of games in the infobox would be best. (I honestly can't think of a good reason) Cardsplayer4life (talk) 11:47, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Cards. Dincher (talk) 14:57, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
My concern is the sponser. The Rose Bowl is different. With all other bowls being Year Sponser Name, thanks to my edit, the Rose Bowl will read 2009 Citi Rose Bowl. I don't really want 95th Rose Bowl because it is confusing. However, once agin the Rose Bowl is different and if you change your new template back to the way it was all the other bowls will be wrong. Perhaps a change in the sponser section to show if the are "presented by" instead of a title sponser will help. I hope this was clear, if not let me know. Bcspro (talk) 16:28, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No, I added an optional subheading for this very purpose. You can leave out the sponsor and put "presented by" in the subheader section and that will fix it. Cardsplayer4life (talk) 18:12, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds like the template needs to be more flexible. Dincher (talk) 16:48, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It is certainly more flexible than the other one was. (plus, as stated, this is not a problem) Cardsplayer4life (talk) 18:29, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Very much so. No need to repeat information, such as "navigation between years the game is played at the bottom" when it was already at the bottom of article. 71.130.221.217 (talk) 17:23, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Then remove it from the bottom of the article; Problem solved! Cardsplayer4life (talk) 18:13, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, since there didn't seem to be any real objections, I put it back in. It says "Presented by Citi" in the subheading. Cardsplayer4life (talk) 18:29, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Why call someone's name wrong? You don't call Jane Doe when it is John Doe. You don't call Super Bowl by the year. Look at the tickets and the programs. The Rose Bowl's been around for at least 95 years (there was a gap in the early years). Ucla90024 (talk) 03:20, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Then why was every article before 2004 already listing it as (Year) Rose Bowl? Cardsplayer4life (talk) 03:23, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not a good argument. Editors obviously didn't know the history and didn't do adequate research. Wrongs are not rights. Ucla90024 (talk) 20:27, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Also, the name of the article is "2009 Rose Bowl", not "95th Rose Bowl". It is already listed in the very first sentence saying it is the 95th one; I don't think anyone will be confused. Cardsplayer4life (talk) 03:25, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I put "95th Rose Bowl Game" as the subheader. How is that for a compromise? It lists both sets of info. Cardsplayer4life (talk) 03:36, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Odds[edit]

  • Is it really that important? We and bettors were happy when the Trojans win the UCLA-USC game by only 21 points. The line was over 30. :) Ucla90024 (talk) 20:27, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image copyright problem with File:RoseBowlLogo.jpg[edit]

The image File:RoseBowlLogo.jpg 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. --14:15, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on 2009 Rose Bowl. 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) 13:21, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on 2009 Rose Bowl. 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) 13:42, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2009_Rose_Bowl&oldid=1196549457"