- 1 Terminology
- 2 What the heck? Where is all the information
- 3 References in the Media
- 4 Origination
- 5 Haverford
- 6 Rules
- 7 Nomenclature
- 8 External links
- 9 Finley Peter Dunne
- 10 Category
- 11 Copyvio
- 12 Revamp
- 13 Removing ACO
- 14 Requested move
- 15 Merge discussion for Cornhole bag
- 16 External links modified
I have to say, I'm concerned about the Terminology section. For the most part the terms listed seem to not be widely accepted terms but are rather unique to small groups of friends and often seem to be just a friend's name defined as something they often do. What, if anything, can we do to clean up this section? Rbernard80 (talk) 19:58, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
- I agree completely. I have now revamped it in order to attempt to make it respectable. I orginally was going through the list and trying to remove terms in which I could not find a cite for. After going through half the list with no results (apart from copies of the article or blogs making fun of the section), I removed all of them and found a respectable list of terms. While this section may still not be perfect, and I would not be opposed of removing it all together, I think that now it looks at least somewhat respectable though it probably still needs some work. Apparition11 (talk) 16:47, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
- The source for most of the current terminology is offline now. Should we remove the section entirely? Languagemaven (talk) 23:38, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
What the heck? Where is all the information
Why were the major organizations taken out of this page? This article used to have the major Cornhole leagues and associations. It's like writing an article about Basketball, and not mentioning the NBA.
References in the Media
Section asks for citation for anal sex connotation for "cornhole". Frank Zappa, 1979 Album "Sheik Yerbouti", track 3, "Broken Hearts are for Assholes". 1. I do not see an example template for citing song lyrics so I am unsure of proper format. 2. Wiki article on Sheik_Yerbouti does not contain lyrics but they are available at several "guitar tabs" sites. Breakerslion (talk) 22:52, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
There has been a lot of back and forth on what Cincinnati neightborhood can lay claim to originating the game. I'm going to remove these edits unless they are backed with a published source. Jokestress 19:22, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
There were a lot of references to Cincinnati inventing the game of cornhole in 1999-2000 and another which mentions the game growing in popularity when a group of college kids started playing. I removed these references since the orgin of the game is unknown, but we do know that it was at least being played in Chicagoland in the 18th century. 22.214.171.124 21:26, 26 April 2007 (UTC)User
The earliest Usenet reference I find using the word is from mid-2002:
The persistent editor who keeps adding information about Haverford needs to cite a reliable published source (not a self-published blog), or the information will be removed. Jokestress 22:36, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
It keeps saying four bags, four bags. But it is actually eight bags four per person or team. I think it should be reworded. Unless whoever made this plays by different rules. cedarpointohio2 17:06, 9 june 2008 (est)
I hate to aska wkard questions, but is there a tie between the game cornhjole and being cornholed?
- I see you've never played Cornhole... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 126.96.36.199 (talk) 04:11, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
An external link to Cornhole Planet keeps getting added back in by someone apparently associated with the site. This appears to be a violation of WP:SPAM and WP:COI. Looking it over, it contains little information that is not available elsewhere. I vote for just keeping the national association site and leave out the others. If anyone wishes to include other sites, please discuss your reasons here. Thanks. Jokestress 16:17, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
Over the last few weeks, there have been numerous attempts by cornholeetc.com and americancornhole.org to include their link in the resource section. cornholeetc.com is a complete commercial site with no information not available on the association site. americancornhole.org is the non-profit side of the commercial website. This also does not have any information that is not contained in the assocation site and, as far as I can tell, is just a doorway page to the commercial website at the .com address. I vote, like Jokestress prior to me, with just leaving the association website up. drighteous 20:17, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
I have no connection whatsoever to cornholeetc.com or americancornhole.org. However, I do see the same argument being made against the Association. Both sites offer commercial products. What I perceive is one organization attempting to prevent access to the other by continually deleting any mention that another organization supports the game. Frankly, I just don't care anymore. --Spacini 04:44, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
