Talk:Buffalo Bulls

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

This page[edit]

I'm going to take this page under my wing. I'm a student at UB and a former employee of the athletics department, so I know the situation pretty well. I've been meaning to create this page for a while, and I hope to have its stub status removed fairly soon. If you feel that some material here is a little biased, feel free to edit it. Pete4999 20:37, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Editorial Comment[edit]

We don't refer to them as the "Buffalo Bulls". They are the "UB Bulls" or the "University at Buffalo Bulls", or just the "Bulls" in the context of our university. Calling them the "Buffalo Bulls" implies they are directly connected to the City of Buffalo, which is incorrect, since Buffalo already has teams: Bills, Sabres, etc. See: http://www.buffalo.edu/toolbox/sg_auto_glossary_9.html

Ubinfo (talk) 21:43, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

I understand where you're coming from, but per WikiProject College football naming conventions (seen here): "School names should be the short preferred version, and not acronyms." It may be referred to offhand in that manner in Buffalo, but for those viewing the article from outside the region, the acronym could be confusing.
If you feel that it should be named to "UB Bulls" still, I'll have no objection to re-naming it, but do note that "UB Bulls" already re-directs to this article. -- Nomader (Talk) 02:38, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
According to UB athletics, UB goes by just straight "Buffalo". If you see on the players uniforms, they read "Buffalo". So they are in a sense the "Buffalo Bulls" (Talk) 09:04, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
The official website name goes by "UBBulls." Officially, then, the name is actually "UB Bulls", not "Buffalo Bulls." I have added that detail in the introduction, as well as having made the correction to the website identified in the information box, as well as the external link. They are officially the UB Bulls, not the Buffalo Bulls. Both names, however, have been maintained as identifiers, as well as throughout the article. Daniellagreen (talk) 17:43, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

File:Blue TB logo-1.png Nominated for Deletion[edit]

Image-x-generic.svg An image used in this article, File:Blue TB logo-1.png, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests September 2011
What should I do?

Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.

  • If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
  • If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.

This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 00:17, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Victor E. Bull[edit]

  • Oppose any split of the section on Victor E. Bull, there is no indication that the mascot on it's own meets the WP:GNG as it not received substantial coverage on it's own, it has received local news coverage, but that is not substantial enough to warrant it's own article. Mtking (edits) 03:40, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
Have a read of WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS, the local news coverage of the appearance in the 2002 Capital One Mascot Challenge does not get close to passing WP:GNG. Mtking (edits) 06:25, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Support split of Victor E. Bull article. Standard procedure for dealing with NCAA D-I FBS mascots. Article is well-referenced. Sabresfan20 (talk) 22:23, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Support split of the article on Victor E. Bull. NCAA D I FBS mascots are definitely notable. Lots of references establishing notability for separate article. 184.153.90.157 (talk) 03:32, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Since this proposal to split the article has now been running for over two months, and since the final vote tally on the proposed split is three votes in support of the split, and only one opposed to it, I am making a WP:BOLD move and marking this debate as Closed and moving the section to the new article, Victor E. Bull. Ejgreen77 (talk) 09:12, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

New York Bulls[edit]

Outside the UB athletics page, I haven't found any usage of the term "New York Bulls" and even on the UB website, its usage is infrequent. "UB Bulls" is clearly the most common term on the UB page, and in secondary sources, it's almost exclusively "Buffalo Bulls". The New York Bulls initiative has gotten some additional press nationally with the Bulls appearance in the NCAA Tournament (mostly out of confusion over the new logo emphasizing New York), but still not to the point of any secondary sources referring to the teams as the New York Bulls. That's why I'm hesitant to include it as an alternate name (like Buffalo Bulls and UB Bulls). I've seen the updated logos as much as everyone else, but the initiative is now approaching two years old and I can't find any widespread usage of that term. If someone has some additional sources that refer to the teams as the "New York Bulls", please post them. The NYBulls initiative, however, should be mentioned in some way on this page, perhaps a paragraph or few sentences in the history section. And yes, obviously things could change. Who knows, maybe the NCAA appearance gets secondary sources to refer to the team as the New York Bulls. If that happens, we can adjust here, but so far, it doesn't seem to be the case. --JonRidinger (talk) 22:06, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

