Talk:Virginia Tech Hokies football

Add discussion
Active discussions

NPOV disputeEdit

I went to Virginia Tech, so I'm not really qualified to edit this article, but this article is embarrassingly loaded. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 21:14, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Pizzajoe05 (talk) 19:59, 27 October 2012 (UTC) PizzaJoe - i was a ballboy 1966-1970 how can i see some home games with me in them?

National championshipEdit

Shouldn't this article make at least some kind of reference to the one and only time the Hokies played for a National Championship? Legis 08:16, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Is West Virginia really a rival? We've had some pretty good games, but they're not even on the schedule anymore.

VT has the FOURTH longest bowl streak. As the article later lists THREE schools ahead.

There is a history of VT football between 1896 and the Beamer years - at least some of the page should be devoted to those 89 years. (Bruce Smith, Dave Strock, Carrol Dale, etc. etc. etc. - a lot of good history there.)

—Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 01:31, 6 October 2008 (UTC) 

ACC in 2004 conflicts with realignment article,Edit

which states football teams moved from Big East in 2005 —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 02:02, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

A bit of hyperbole?Edit

From the Big East Years section, first sentence: "The greatest season ever seen in Virginia Tech football history came in 1999.". I'm not even sure that's fixable with a citation. Should it be removed? Oneliketadow (talk) 04:01, 7 September 2010 (UTC)


I'm putting this here for purposes of dispute resolution. As I told User:Δ: "I'm well-aware of the NFC guidelines regarding galleries, but they do say that instances should be judged on a case-by-case basis. Virginia Tech has worn several different uniforms over the past few years and they're all relevant to the article. Furthermore, I and other designers will be adding past uniforms as well. Unfortunately, to display the images on the page in any other way besides the gallery would be unsightly and cluttered. Using a gallery is the most succinct way to display the images." He disagrees with my reasoning and claims that I'm violating copyright. I'm doing everything correctly as per the NFC rules. --Kevin W./TalkCFB uniforms/Talk 21:54, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

They are not needed. It is a clear violation of copyright policy. If you re-add them again you will be blocked for copyright violations. ΔT The only constant 21:57, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Page temporarily (6 hours) fully protectedEdit

Protecting the version without the disputed images to err on the side of caution. I'm not familiar enough with this particular aspect of our copyright rules to make a judgement as to whether or not the images violate the rule. Hopefully someone with a clearer understanding of the policy can make a judgement within the next 6 hours. OhNoitsJamie Talk 22:10, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

policy is fairly clear WP:NFG unless there are exceptional need non-free galleries are not allowed. There have been no viable claims made for an exception to policy for this page. ΔT The only constant 22:34, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
I'm leaning toward thinking that you are correct, but would welcome another opinion. OhNoitsJamie Talk 22:35, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
My initial thought is to agree ... with so many specialty and throwback uniforms, you'd have to devote a lot of page space to simply display all the alternative uniforms, putting all non-free concerns aside. If someone created a child page, something like Virginia Tech Hokies football uniforms, that'd allay my concerns. JKBrooks85 (talk) 22:59, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
That still would not be grounds for use, see WP:FUEXPLAIN. ΔT The only constant 23:05, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
Nope, but it's a reason why all the uniforms shouldn't be displayed in the main article. JKBrooks85 (talk) 23:44, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Wikipedia is not a complete exposition of all things. This is crucial to understand. It is a fact that these uniforms were used by this team. There's no real disputing that. But, it's also fact that this team used certain brands of sneakers, certain vendors for the uniforms, and on and on. We do not need to have every possible detail of any given team in order to have an encyclopedic entry on that team. It's simply not necessary. Is a reader of this article hampered in their understanding of what Virginia Tech Hokies football is if they don't have a gallery of every uniform this team ever wore? Obviously not. The subject can readily be understood in an encyclopedic manner without having to have every uniform displayed. This is before we even get to the NFCC issues involved here. We are first and foremost an encyclopedia. NFCC works in support of that mission, and frankly is a secondary consideration here. There's just not need for every uniform the team ever wore.
  • Now, if there's particular secondary sourced discussion regarding a particular uniform, it might (MIGHT) be useful to have a uniform image to support that sourced discussion. Again, this is irrespective of whether it's a free image or not.
  • Once we get into the issue of the images being non-free, the hurdles just trebled in size. You can't include a non-free image with purposes like (quoting the rationales in use here) "To denote the uniform of the team". That's not a valid rationale for this use. Mere depiction is permitted for some uses of non-free images, but this is NOT one of them. You can't slap a gallery together and declare it's acceptable non-free use. The reason WP:NFG exists is because it is very rare that a gallery of non-free items can be tightly tied, via sourced discussion, to the prose of an article. Sometimes it can be useful, such as a side by side comparison of two non-free images, where separating them out reduces the reader's ability to readily compare the images. Such a case doesn't exist here. It's pure illustration for illustration sake. That's a blatant fail of WP:NFCC #8, the significance failure. Increasing the number of non-free images used by this article in such a manner is a blatant failure of WP:NFCC #3, minimal use failure. We only use non-free images to improve reader's understanding when we must in order to be able to convey a critical point, based on sourced discussion, in the article. We don't just add them because it looks good. --Hammersoft (talk) 14:52, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

First overall NFL picksEdit

An unregistered editor is insisting that David Wilson be added to this article's list of first overall picks in the NFL draft. However, Andrew Luck was the first overall pick in 2012. If this section is intended to use some other criteria such as "First overall pick in the NFL Draft by a team" then it should be renamed or clarified in the article. ElKevbo (talk) 16:20, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Lane StadiumEdit

The first paragraph insists that VT was #1 on ESPN's Scariest Stadiums...if you check the link it was actually #2. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TysonChandlerJones (talkcontribs) 06:24, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 April 2018Edit

Jbeiv4 (talk) 23:42, 28 April 2018 (UTC)
  Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. NiciVampireHeart 23:50, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 June 2018Edit

The "Future non-conference opponents" section is due for an update. As the 2018 season approaches, it is no longer necessary to include games in the 2017 season. Additionally, the games in 2020 and 2021, listed as "at Michigan" and "vs Michigan", respectively, are now against Middle Tennessee State University. Finally, a game "at Liberty" should be added to the empty spot in 2022. Other future games can be added as well. The source is the same: (talk) 00:00, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

  Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template.  LeoFrank  Talk 18:18, 30 June 2018 (UTC)
  Partly done: Removed 2017/18, but someone else will have to make the other changes if a reliable source can be provided. Corky 18:34, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 December 2019Edit

change 2019 military bowl results to empty. This was a copy of 2018 military bowl, results should not be present yet. Jrweimar (talk) 11:32, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

I'm going to leave this to @Jaybb10: who added that information and seems to be completely focused on these articles, I believe they'll know what they're doing - ChrisWar666 (talk) 15:21, 1 December 2019 (UTC)
  Done It's reasonably clear that this is a duplicate row and therefore I removed the repeated values. I left the row intact since the 2019 bowl game season will occur shortly. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 20:30, 1 December 2019 (UTC)