Personally, I don't care much about who deletes it as long as their is a valid reason. Cornholeetc.com is clearly just out for commercial purposes so I think we can agree on that. Americancornhole.org is a little more subtle, but its a clear doorway to their commercial site and this is obvious to anyone who looks closely. playcornhole.org has been the oldest and most widely recognized authority on the subject and standardized the rules. americancornhole.org has basically copied the rules and inserted their products as 'official' equipment. It's pretty widely recognized that this is the case which is why I'm assuming it continues to get removed.drighteous 11:26, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
I removed a link to ajjcornhole.com's resource blog that I placed on there after reading this section about commercial sites. I made some updates to the popular terms section and wanted to add "Soft Horseshoes" to the top as other names that I've heard cornhole being called. It looks like there are a couple of self-proclaimed "official cornhole authority" sites with hidden agendas. To be fair, I'd either not link to any external site or I'd link to all of them with something fresh to offer, but what do I know? The only link that makes sense to me would be a link to a website that has a tournament listing that is updated regularly. This is a little difficult to find, since it appears that certain websites won't list your tournament unless it's approved by their "organization". This sport will never grow unless everybody can get along for the betterment (is that a word?) of the sport. AltherrWeb (talk) 04:03, 8 May 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by AltherrWeb (talk • contribs) 03:53, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
May 24th -- I don't understand why people are getting so excited about external links being added. As webmaster of CornholePlayers.net, I feel that our site is valid in wanting to be linked to this page. We provide very detailed information for people looking to build their own cornhole boards, we have rules, and there is also a section for people to post any ( even "non-sanctioned") tournaments. We are not selling boards or bags, in fact through the Summer we even have contests to give them away for free. I've readded our link, please let me know specificially why you MUST remove it, if you do. Also - the last person to remove my link was whoever added the ACO link, so thanks frank - way to spread the sport. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.8.131.52 (talk) 18:58, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
Quite frankly, after seeing the crap 184.108.40.206 is pulling over at the American Cornhole Organization's entry, I think I would side with allowing the external link here. The repeated vandalizing of that entry appears to signal that 220.127.116.11 has some sort of vendetta and I don't feel it's proper for that vendetta to be carried out in the external links section here.Rbernard80 (talk) 04:19, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
Someone else must have a personal vendetta. 18.104.22.168 posted a personal attack on someone. Plus, 22.214.171.124 also removed all external links to informative cornhole websites and replaced it with a commercial website selling their cornhole products. Wiffledude (talk) 05:30, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
Looks like more crap from 126.96.36.199 over the American Cornhole Organization entry in external links. This person definitely has a personal vendetta against that organization. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wiffledude (talk • contribs) 21:40, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
Actually, I have nothing against the ACO at all. I, along with others, have agreed that the WIKI should be free from commercial links. Cornholeplayers.net and playcornhole.org are just that. The ACO does here what they do to every other community site, and that is they pee in the public waters. The wikipedia is a resource for all of us to use, not for the ACO to spam and push their own products. Regardless of how they portray themselves, the ACO is nothing more than a company that sells products and uses public message boards/forums/and wikis to spam their products. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.8.131.52 (talk) 23:26, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
Your repeated vandalization of ACO wikipedia entry doesn't exactly match with your claim to have nothing against the ACO. You have repeatedly made edits disparaging the ACO and touting the ACA which have had to be reverted. You are clearly not an impartial player in this. In the absence of a clear consensus opinion on which link(s) to allow, simply having a link to the two major organizations related to this article does no harm.Rbernard80 (talk) 14:52, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
Sorry you feel that way, 184.108.40.206, but the ACO website, along with cornholeplayers.net and playcornhole.org, are all informative cornhole websites. All three links are important for the promotion of the game. As for having the WIKI free of commercial links, cornholeplayers.net and playcornhole.org are also commercial links. Each site sells ad space on their sites promoting cornhole products. The more people who visit, the more revenue can be generated. Cornholeplayers.net pushes product. It may not be their own, but they push product. The more product they push, the more money comes back to them in banner advertising. The ACA pushes product on their site. They have a link to buy ACA equipment. The ACO is no different than the ACA. Both sites have forums, rules, equipment, etc. It looks like all three places "pee in the public water." Wiffledude (talk) 15:02, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