Until "New York Bulls" becomes their WP:COMMONNAME it shouldn't change on Wikipedia. Right now, every media outlet (like ESPN, CBS, and SI) call them the "Buffalo Bulls". As does their own conference. We've had lots of cases where schools have re-branded and changes in the encyclopedia happen once the re-branding effort actually "takes." Rikster2 (talk) 22:42, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
And I usually suggest a page move succeeds at WP:RM before other articles use the new name.—Bagumba (talk) 23:11, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
Their official athletic website(www.ubbulls.com) has it. They refer to it as themselves and that's all that matters. But if you want some other outside source here is a with even a quote from the athletic director.http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/early-lead/wp/2015/03/20/why-do-buffalos-uniforms-say-new-york-instead-of-buffalo/ , http://campuswatch.buffalonews.com/2015/03/19/whats-with-new-york-on-ubs-jerseys-a-refresher/ And there's more articles like this... If its own athletic head and various other news sources it should at least be allowed . It is another name for them as you can clearly tell

Sallisawwet (talk) 01:06, 23 March 2015 (UTC)§

I saw all of those websites when I made my initial comment. Of note, even two years later, the official website is "UBBulls.com". Within the article text for various sports articles at UBBulls.com, I found very inconsistent usage of the term "New York Bulls" to describe the teams, as I already mentioned (the website still uses "UBBulls" or even the longer version with the full university name). The "New York Bulls Initiative" is mentioned, but the usage of the term consistently does not exist yet. The article from BuffaloNews.com simply explains the issue regarding the confusion over the "NEW YORK" on the jerseys. Same for the Washington Post article. Nowhere do any of them refer to the team regularly as the New York Bulls; they simply mentions the initiative and why the logo changed and why viewers might be confused seeing the jerseys but then seeing the scoreboard say "Buffalo". No one is questioning the initiative's existence, but I still haven't seen any evidence that "New York Bulls" is a consistent term (non-existent from the secondary sources), especially when the MLS team is the New York Red Bulls. --JonRidinger (talk) 02:01, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
Really? Now you are being ridiculous. It is ALSO known as New York Bulls , as stated by the athletic department website , the athletic director, and in the articles. Not the ONLY known or MOST known , but ALSO!! What more is there to say , the other editor seemed to have no problems. You look like you are on a power trip and going against your own rule and promoting a edit war. Wheter it be UB Bulls , Buffalo Bulls, or New York Bulls , they can be used interchangeably without a doubt. Its not even a question at this point... Therefore I will change it back , it does belong here. And why are you comparing it to a professional soccer team, which has a different name!!!! This is a college program with a distinct name that the university is conveying.

Sallisawwet (talk) 02:17, 23 March 2015 (UTC)§

In both the Washington Post and Buffalo News articles, the only usage of the term "New York Bulls" is with "Initiative" attached ("New York Bulls Initiative"). Neither story ever states that's what they're called now. The Buffalo News article repeatedly refers to the school as "UB". The Washington Post begins with "That’s Buffalo, aka the State University of New York at Buffalo, the 12th-seeded team in the Midwest Region."
Some examples from UBBulls.com: "The University at Buffalo, State University of New York women's tennis team..."; "The University at Buffalo, The State University of New York, baseball team ..." (score at top of the article shows "BUFFALO" as the home team); "Following the most successful season in UB Basketball history..."; "The UB women's team took part in the WNIT..." The only mention of "New York Bulls" on the main page is, again, for the New York Bulls Initiative, a link that won't open. --JonRidinger (talk) 02:20, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

It is ALSO known as , I don't see why you don't understand this. And please read down further in the articles. Throughout the ncaa game the bulls were referred to as just New York same with the post game conference. The teams own stadium ,fields, and even gear make a huge emphasis on New York also. There is no arugement. This is such a remedial stance you are taking Sallisawwet (talk) 02:24, 23 March 2015 (UTC)§

