Jump to content

Talk:Maryland Terrapins

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

Traditions

[edit]

Some of the "Maryland traditions" included in this article are generic college basketball traditions (free throw wave) and even more generic sports traditions (the wave). I'm deleting them because they have no place here.

Ouestion

[edit]

I was a big Maryland basketball fan in the 70's, while stationed at Ft. Myer Va. When and why did the fans stop singing the "Amen" song that was so popular at the end of a home victory?De percy (talk) 10:25, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It either stopped when Lefty was gone, or when Gary Williams came. --Omarcheeseboro (talk) 12:46, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WHY?De percy (talk) 08:50, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It was a Lefty tradition that came and went with him (I'm not sure if they played it during the Wade years). It doesn't seem like too complicated of a concept to grasp. --Omarcheeseboro (talk) 15:38, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It also doesn't seem as if you have the faintest idea of what you are talking about! De percy (talk) 08:35, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your welcome. I'm sure you'll find a better answer than it was a "Lefty" tradition. --Omarcheeseboro (talk) 13:05, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It should read you're welcome. You obviously never attended college, moron. You never gave a concrete answer. I asked when and WHY? What do you mean a "Lefty" tradition? What the hell does that mean? If you cannot give specific answers, then take a hike, hillbilly. De percy (talk) 03:22, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about my grammar. You don't know who Lefty is? He was the coach of Maryland in the 70s. --Omarcheeseboro (talk) 09:31, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Omarcheesburger, why don't you stop screwing around and answer Percy's questions? I think they stopped the Amen song because of some politically correct complaint issue. Not certain though. 216.78.55.52 (talk) 11:03, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it was because of political correctness. I think the tradition thing is probably the best answer there is. It first started when Driesell's team beat Duke in 1970 and became a tradition from then on under Lefty (p. 31, [1]). They did play it in 2002 after the victory in the final game in Cole Field House as an homage to Lefty (Baltimore Sun: [2]).
Alternately, if that answer isn't satisfying, someone interested could call the UM athletic department. Or on the UMTerps.com site there's a Q&A feature, "Ask Testudo" or something like that. Strikehold (talk) 11:48, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, and remember - Please do not use talk pages such as Talk: Maryland Terrapins for general discussion of the topic. They are for discussion related to improving the article. They are not to be used as a forum or chat room. If you have specific questions about certain topics, consider visiting our reference desk and asking them there instead of on article talk pages. See here for more information. Thank you. Omarcheeseboro (talk) 14:10, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cheeseass, who in the hell do you think you are? If you work for Wiki, they should fire you. First, Percy asks a really good question, to which you come on bloviating all over without providing any sembilence of a concrete answer. You then block Percy from further responding to your sarcastic and condecending attitude, your poor grammar aside, then you intend to lecture us! In the meantime we are finally receiving quality answers on the original subject. A subject in which you had no business injecting your cheeseself with in the first place. 216.78.50.47 (talk) 02:53, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge proposal

[edit]
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

The result was merge into Maryland Terrapins. -- Brewcrewer 22:25, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think Terrapin Times really belongs in its own article as it only relates to this topic and is unlikely to be developed further. So I proposed it is merged into a new section on this page Madmedea 18:59, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree because the article seems doomed to stub-hood. RedRollerskate 03:37, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The Terrapin Times article is written more of a joke than actual useful information so it should not be merged ThorHammerTerp 04:45, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. per nom.--Brewcrewer 22:21, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Complaint

[edit]

- This article is extremely biased plain and simple. There are countless statements that reflect poorly on the school and the athletic department unnecessarily. For example, when citing the "rioting" incidents, why is there no mention of similar incidents in the WVU athletics article or the U of Arizona article? Or how about the countless other schools who have acted similarly following sporting events? How about citing hazing incidents regarding schools? Why is there no mention of the Duke lacrosse rape allegations in its article on athletics? I tried to clean this article up a bit last week by taking a few extremely biased statements out while also adding some additional information regarding many of the incidents and games mentioned. Apparently you chose not only to ignore the changes I made, but you actually rewrote the article in an even more biased manner than it previously was written. The school has had some problems with fan behavior in recent years, but your characterization of the fans and school as a whole is grossly unfair. There is absolutely no reason to characterize Maryland's athletics and fan behavior in the manner you have and I hope to see it cleared up in the near future.