The ACA and Cornholeplayers.net websites may sell adspace, but they offer unique value to the cornhole community. The ACA formalized the rules and then the ACO basically came and copied them and input the requirement for their own products. Cornholeplayers.net has a forum that shows people how to build their own boards, customize their boards, and tournament information. The ACO's message board just pitches their own events and the community there is basically non-existent. Oh and by the way, they continually (or should I say you continually) spam the site trying to drive people to their own site. The ACO's site is NEVER added back in by anyone other than ACO sales reps, but Wiki users continually add back in the ACA and cornholeplayers.net site. Matter of fact, even the ACO founder Frank Geers will remove the ACA links and cornholeplayers.net links from the WIKI and replace them with his own. The ACO isn't about the sharing of knowledge, they are only out for their own good. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.127.116.11 (talk) 18:23, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
Ah, so now we're getting somewhere. So it is now okay for cornholeplayers.net to make money by driving people to their website because they provide a "unique value"? Unique value is right, as in number of unique visitors driven to the site so the site can increase ad rates for future buys. Seriously, cornholeplayers.net is a great site for cornhole, an awesome site. But there is nothing more unique about cornholeplayers.net, playcornhole.org or americancornhole.org. I find it funny you are upset with the ACO because they copied the ACA rules and started their own products. Sounds like you're actually jealous for seeing another group take the ACA concept and market it. If that is the case, then you might want to start complaining to Apple, Pepsi, Coke, Sony and pretty much anyone out there who copies ideas. There is nothing unique between the ACA versus the ACO. They are the same. Cornhole rules existed long before the ACA existed. Back in the day, the ACA created the standard. They created the rules. However, that doesn't mean they are the rules. It's obvious you think they should be the rule, and that makes you no different than those you despise (ie Frank Geers). Other organizations can and will exist using cornhole rules, original or adopted. There are more organizations (and more will follow) who create rules. And like most games and sports, there are multiple organizations with similar rules. Basketball had the NBA and the ABA. Football had the NFL and the AFL. Mixed Martial Arts had UFC and Pride. You are also incorrect about the ACO forum. Non-ACO events are on their message boards and a community does exist. The mere fact you are accusing me of promoting their site is hypocritical because every time you remove the ACO link you are endorsing/promoting the ACA link. You have become what you hate. As for ACO owner Frank Geers, I've never met the man. It's obvious you have some personal vendetta against him or you wouldn't be so worked up over one person. I'm about spreading the game of cornhole and at this moment those three sites provide the most informative cornhole websites in the world of cornhole. Wiffledude (talk) 19:55, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
Please, give me a break. You are obviously affiliated with the ACO. And get down off your high horse comparing the ACO to apple and the UFC. I don't think the UFC finds it necessary to add their links to public resources. The ACO is attempting to set themselves apart as the premier place for cornhole tournaments and products. But the reality is, no matter how many times you say it, it doesn't make it true. Like Jokestress pointed out above, there is no reason to point people to a resource(s) that basically copies the rules from the ACA site. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 18.104.22.168 (talk) 20:29, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
Talk about calling the kettle black. You are the one operating on the high horse stating the ACA is the onle place for cornhole rules and removing everyone else's links to various organizations. Cornhole has many different rules and I believe the WIKI should direct people to organizations who have those various rules. Just because the ACA was the first group to form rules doesn't mean they are the rules to operate by for the game of cornhole. The same can be said for Wiffle Ball. There are the original rules as made by the company, plsu there are various organizations that have created their own rules. FastPlastic has their rules. Wiff It Up has their own rules. Had FastPlastic created their rules before anyone else, that doesn't mean there can't be other organizations forming their own set of rules with the same product. That is why the ACA and the ACO should be allowed in the external link section. Both may have similar rules, yet both promote the game. And to immediately assume you think I am affiliated with the ACO because I am supportive of their endeavors, as well as the endeavors of other organizations, shows me how narrowed minded and high horse you are coming across as. Wiffledude (talk) 21:10, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
