Jump to content

Talk:Southeastern Conference/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Untitled

Can somebody fix that messed-up table at the bottom? Where the whole bottom of the article is included in the "Tennessee-Vanderbilt" section. It has apparently been that way for months and has not been fixed. All my efforts produce no progress. Thanks. Danthemankhan 18:33, Jan 19, 2005 (UTC) Also, LSU -Arkansas is neither a long standing game, nor even a rivalry for that matter. This was a matchup created by the SEC in hopes of fostering a rivalry between the two schools. Arkansas has not even been in the SEC long enough to establish a traditional rivalry with any SEC school. Arkansas had great rvials in the disbanded conference it formerly belonged to. Most traditional rivals go back for many decades. And the idea of playing for a trophy called the Boot was created by the SEC. The vast majority of fans from both schools still do not consider this game in anyway a tradional rivalry. The entry should be edited to reflect this or better yet that reference to the game as a rivalry be deleted.

Basketball Rivalries

On the listing of the Kentucky/Tennessee basketball rivalry; does this rivalry even exist? I am from Knoxville and I have never heard of it (I am a football guy though). Also the wording, "This rivalry, also a "border war," has historically been more important to UT fans than to UK fans." is rude and degrading. Again, I am a UT fan, as mentioned, and it's not too important to me. I'm going to adjust this article or maybe delete it if I can't find something to back up the existence of this rivalry. Talk to me. BDSIII 01:26, 26 March 2006 (UTC) (zulu)

Gone. BDSIII 08:47, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

These two teams have played 201 basketball games, and yet you've never heard of it? You must really be a football guy. I'll remove the wording that it is more important to UT fans (as well as the sentence earlier in the article that the football rivalry is more important to UK fans), but the rivalry itself is an important part of SEC history. BMetts 15:39, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I am kind of bandwagon with UT basketball. I'm learning though. That sounds a lot better. Thanks Brandon. BDSIII 18:09, 1 April 2006 (UTC) (zulu)


You're from Knoxville and have never heard of the UT/UK basketball rivalry? Welcome to Earth.

Knoxville just recently became a basketball town genius. 131.46.41.71 08:24, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

National championships

Perhaps this section should be moved to another page and linked to, like this one? The table takes up a good chunk of the bottom portion of the article. BMetts 15:45, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

I removed the non-consensus national championships for football as per http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NCAA_Division_I-A_national_football_championship Dlong 14:36, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Logos

There is a discussion to clarify our policy/guideline on the use of sports team logos. Please see Wikipedia_talk:Logos#Clarification_on_use_of_sports_team_logos if you wish to participate in the discussion. Johntex\talk 16:37, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

The policy states: "Sports team logos may be used in articles or article sections where the team is discussed", so as long as the teams are discussed (they are in this article), then the logos are ok. (Cardsplayer4life 23:21, 8 August 2006 (UTC))

This is unrelated to logos, but I feel an important point is to be made. The population figures for the cities which house SEC institutions are misleading. Although they are the correct city population figures, metropolitan statistical area population figures would be more instructive. For example, Knoxville, TN is underrepresented as the metro area has a population of 650,000. This is more indicative of the area's true population that the population living within the official city limits. The current figures posted show Athens, GA at around 100,000, possibly leading some to believe that Athens is nearly as big as Knoxville. This is not the case, as the Knoxville area is significantly larger and economically more important than Athens and its environs. There are other examples. Aside from that, great work!

Yearly Champs

I realize we have the SEC Champions page, but I thought it would be a lot easier if every year we had a section in the page we updated to include the regular/postseason champions in every sport. Any input on this idea would be great, I'm hoping to input it into action probably in the following week. (mastrchf91) 23:19, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

There seems to be some confusion over what champ to put in. I've always thought that traditionally the regular season champ is the "SEC Champ" and the tournament champ is the "SEC Tournament Champ" with the only exception being in sports where there is no regular season champ awarded (Swimming & Diving, Track & Field, Cross Country, etc.) though it seems that others list the tournament champ and ignore the regular season champ entirely. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 155.72.188.250 (talk) 15:16, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Conference Sports Pages