It is removed. This is an article about Maryland sports, a few fan incidents doesn't merit inclusion. --Omarcheeseboro (talk) 14:20, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

RE: Complaint

[edit]

There is no mention of "other" incidents because this is a UMD athletics page, not a WVU or U of Arizona article. UMD athletics have a reputation of troubling action by its students in comparison with 95% of colleges in the US. All pieces of the section in question are sourced by multiple publications to be clearly unbiased. All removals were based on VERY biased editing.

This is a page about Maryland athletics. A few fan incidents is not important in the grand scheme of things. --Omarcheeseboro (talk) 14:20, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

RE: RE: Complaint

[edit]

I agree that the text as written was unecessarily biased in its characterization of the incidents reported. However, as this is a Maryland page, the references to incidents at other schools would also be innappropriate. I edited the section to put the focus on the events that occured and not an editorial characterization of those events. Zms676 16:41, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

RE: RE: Complaint 2

[edit]

I restored most of the edits I previously made after they were undone by an unregistered user who did not post in the discussion page.

First, I restored a short blurb about the 2006-2007 season. Although I would be open to a general consolidation of the the recent history of the Duke-Maryland basketball rivalry, as the page is written, I see no reason why 2006-2007 should not have its own blurb.

Second, I re-edited the incidents section to remove some of the editorial tone of the article. Specific changes: 1. I included the statement "like many other schools" because it puts the described incidents in context and is more consistent with the USA Today article cited, which covers many different schools. 2. The statement that "Maryland's reputation has been tarnished" is entirely subjective. My edit puts the emphasis on the objective facts - the incidents - and not what some writer thinks about them. 3. The sentence "The incidents have caused outrage and negative publicity by university officials and the community." is another characterization of events and is not properly cited. 4. The sentiment that rioting has become part of fandom is also subjective, so I got rid of it. 5. The term vulgarity is misleading. I replaced it with the specific word that is the source of the controversy. 6. I removed the report of the posted phone number, because it is the product of an individual act and inconsistent with the other events listed (which are mass incidents).

Zms676 17:47, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]


RE: RE: Complaint 3

[edit]

I needed to re-edit the incidents section which had deleted sections of factual evidence. I did agree that some of the tone was editorial so I fixed a few statements therein. "Like MANY other schools" is not true so it was removed. Also the phone number incident was perpetrated by many individual as the report says so it was restored. The duke section was way too labored, we dont need to have the record of every game leading up to the comeback. The point of the sweep 2 out of the 3 years by previous author is a good summary.

DBrentster 18:09, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

RE: Complaint 2

[edit]

I did a couple of grammatical edits to clarify things after all the edits and cross-edits. Also, I agree with a lot of the points by DBrenster, but I still disagree on a couple of issues. (1) I still think the 3-year old quote from a random student that "rioting is such a part of fandom" is too subjective and random to include (2) I replaced the vague term "vulgarity" with the more specific term used because it adds accuracy without taking up more space or reading time (also, the term "suck" is already referenced earlier, so I don't think it's a profanity issue). I left the reference to the phone prank in, but it would be nice if you could point to a cite that wasn't a high school newspaper.

Regarding the 2006-2007 blurb, I agree that the whole Duke section has gotten out of hand, and I might take a crack at consolidating recent seasons into one or two paragraphs.

Zms676 21:43, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Incidents section

[edit]

The fact that the incidents mentioned have been cited in the press does not make them relevant to this article about the Maryland Terrapins. As has been mentioned above, pages for schools with similar "incidents" such as Penn State, West Virginia, and Michigan State do not include a section about fan behavior. 149.79.35.227 18:27, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Incidents section was edited to retain only factual information as discussed above. Certainly relevant to the sports section. —Preceding unsigned comment added by TestudoTT (talk • contribs) 04:36, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The point isn't that the "incidents" section is not factual, it's that it is not relevant. As mentioned before, similar sections detailing notorious fan behavior do not appear on the pages for other schools' athletic teams. Why is Maryland athletics uniquely deserving of having fan behavior incidents included on a page about the athletic program? 149.79.35.227 14:37, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Incidents section removed. It is an article about the overall history of the program. A few fan incidents doesn't merit inclusion. --Omarcheeseboro (talk) 16:50, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived 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 PAGE MOVED per discussion below. -GTBacchus(talk) 23:29, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

University of Maryland athletics → Maryland Terrapins — All but 4 of ~100 pages at Category:College athletic programs are of the form: (short college name) (nickname) (for example: Louisville Cardinals or Washington Huskies). The remaining 4 should be moved. Oren0 17:31, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Survey

[edit]
Add  # '''Support'''  or  # '''Oppose'''  on a new line in the appropriate section followed by a brief explanation, then sign your opinion using ~~~~. Please remember that this survey is not a vote, and please provide an explanation for your recommendation.