So let me get this straight, if you alter the rules a little bit, then that gives the ACO the right to plaster their link anywhere they see fit? I think not. What are the differences between the rules? Oh yeah, the difference is that instead of the general "Each cornhole platform shall be a 48" x 24" rectangle made of half inch plywood." from the ACA, the ACO states "The ACO approves only American Cornhole boards and cornhole bags to be used in any Sanctioned cornhole tournament or cornhole league.". The entire rules read like a giant advertisement for their products. The ACO is the most commercial of the commercial and the majority of people here agree that commercial links should be left out. In most people's minds, having some ads to pay the server costs aren't commercial sites. The ACO is strictly commercial with their hired guns going out spamming every site possible. And give me a break again, you are clearly affiliated with the ACO. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 22.214.171.124 (talk) 22:03, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
Again, you are claiming the ACA is the maker of all the rules, which is not the case. Rules existed long before the ACA. Just because the ACA was the first group to post their rules does not mean they are more important than the ACO. And don't be so blind to think that the ACA will not soon start stating they will only sanction tournaments which feature their product. It's only a matter of time before it happens. As for commercial sites, having ads on a website just to "pay server costs" doesn't distinguish itself as non-commercial. If it has ads, then it's commercial. There is no distinction. It's unfortunate you think I'm associated with the ACO. I am trying to start up a new cornhole association using rules I copied from the ACA, ACO and other various sites. I was looking for a company I could get boards from. I noticed you once removed cornholeplayers.net, playcornhole.org and americancornhole.org from the external links and replaced it with ajjcornhole.com. Does this mean you are associated with ajjcornhole? If so, you just lost a customer. Wiffledude (talk) 22:18, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
Wrong. I'm not associated with ajcornhole. You're missing the point completely though. Just because there are lots of variations of rules available online, doesn't mean they should all be included. The ACA has been in existence since 2003, 5 years and they haven't tried to pull the same thing that the ACO has pulled. The ACA is the place where Joe Public can go to get their rules without having to see a sales pitch from a company i.e. ACO. If the ACO rules/forums had any value beyond pushing the ACO, then I say put them in. But if you allow the ACO to post their link, then every other site selling boards should be as well. And I think that the contributors made it clear that's not what they want. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 126.96.36.199 (talk) 22:29, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
Okay, lots of anger here. But why? The external links are not hurting anything. I added in CornholePlayers.net. I think they are doing a great service in promoting the game of Cornhole. They might be selling adspace, but they aren't selling information. They provide GREAT building information to the common cornhole enthusiasts around the country. Why would that be bad? The ACO and the ACA are in the habit of selling boards and bags, so I can understand the complaints against them, but why be upset with CornholePlayers.net? Maybe a few of you should relax a bit? This is a wiki page, not a life or death situation. Have some fun!
There seems to be a lot of fighting here among various self-proclaimed "official" cornhole associations, with supporters of each making edits to support their own organization and eliminate references to other organizations. I recommend eliminating the fight by renaming this article from Cornhole to Bean Bag Toss, the generic name for the game. Of course the supporters of the various cornhole associations will probably object, since it diminishes their credibility to be the "official" authority. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.8.131.52 (talk) 02:21, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
184.108.40.206: You can't just come in here and edit the article to reference only your preferred "Bean Bag Toss Association". Please desist in the nonconstructive edits.Rbernard80 (talk) 04:42, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
Rbernard: You're reverted edits take the article back to a state where is does not sufficiently show references. I added references to several organizations, both bean bag and cornhole. I would understand your objection if I only referenced one organization, but I referenced multiple organizations. If you have a legitimate objection to one of the "bean bag toss" organizations, fine, state your objection, and I will remove the reference. But you have removed all references except to PlayCornhole.org. There seems to be a history of using this Wiki page as a battleground between rival organizations. This page suffers from edits which only promote single organizations (and those are the "nonconstructive" edits. I recommend that either multiple organizations (and I don't care which ones) or no organizations be referenced.