I was thinking it would be a good idea to have pages on individual SEC sports, for example: SEC football, SEC men's basketball, SEC women's basketball and SEC baseball. Of course, those four sports are probably about the only ones that might warrant their own page but I wouldn't be against pages for softball, swimming and diving, etc. I just think that the main Southeastern Conference page doesn't really cover the depth of the SEC in regards to the individual sports. There could be sections on conference and national champions, rivalries in that specific sport, history of that sport in the conference, info on venues, and much more info. Anyone with me? If there's some support for this I'll get started on the football page since that will obviously attract the most attention. I'll also start work on the baseball page since that interests me greatly and the season is currently ongoing. Seancp 04:15, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Missed this when I was on a Wiki-vacation this spring, but it definitely makes sense and is completely in line with typical wiki-structure. It's analagous to how we have the Auburn University --> Auburn Tigers --> Auburn Tigers football drill-down heirarchy, where you start at a summary level and articles becomes more focused and detailed.AUTiger » talk 20:36, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

References

The {{refimprove|May 2007}} tag that removed has been restored; that tag isn't just for use when {{fact}} tags are used. As it happens there are no general references (at least cited as such) for the article either. I didn't even realize there wasn't even a References section on the article when I updated the revenue numbers weeks ago and added the cite as a matter of habit. It seems that footnote for it has ended up as part of the legend following the rivalries table. Somehow that will need to be untitled, because the article should be referenced properly (WP:Verify, WP:Cite). The general standard for citing has been steadily rising generally across wikipedia (which is a good thing) and while a lot of this article is "common knowledge" to SEC fans, they aren't necessarily so to everyone. Beyond that, there is plenty that is challengable and should be referenced, even if just with a general ref like the SEC website. AUTiger » talk 15:03, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I was the one that removed it. I wouldn't mind trying to look up some references for things if you could point out some of the specific problem areas. I am unsure what currently needs citations, but if you either list them here or put some {{fact}} tags at the appropriate places, I can try to make it better. Thanks! (Cardsplayer4life 03:58, 14 July 2007 (UTC))
I went ahead and added a bunch of references for a bunch of things. (after making a reference section at the bottom, of course) I think I got the majority of stuff, but if you see anything else, like I said; Point it out and I will be more than happy to try to find a reference for it. Thanks. (Cardsplayer4life 00:28, 17 July 2007 (UTC))
Thanks for the new refs and effort CardsPlayer. The things to generally be worried about for in-line cites are 1)stats and figures, 2)assertions of notability, and 3)controversial/likely-to-be-challenged statements, which in sports-related articles is almost always going to be related to superlatives and records. Good indicators for a cite is anytime you read something that makes you go "Wow! or Really?!"
We still need to untangle the facilities footnotes from the references; I'll have a look at that a bit later. AUTiger » talk 20:31, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
No need to untangle it; That was part of what I did as well. ;) (Cardsplayer4life 22:53, 17 July 2007 (UTC))
Mmmm.. but I still see those venue notes (clarifications, not references) down in the reference section. They shouldn't be commingled. AUTiger » talk 04:40, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
Hmmm. I guess I don't understand what you are talking about, but if you see something that needs to be changed, then by all means go for it. (Cardsplayer4life 08:41, 18 July 2007 (UTC))
Take a look at the facilities sections now; I've used an older footnote template system to separate the facilities table notes from the references footnotes. About to do the same for rivalries.AUTiger » talk 20:13, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
Oh I see. That definitely does look a lot better. Thanks for taking the time to do that. :) (Cardsplayer4life 07:41, 24 July 2007 (UTC))

Future WikiProject

Has anyone thought about creating a wikiproject page especially for the SEC? Dawg1279 10:15, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Category Living people?