I'm fully aware of what "also known as" means. Also known by who? The national media certainly doesn't "also refer" to UB as the "New York Bulls" and the University at Buffalo doesn't even use the term in ANY of their own sports articles I can find. "Also known as" and bolding are for names that are consistently used in other reliable sources (so readers may be familiar only with a specific term), hence the inclusion of "UB Bulls" since that is frequently used by local Buffalo media and UB sports articles. But considering the New York Bulls Initiative is now almost two years old and not even primary sources use the term, why should Wikipedia? Really, as I mentioned, the initiative should be placed in the article as part of the history of UB athletics (since it resulted in a new logo), but no, there is no evidence that any source refers to the athletic teams from UB as the New York Bulls. --JonRidinger (talk) 02:34, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
Yes there is stop being ignorant. The university , the athletic director which you fail to bring up every time , the president, and the emphasis on New York everywhere on campus , the articles. There is a clear indication that New York Bulls is a secondary , back up name. Which is what ALSO known as is conveying. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sallisawwet (talkcontribs) 02:41, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
Find me one example of anything that uses "New York Bulls" in the same manner that "Buffalo Bulls" and "UB Bulls" are used when referring to the teams. That's what I'm talking about. Not the university's current emphasis on trying to claim exclusive flagship status of SUNY. I get the whole branding thing about the flagship, I really do, and the emphasis on being New York state's team. For this article, though, it's about how the sports teams are referenced in media, both primary and secondary sources, that I'm taking issue with because I haven't seen ANY references to any UB teams ever being called the New York Bulls. I can find all sorts of references to the Buffalo Bulls and UB Bulls, but none for the New York Bulls beyond the mention of "New York Bulls Initiative", which is on a website that hasn't been accessible for several days now, and the logo that simply emphasizes New York but does not leave out Buffalo. Even on the Facilities upgrades page, I see lots of "UB" logos and "BUFFALO", but only the full text "State University of NEW YORK at Buffalo" logo at the center of the football field and the center of the basketball court. Why do I care? My concern is simply that it would set a precendent for other editors to add whatever the "branding du jour" is without any solid sources, or potentially even those who claim some derogatory name is something a team is "also known as". --JonRidinger (talk) 03:04, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
Too soon. The school is trying to rebrand itself. It may or may not take. When media or other reliable sources begin to routinely (or not uncommonly) refer to the team as the "New York Bulls", then add it. Meanwhile it's not for the Wikipedia article to facilitate what is essentially a matter of marketing. JohnInDC (talk) 14:44, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

As someone who lives in Western New York, and has some actual knowledge of this situation in real life, here are my thoughts:

1.) The family of articles, categories, templates, ect. should remain at "Buffalo Bulls" - at least for now. That's the way they are currently referred to in nearly all reliable, third party sources.

2.) I think a brief mention in the lead of the articles would be appropriate. Perhaps something like "The Buffalo Bulls, sometimes branded as the New York Bulls, are the athletic teams representing the State University of New York at Buffalo," ect.

3.) In addition to this, somewhere in the articles, we should include a brief, neutrally worded, reliably sourced sentence or two explaining the whole "New York" initiative, and putting the whole situation in context. Like I said, keep it short and sweet, just a sentence or two, ideally. Certainly nothing more than a paragraph.

Overall, I wouldn't advocate making any major changes as of yet, but the situation is probably worth briefly noting in the articles themselves. Ejgreen77 (talk) 16:47, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

You make a good point, that the initiative may be noteworthy if the new name itself is not. I am not sure that the nascent effort, with (what appears to be) just a few mentions in the press, is worthy of inclusion in the lead in these articles; but I completely agree with (3). JohnInDC (talk) 17:03, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
If you read some of my earlier comments, that's basically what I say in regards to the initiative. The teams are not "also known as" the New York Bulls in any sources, including primary sources. The initiative itself should be mentioned in the history section since it resulted in the creation of the new logo that emphasizes "New York" in the "State University of NEW YORK at Buffalo", but not as an alternate name. --JonRidinger (talk) 17:39, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

It should be Buffalo Bulls per WP:COMMONNAME. -AllisonFoley (talk) 23:31, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

Revisited[edit]

There are still no regular third-party sources indicating the teams are known as or referred to as the "New York Bulls". Using a websearch, "New York Bulls" turns up far more results for the New York Red Bulls than Buffalo. The only results mentioning Buffalo are a link to the UB athletic website's "New York Bulls Initiative" (discussed above) and the Wikipedia articles (this one, football, and men's basketball). --JonRidinger (talk) 15:42, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Buffalo Bulls. 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}}).

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • 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.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:01, 10 November 2016 (UTC)