Additionally, I added a History section with high quality references to the New York Times as well as the American Game Collectors Association. The history section should not be removed. --220.127.116.11 (talk) 11:16, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
I have reverted the edits to reinclude the History section. Since RBernard's objection seems to be regarding mention of any association other than Playcornhole.org, I have removed all references to associations other than Playcornhole.org. Again, I believe that references to multiple organizations are warranted, to describe variations in the game. However, I don't want to get caught in the fight between warring associations. Is it possible to have a reasonable discussion on which organizations to include? (American Cornhole Association, Midwest Bean Bag Association, World Bean Bag Association, etc.) --18.104.22.168 (talk) 11:42, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
A NY Times link had a mention of the phrase bean bag, but not specific to the game of cornhole. Another NY Times link didn't even mention anything related to bean bags or cornhole. The articles linked to pdf documents simply listing companies in a pdf catalog hosted by a website used for an association of game collectors. Another link went to a cornhole association's website. If we want to list cornhole associations, I'm throwing out the idea of having a Groups section. However, the Groups section should only include groups related to cornhole and not any bean bag game. Wiffledude (talk) 15:01, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
The NY Times articles mentioned the game of Bean Bag being played in the New York City area in the 1890s. The game catalog shows Parker Brothers selling bean bag toss sets in the 1890s and other companies selling children's themed sets as early at the 1930. These references support the long history of bean bag toss games. To say reference needs to specifically mention "cornhole" as opposed to "bean bag toss" is rather limited, as they are essentially different names for the same games. And although there may be some rule variations, they are minor compared to the primary intent of the games. Saying they are different games is like saying high school basketball, men's college basketball, women's college basketball, and NBA college basketball are all different games since they have different rules (including ball size, timing, foul rules, and defense rules).
"Cornhole" and your definition of "Bean Bag Toss" are not synonymous with the physical act of tossing a bean bag. There are many versions of games that involve throwing bean bags, and unless a reference in some way makes it clear that the bean bag game it mentions involves an inclined board with a single hole in it, I don't think it can be included here. The references need some kind of validation that they actually refer to the game of Cornhole/Bean Bag Toss. Rbernard80 (talk) 16:16, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
Rbenard80/Wiffledude-What Chicagoans call "bean bag toss" is the same thing as cornhole, just go look at the webpages of those organizations. I find it somewhat suspect that people (Wiffledude) first state they want to include all organizations because rules may differ, but then say that 50% of the organizations named should not be listed because they follow slightly modified rules and don't call the game 'Cornhole' Wasn't that your original reason for wanting to include websites other than the ACA? I don't think there is any good in making a groups section since commercial websites can just create a non-commercial page on their site and ask to be included. Like others have pointed out, the ACO is a commercial enterprise. The ACA is the most uniform and the most cited rules on the game of cornhole. Basically ever set of rules out there is a derivative of the original ACA rules. Therefore, what's the point of making a groups section? The difference in rules is basically miniscule. And in the case of the ACO, the difference is for every vague reference to a required piece of equipment, e.g. "bags", the ACO puts in "American Cornhole Regulation Bags". Hardly worth including a product pitch from a quasi-organization. Drighteous —Preceding unsigned comment added by Drighteous (talk • contribs) 20:21, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
Just to be clear, the intention of my previous comment was not to say that "Cornhole" and "Bean Bag Toss" are not the same (or at least nearly identical). My point was merely that not all games that involve tossing a beanbag are the same as Cornhole/Bean Bag Toss and that we need to be careful when citing references that merely mention bean bags.