Survey - in support of the move

[edit]
  1. Support per current naming convention. *Mishatx*-In\Out 17:42, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support--Jerrypp772000 00:45, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support--Nitsansh 01:50, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Survey - in opposition to the move

[edit]

Discussion

[edit]
Add any additional comments:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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.

POV and references concerns

[edit]

I've recently pasted a large block of text from the main UMCP article that seemed too long-winded to be kept there. However, while there is a lot of information, there also seems to be a considerable amount of POV as well as a lack of proper citations. --Tom (talk - email) 02:30, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tom, that information really needs to be cleaned up before bringing over to this page. The sections moved over here are mostly redundant and are flagged for neutrality and source problems. DBrentster 03:01, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Men's sports Update

[edit]

Can someone please update/fix the original dates in the Men's Sports table, mmm kay? Thanks.

Testudo meaning

[edit]

Currently says: Latin for "a shed wheeled up to a wall used by the ancient Romans to protect an attacking force". .... Not sure Latin is that succinct. Testudo is latin for 'tortoise', and the term was used to describe a type of military formation... I'm going to make the changes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Strikehold (talk • contribs) 05:40, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fear the Turtle

[edit]

As a Maryland native, it'd be nice to see the phrase 'Fear the Turtle' somewhere in this article. This is a common phrase in the region, in fact, try doing a Google search on this phrase, 'Fear the Turtle'. I would change the article myself, but I suck. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.81.70.210 (talk) 18:37, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Incidents, etc.

[edit]

I have already posted my comments on the incidents section while I made the edit. I'll make it again here.

This is an article on Maryland Terrapin sport history. A few fan incidents doesn't merit being in this article.

Also, I made edits on an incident I believe to be false - the ACC fining Maryland Athletic Dept for the JJ chant. I remarked in my edit that if you can find a reference for this (there was no reference to begin with), feel free to put it back in. Instead of finding a reference, you just undid my revision. Of course I undid your revision right back. Either provide a reference or it doesn't go in.

One more round of this and I will seek dispute resolution.

--Omarcheeseboro (talk) 03:52, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

RE: edits

[edit]

The incidents section most certainly relates to this topic and has way to much supporting documentation including to be fully deleted. Also it is obviously not isolated incidents. While it can certainly be edited to remove inaccuracies, to remove the entire section is irresponsible. Please initiate a dispute if you would like to take this further. TestudoTT (talk) 04:40, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Supporting documentation? I am certainly not questioning the accuracy of the events in the "incidents" section, but rather the relevance to the article.
This article should be an overview of the 100+ years of the University of Maryland Athletic Program. A few FAN incidents in the past decade does not merit inclusion. One can make the argument it's not necessary to list the several 'fan traditions', but I will leave that for someone else to decide. The article should be about Maryland Sports teams and their noteworthy results, teams, players, and games. Perhaps an emphasis on current affairs (note that most of the issues you list have not occured in the last 4 years). It should be expanded in other areas, but again I will leave that to others. My main point here is that the fan incidents that you are so determined to include in this article has no place.
I will initiate a dispute for the incidents section. --Omarcheeseboro (talk) 05:22, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Incident Section Dispute

[edit]

Please read the above two sections for information about the debate on the "Incident Section". Currently the debate is between two posters Omarcheeseboro and TestudoTT.

There are also posts debating this in previous sections, look for sections entitled "complaints"

Thank You --Omarcheeseboro (talk) 05:37, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • I'll start weighing in on the issue. I believe the topic is appropriate, but should not be included as its own section, rather, it should be a part of the "Traditions" header, which seems to deal with fan interactions with the sporting events. I would tend to err towards the advice of WP:BLPSTYLE (even though this is not about a person), which states "Criticism and praise of the subject should be represented if it is relevant to the subject's notability and can be sourced to reliable secondary sources, and so long as the material is written in a manner that does not overwhelm the article or appear to take sides; it needs to be presented responsibly, conservatively, and in a neutral, encyclopedic tone. Be careful not to give a disproportionate amount of space to particular viewpoints, to avoid the effect of representing a minority view as if it were the majority one." I think it does make sense to have a note on incidents, but to ensure that the amount of space dedicated to the topic is representative of the 8 years of incidents in the 90 years of Terp sports.--Fresh (talk) 05:35, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thank You Fresh. I am fine with that and will make the edits. By the way, even though the article may currently not mention it, the first Maryland football game was in 1892, so this is an topic that has a 100+ year history (not 90). I plan on expanding this article to include more info about the program's history.
TestudoTT currently has no other edits besides this issue, so this is obviously of monumental importance to him - hopefully he's okay with it, or we'll just go through more dispute resolution. --Omarcheeseboro (talk) 11:19, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think this is a good compromise, as there is enough information on fan/traditions to warrant the section. I did include a segment that was excluded in the recent edit to show that the university has implemented positive steps to curb the recent problems. DBrentster (talk) 03:18, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

The image Image:MarylandTerrapins.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. --02:08, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal for revamping this page

[edit]

I think the content of this page needs a significant overhaul.

