Talk:Penn State Nittany Lions

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


I started this page, but it is lacking in details. I believe other information, such as coaches, players, football history, facilities, etc should be added, but I haven't had the time to do so, any help would be greatly appreciated. S. Ellis 20:45, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Are you at main campus? If so, talk a walk over to the All-Sports Museum at Beaver Stadium. Aside from being free, it is great. They have all kinds of hardware there, including a trophy case on the ground floor for all the awards won by the sports other than football. RockinRobTalk 19:58, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
Currently, I am home...but yes, when I'm at PSU, I'm on the main campus. Thanks for the info, I'll have to check it out! S. Ellis 21:10, 4 June 2006 (UTC)


I added a lot of content today by taking it away from the Penn State main page. This seemed a more appropriate place and the info can be expanded.-Ltv100


Would anyone object to a move to Penn State Nittany Lions? That's in line with the large majority of articles about college athletic programs. -Elmer Clark 22:25, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

I wouldn't mind, but please see this message. Thanks, GChriss <always listening><c> 13:27, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
Hmm, that's an interesting point, I never thought of that. But I think athletic facilities still could be included under that title (after all, it's the Nittany Lions who play in them), and I dunno if intramurals are really notable enough to garner more than a brief mention in the main Penn State article... -Elmer Clark 21:05, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
I think a move to Penn State Nittany Lions makes more sense.Ltv100

1911 and 1912 national champions?[edit]

User:Forceten removed 1911 and 1912 from the list of national championships. It appears that the "National Championship Foundation" selected them as national champs in those years (although in both cases they chose another school as well), with other organizations choosing other champions. So should they or should they not be regarded as champions for those years? My inclination would be to list both years with footnotes explaining the details, but I'd like to hear others' opinions on this. -Elmer Clark 21:55, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Penn State doesn't recognize 1911 or 1912 as championship years. I'm inclined to trust their judgement - if there was any doubt, one would think they'd want to claim as many titles as possible. There's an ongoing discussion at the WikiProject about which titles to recognize, especially in years where there are split titles and multiple universities claim the same year, but in this instance, since Penn State doesn't claim it, I don't think it'd be appropriate for us to. PSUMark2006 talk | contribs 23:21, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Pink and black?[edit]

The page says that "the colors were (originally) black and pink. Legend holds that they were changed to blue and white after the colors faded, but this is unlikely." Can anyone substantiate that the story is unlikely? There's a source for the original statement[1], and we should just leave it at that unless somebody can provide evidence to the contrary. SixFourThree (talk) 22:06, 11 February 2008 (UTC)SixFourThree

Sort of old, but I took out the This is unlikely part -- especially considering the PSU website sites it as true. If someone can give a reliable source that states it is not true, by all means, put it back in with the source. Smuckers It has to be good 08:56, 22 July 2008 (UTC)


Where should the section on the Penn State rugby program go -- the varsity section or the club section? The rugby section is currently in the club sports section. However, rugby is no longer a club sport at Penn State, but is now a sport within the Intercollegiate Athletics dept. Would folks agree with moving it to the varsity section? Barryjjoyce (talk) 19:22, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Penn State Nittany Lions. 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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 21:44, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

Confusing sports-talk with encyclopedic material[edit]

   I'm rewriting the lead, in spite of knowing nothing about the topic, because this is the English Wikipedia, and articles must be written in English (language) rather than incoherent Sports Jargon (not a language). The syntax is ambiguous bcz there's a noun phrase (Penn State Nittany Lions), and a nominative phrase (presumably modifying it, thrown in without any hint of what their relationship is. Grammatically, it would see to be an appositive, in this case indicating that "The Penn State Nittany Lions" is a phrase having the same meaning as "Lady Lions for women's basketball only". Note my use of quotation marks: they indicate in this case that what "The Penn State Nittany Lions" means is identical with what "Lady Lions for women's basketball only" means. Yet it is implausible that "Lady Lions for women's basketball only" can be substituted anywhere that "The Penn State Nittany Lions" can appear: so implausible that the only question is whether the guilty editor is

  • a Lion's-male-sports fan who wants it made clear that women's basketball is not a real sports program, but a callus on the heel of a great tradition, or
  • a women-hold-up-half-the-sky fanatic who thinks making nonsense of coverage of male-only sports is a good start!

   Some colleague who finds team sports at least as important as the habit of coherent communication will no doubt enjoy finishing the (at least five-years overdue) job of research and composition that i've begun.
--Jerzyt 02:17, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

Title of sex abuse scandal[edit]

Jeff in CA has begun an edit war to change the text in this article that links to Penn State sex abuse scandal. As you can see if you look at the talk page of that article, there has been extensive discussion about the most appropriate title for that article. I'm dismayed that an editor is disregarding all of that discussion and edit warring against that consensus without even attempting to discuss his objections with others, here or in the Talk page for the specific article in question.

If anyone believes the incident should be referred to as something other than the current title of the article, the best way to go about that would be discussion or perhaps even (another) Requested Move for that article. But editing other articles to try to sidestep those processes is unacceptable. Make your case, publicly, and accept the consensus. ElKevbo (talk) 19:43, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

I never edit war. I reverted one of your reverts, ElKevbo, for you and you only. My gripe is, "Who made you king?" You seem to be the first, last and primary reverter of anything having to do with this topic all across Wikipedia. It's time for someone else to be king. This view is certainly not mine alone. Jeff in CA (talk) 20:02, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
You made an edit, I reverted it, and you reverted my reversion. That is the very definition of an edit war. Undo your edit and hold the discussion that should be held instead of trying to sneak through your preferred title through the back door. If enough other people hold your opinion then we'll change the title of the article but you don't get to unilaterally overturn consensus and impose your own preference. ElKevbo (talk) 20:44, 19 March 2017 (UTC)