Personally, on the external link controversy, I think we need to take an all or nothing stance. Either we provide no explicit links to groups (not counting citations for rules and whatnot) or we include all groups that are not obviously commercial (though I might add the criteria that they be groups that actively sanction and organize activities, and not groups that just parrot the rules). Rbernard80 (talk) 20:53, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
Actually, Chicagoans refer to the game as Bags, but there are more people starting to refer to the game as Cornhole. I don't like the idea that all associations not ACA or ACO aren't considered official cornhole organizations and thus are removed from the wiki. I tried including a link to a cornhole association and my links were removed. I stand by my argument that the ACA rules are not the original rules of cornhole. Fact is, the reason the ACA rules are most cited is because they were the first group to put up a website with their rules.Wiffledude (talk) 21:35, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
Actually, I live in chicago and the game is commonly known as bean bags or "Bags" for short. See the various articles written in Chicago papers for proof. Again, as stated earlier, there are no major differences in rules to warrant adding all the organizations. And moreover, virtually ever "association" is attached to its commercial business in some way. I think it goes without saying (or at least I thought it did) that the first rules actually meant the first documented rules. Of course people were playing with rules before the ACA site....where do you think the rules came from? The creator formalized them and put them on paper and later "associations" came in and copied them. It's not like we're talking rule differences of basketball in the various levels....2 boards/8 bags, 27 feet apart, alternate tosses, net out the scoring, and play up to 21. Adding a twist here and there to make them your own doesn't really make them unique. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Drighteous (talk • contribs) 00:23, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
GEEZ< you people are like a bunch of fruckin children arguing over who owns the playground swingset. It's a damned bean bag game people. You act like it's a national defense matter or something. GROW THE FRUCK UP! Who cares what "governing organization" makes the rules to hop scotch! 22.214.171.124 (talk) 20:08, 4 March 2014 (UTC) GEE WHIZ
Finley Peter Dunne
As noted in the article (sort of), beanbag has a history in Chicago as well.
I'd be curious to know if the game is specifically what Finley Peter Dunne was referring to when he coined his famous aphorism, "politics ain't beanbag." Anyone know?
It looks like that was what he was referring to. Bean bags has been around in Chicago for a LONG time so it wouldnt' surprise me. Here is an article that clarifies what he was referring to.
126.96.36.199 00:34, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
According to the Beanbag article, cornhole is a regional name for the game 'beanbag'. I have also heard it referred to as 'bags' by chicagoans. Should this possibly change the origin section? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.8.131.52 (talk) 03:26, August 26, 2007 (UTC)
I attached Category:Team sport to this article since it wasn't categorized. However, I am wondering if this is the proper category? Vbofficial 18:10, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
Hello. I'm planning to rewrite a good portion of this article because, as said in the topic above, a good portion of it is copied from the ACA website. Any objections, tips, criticisms, reverts, rewrites, etc. of this rewrite will be greatly appreciated. Thanks! Apparition11 (talk) 03:06, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
- I'm done. I do not believe that I removed any of the actual content, just reworked and reworded it. I think that it flows a little better now, and, probably the most important part, it is no longer a copyvio :) Cheers! Apparition11 (talk) 04:14, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
- Also, I removed the ref tag as I believe everthing is fairly well cited now. Thanks. Apparition11 (talk) 04:18, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
Quite frankly if your going to list these so called "governing bodies" of cornhole you should list every cornhole website as a reference...it's only fair. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.108.40.206 (talk) 01:09, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
- I'm guessing that this is why you've been removing American Cornhole Organization from the 'See Also' section. If I am wrong, then feel free to rename the header that I put in and further explain your intent. I also assume that you mean give every website its own article since your removal was not a reference, it was a link to another article.
- In response, no we would not need to be fair by listing every cornhole website, only WP:NOTABLE ones. From what I have looked up about the ACO, it does appear to be notable as it has had coverage in reliable, third-party publications. If you do not agree, then you should take that article to WP:AFD. If you feel that other organizations are also notable, then perhaps you should register an account and start an article on them. I have been planning on doing some research and looking into making an American Cornhole Association article, but I have not had time and am unsure when I will. In the meantime, just because it's not fair is not a valid reason for removing this internal link. We have an article on it, it is directly related to the subject, and it is not mentioned anywhere else in the article. I do not see any valid reason for removing it. Apparition11 (talk) 01:42, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
Merge discussion for Cornhole bag
Could the information from that article be moved over here. Neither article is too long, and I don't see where a seperate article on the bag is needed. If there are no objections, I will perform the merge after a reasonable time... --Jayron32 02:55, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
- It's been 3 1/2 weeks. I'll be merging presently, as there have been no objections. --Jayron32 03:56, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Cornhole. 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:
- Corrected formatting/usage for http://cornholetips.com/cornhole-lingo
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at
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.