A huge amount of this page is about either silly fan traditions or rivals -- which both pertain to Football and Men's Basketball. The fan traditions are frankly not that interesting, or even unique to Maryland. The rivals section content should be merged into the Football or basketball articles (or dropped all together.. it's just a simple season by season rundown that again, is not all that intersting).

The description of the Athletic Dept on the main University of Maryland College Park is excellent; It's exactly how an overview of a school's athletic department should read. I don't see what's wrong with simply copying and pasting here.. unless anyone has any objections, I will do that.

The fan traditions/rivals section will be condensed greatly.

Also, I would like to list the Athletic Dept Hall of Fame listed, as it is here, http://umterps.cstv.com/trads/md-wall-of-fame.html#hof

I'll leave this up for a month or so. After that, I'll make the changes. --Omarcheeseboro (talk) 09:22, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Update - Since no one objected, I made the changes. Didn't copy and paste from main article, but rather added HOF + Nat'l Championship articles. Also removed a lot of the fan traditions and rivalries stuff.
As a point of reference, I checked out many articles for other teams and they are all rather concise - focusing on their players and teams rather than "fan traditions" and rivalries. --Omarcheeseboro (talk) 03:25, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dispute November 2008

[edit]

I have updated page, as discussed above in talk page. Nearly a month ago, I posted my plans, and there were no objections. User SportsNut2k has said he will keep on reverting my changes unless they are "approved in discussion". Again, my plans were up here for nearly a month before I did anything, and nobody objected. I'm afraid that if I wait to get approval in discussion, I may be waiting a while. However, that is more due to a lack of participation rather than consensus.

Please note, my reasoning for updating the page is because I think there is too much emphasis on fan traditions and rivalries. Since the article is a general overview of the entire athletic program, I believe that the main focus should be the notable athletes and teams.. rather than fans and opposing teams.

Another basis for my updating was simply looking at pages for other schools and their pages. I know other pages should not necessarily be a basis for modeling a page (there's a wiki article on this topic, sorry can't find right now), but I do believe it's a very valid point of reference.

See:

Note that all these pages are concise overview of the athletic department. Notable athletes and teams rather than fan traditions and rivalries. Infact those pages are much more concise and shorter than this page--even after my changes. I would be in favor in making additional changes in this page along those lines.

Thank you. --Omarcheeseboro (talk) 05:09, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. This page is a mess with a lot of superfluous junk on it right now, and it needs a serious overhaul. Most of the stuff on here really doesn't belong. I support the changes Omarcheeseboro made. For instance: The part explaining pumping fists to the fight song (???), teenage mutant ninja turtle theme, and "Na Na Hey Hey" song parts... What does any of this add to the article? This is trivial at best, unsourced, and written in an un-encyclopedic manner. (The part about the "You Suck" song is in my opinion noteworthy--and Omar left it in place. Having attended the university around the 2001 timeframe, I can attest that it was a big thing, and if I'm not mistaken, I believe the school was one of the first to do this. But it needs sourcing.)
The Key plays, move the chains, free throw wave, shaking papers, etc. is more fluff that doesn't really belong. A lot of it is not exclusive to Maryland fans either...
The Midnight Madness part does warrant inclusion somewhere, but needs to be re-written and sourced properly. I believe this practice started by Lefty Driesell was the first of its kind in the nation and other programs nationwide have since followed suit.
I think the fans incidents are noteworthy, BUT seeing as how Penn State, Miami, Florida State, Texas, etc. athletic pages have nothing on them about all the criminals they've had in their programs, I don't think it fitting that some fan incidents be included in this article.
The rivalries stuff is mostly not even about rivalries, it's just random recounting of recent UMD BB events. At the most, this article warrants a short blurb on each rivalry (not recent team-UMD results). None of the following major athletic programs articles even have anything about rivalries: Ohio State, Oklahoma, Kentucky, Florida... And they all have much more important traditional rivalries than anything Maryland has.
Here is what I think this page should look like...
  • Intro and the TOC
  • Sports (with a brief overview for each with a "Main article" link to the individual page)
  • Football
  • Men's basketball, etc.
  • Traditions (a short section, with the fight and victory songs, and anything that might be notable as being exclusive or characteristic at UMD..)
  • Championships (table or lists of conference/national championships—sports)
  • Notable Terrapins
Strikehold (talk) 06:33, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: This is the revision with my changes [3]. --Omarcheeseboro (talk) 14:14, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Third Opinion