Why is this page in the category of living people? And how can one edit this? --Pluckerwank (talk) 00:59, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Facts section

I removed this section because it seems to have no place in an article that is about an athletics conference. The edit was subsequently removed by Jmerchant29, stating this is revelavant [sic] to SEC, page is not for athletics only. According to the lead, though, Southeastern Conference (SEC) is a college athletic conference, which substantiates my edit. If we include such a trivial, unrelated fact as one school hosting a presidential debate, it opens the flood gates for all kinds of things that aren't related to athletics to be added to the article. Why not include every fact related to the member schools? This article should be kept to athletics only, as that is the scope of the SEC itself, and the section should be removed. I'd like to hear others' opinions about this. I'm cross-posting this on Jmerchant29's talk page. MTR (talk) 00:09, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Every SEC commercial that I have seen lately stresses the fact of education and not athletics. This is a major event for any school to host a Presidential debate, and it is significant that this is the first time that any SEC school has hosted this event. Personally I don't consider the election of the next president to be trivial. Jmerchant29 (talk) 02:50, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Southeastern Conference Schools Ranked by Endowment Section

I'm not going to do it, but I'm tempted to remove this section. It's more than half redlinked, it has notes that are poorly formatted, and the caveats make me wonder if it is even genuinely informative. I'll come back and check later, but I will support it if someone who knows more than I do about this wants it out. Unschool (talk) 05:51, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Lady Razorbacks

Someone keeps removing the Lady Razorbacks (formerly "LadyBacks") from being listed in the "Current Members" chart Nickname section. The reason given was: "In 2008, the University of Arkansas merged its men's and women's athletic departments into a single athletic department. The name "Ladybacks" was eliminated with the merger.)" I just wanted to clarify that even though they were part of the same athletic department, it does not preclude listing the women's athletics separately. The instances of Lady Volunteers and Lady Tigers are also instances of women's programs that fall under the same athletic department as the men's teams, but there are nonetheless separate articles for those as well, because there was enough content to create such an article. Cardsplayer4life (talk) 10:02, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Also, the Vanderbilt Commodores have no athletic department at all. (run under student services) The point being that structure of athletic department should not be the determining factor of linkage in the Nickname section of the Current Members chart. Cardsplayer4life (talk) 10:06, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

The image File:2008SECChamplogo.jpg 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. --02:40, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Alabama forfeits

Should the records of all the rivalries and things that Alabama is involved in be updated for the past few years, since they were forced to forfeit a lot of games? [1][2] Cardsplayer4life (talk) 02:19, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

They aren't forfeits, they are "vacating" the wins. It does not count as a win for the opponent, the win just doesn't count for Alabama. But yes they do need to be updated and I think we have all of them that were effected. LSU and Auburn aren't affected because they won all the games against Alabama in that time span to begin with and the Tennessee, Ole Miss and Mississippi State rivalry pages have already been updated as well as the season pages. I think that covers everything or are we missing something else?Rtr10 (talk) 02:31, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the clarification on forfeiture vs. vacating. (As you can probably tell, I wasn't paying that much attention to it other than just seeing the headlines of the stories, haha.) I guess I was specifically talking about on this page, but it is good to hear that the other rivalry pages have been updated. On this page, there are lots of rivalries listed with their records which should probably be updated. Also, the overall record. (I'm not even sure what it should be after the changes in record.) Also, did it affect other sports as well, or just football? (Just glancing over the article, there are some wins mentioned in basketball and women's volleyball that pertain to Alabama; I have no idea if they are affected as well or not.) Cardsplayer4life (talk) 04:41, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
I'll find out for sure when I get back to work next week (I've been on vacation all this week), but I believe it is just football and one tennis match against Duke and then a handful of individual records/championships that are being vacated. I'll update the respective series histories on this page next week myself if it already hasn't been done by then and I'll do the new school record next week as well when I get some clarification on that at work next week, because I honestly don't know how that works right now.Rtr10 (talk) 06:56, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
Sounds good. Cardsplayer4life (talk) 01:42, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Finacially Successful

The big ten had a revenue of $177 million in the 2006-2007 year which if my math is correct exceeds that of $132 million. http://www.sportsbusinessjournal.com/article/59432 I'm sure it has increased in the following years. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 164.107.228.222 (talk) 02:27, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

National championships deleted?