[edit]

Greetings everyone. I come here following a Third Opinion request. From what I can tell, Strikehold and Omarcheeseboro believe the article is in need of revamping. On the other hand, SportsNut2K disagrees and has thrice reverted the changes. Limited, local consensus appears to favor re-evaluating the article, and editing it.

Further, I notice that Strikehold and Omarcheeseboro have brought their requested edits to the talk page. Unless I am missing something, it appears that SportsNut2K has reverted changes without coming to discussion. I urge him to discuss changes before reverting again, in order that the Three Revert Rule is not violated.

My opinion is that improvements to the page should continue. Discussions should occur here before agressive reverting.

I hope this helps the dispute. Lazulilasher (talk) 17:03, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fourth Opinion

[edit]

I strongly favor the calls to revamp this page. Strikehold's work on pages for Maryland football rivalries are so detailed that they make the rivalry section almost unneccessary. The Duke-Maryland material, for which I contributed (and poorly sourced), could perhaps be truncated and the bulk of it put on a page of its own. The items on traditions and fan incidents, as pointed out above by Omar, are either not noteworthy or unique to U. of Maryland and are out of place when compared to pages on other collegiate athletic programs. (Apathyjunkie (talk) 04:29, 30 November 2008 (UTC))[reply]

Changes implemented

[edit]

After discussion on here and feedback from The Third Opinion Process, the changes have been implemented. --Omarcheeseboro (talk) 19:09, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

current professionals

[edit]

soccer

Rodney Wallace DC United —Preceding unsigned comment added by JG1868 (talk • contribs) 16:52, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Best athletic facilities

[edit]

Princeton Review ranked Maryland's athletic facilities #1 in the country [4]. Strikehold (talk) 04:19, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Colors

[edit]

Why is it that the infobox at the top of the page only shows three school colors? It reads that the school colors are "red and white and black." Below this it shows three boxes, with red, white, and gold. When I went to edit it, the info was there, but was not visible on the page. Does anyone know how to/can they fix this? Maryland has four athletic colors: red, white, black, and gold. acomas (talk) 02:46, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'll make the change. Here are the references...
Amit (talk) 14:02, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Update -- I've posted in the discussion thread for the particular info-box that we need to alter. That is why the fourth color doesn't show up, even though it's added in the code for this article. If I don't get a response from the owner/manager of the template soon, I will make the change myself. Amit (talk) 14:15, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Traditions Vandalism?

[edit]

The following section was added in the last 24 hours under "traditions"

"Maryland fans have a well-earned reputation as vulgarians of the highest order, frequently shouting obscenities at their opponents. As a rule, they take every opportunity to demonstrate their utter lack of class. The most recent demonstration of this behavior was a riot on March 3, 2010 that featured helicopters, a SWAT team and riot police."

Is this really necessary? I think the explanation of Rock and Roll Part Two, etc. is enough to convey the nature of UMD fans. I have not removed it myself simply because I am not entirely sure of how standard procedure works regarding this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Oka Nieba (talk • contribs) 01:47, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion regarding current Maryland Terrapins wordmark and logo on Terps football page

[edit]

There is a discussion on the Maryland Terrapins football Talk page regarding use of the new wordmark and logo for the Terps. I have requested a consensus on the use of the marks throughout the different types of Maryland Terrapins pages that are on Wikipedia (teams, seasons, facilities, etc). Your input is appreciated - please click here to go to the conversation and add your opinion. Thanks! Mdak06 (talk) 13:04, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Big 10 Move

[edit]

It is being reported that Maryland is moving to the Big 10. Do not change the conference affiliation to Big 10 - Maryland will join the Big 10 in however many years it takes for them to remove themselves from the ACC. It may or may not be multiple seasons until they move their sports. Virsingh (talk) 16:51, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Maryland Terrapins. 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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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) 23:59, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Maryland Terrapins. 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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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) 11:38, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Maryland Terrapins. 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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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) 14:48, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:Maryland_Terrapins&oldid=1208847103"