Greetings, SEC sports fans. We seem to have a difference of opinion among certain contributors to this article as to which national championships should be listed for SEC member institutions. I, for one, believe that we should list all national team championships won by SEC men's and women's sports teams, including those sponsored by the NCAA, those formerly sponsored by the AIAW (primary sponsor of women's college sports before 1982), as well as those football championships that were consensus national poll championships before 1992, and the Bowl Alliance, Bowl Coalition and Bowl Championship Series since 1992. Either out of ignorance of SEC sports history or by virtue of some other motivation, another editor is determined to delete references to any national championships that were not sponsored by the NCAA. Given the SEC's traditional strength in football, this makes damn little sense, since the NCAA has never sponsored a national championship in major college football, but simply acknowledges the football championships sponsored by other organizations. So, I am asking for a determination of the consensus of other concerned editors and regular contributors to this article as to whether or not we should ignore the SEC national football championships and AIAW national championships in women's sports before 1983. Please speak your mind. Thanks. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 03:43, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

AIAW women's national championships 1972–1982

Short talk section. I noticed your edit on the SEC Team Page. Realistically, we should only be counting titles won from the NCAA circuit. However, if we do count non-NCAA sanctioned titles, it will require a more in-depth history of the conference, as there are likely to be more titles won before the NCAA became involved in the distribution of Title IX sports. It opens up a new proverbial can of worms.

Rmphan (talk) 05:49, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

There is no "can of worms," and there are no other university-sanctioned national championships to be found by an "in-depth" search. I suggest you do some homework on the AIAW; it was the "NCAA" for women's college sports from 1972 to 1982. The eleven years of AIAW champions have already been compiled in the linked Wikipedia article. Two SEC institutions won a total of three AIAW championships: Florida (swimming in 1979, gymnastics in 1982) and Tennessee (track in 1981). Both schools were early leaders in women's sports, and devoted scholarship money and real resources to their women's ports teams when most other SEC members had to be dragged kicking and screaming into Title IX compliance. These three AIAW championships are already included in Florida's 22 and Tennessee's 17 "NCAA" championships listed in the SEC Championships article. Two SEC programs were also the AIAW basketball tournament runners-up: Tennessee (1980, 1981) and LSU (1977). Florida, Tennessee and LSU have continued to be the SEC's leaders in women's sports.
The AIAW championships awarded were all on-the-field tournament championships against major university competition (even referred to as "Division I" within the AIAW), unlike the bogus football "poll" championships claimed by several SEC members. Several SEC members even claim poll championships for seasons when their team wasn't selected by either of the "major" polls (i.e. AP or UP/UPI/Coaches), or didn't even receive a majority (i.e. "consensus") of all polls (Tennessee 1938, 1940, 1950, and 1967; Georgia 1942; Kentucky 1950; Ole Miss 1959, 1960 and 1962). Alabama, of course, claims retroactive poll football championships in 1925, 1926, 1930 and 1934 (these "poll championships" were "awarded" by ratings services several years after the fact). Unlike these bogus retroactive and/or minority football championships listed above, the AIAW championships aren't "claimed championships." The AIAW championships were won on the field, in a tournament format, sanctioned by the only national governing body for women's college sports at the time.
FYI, LSU's total of 42 NCAA championships cited in the article includes the 1949 NCAA boxing team title. That title should also be listed. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 10:34, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Total numbers of national championships claimed by SEC teams

We seem to have a problem counting. I have reverted several recent changes to the Southeastern Conference article regarding the national team championships won by SEC member schools. Before changing the total numbers in these sections, I ask that you carefully read the entire text of three subsections, and understand the difference between "claimed" non-tournament championships (i.e. football championships awarded by the polling services, the Bowl Coalition, Bowl Alliance, and BCS), and tournament championships (i.e. those awarded by the NCAA in men's sports since 1906, and by the AIAW in women's sports from 1972 to 1982 and the NCAA since 1982). Please note that there is a separate breakout for total "claimed" championships, NCAA championships and AIAW championships. For reasons unknown, the numbers in dispute seem to focus on LSU, Florida and Tennesee. Here are are the totals and subtotals for those national championships claimed by each of these three schools:

LSU has a total of 45 claimed championships, including:

  • 3 football championships (1 poll, 2 BCS),
  • 1 pre-NCAA basketball poll championship, and
  • 41 NCAA tournament championships.

Florida has a total of 26 claimed championships, including:

  • 3 football championships (1 Bowl Alliance, 2 BCS),
  • 21 NCAA tournament championships, and
  • 2 AIAW tournament championships.

Tennessee has a total of 23 claimed championships, including:

  • 6 football championships (5 poll, 1 BCS),
  • 16 NCAA tournament championships, and
  • 1 AIAW tournament championship.

Each of these team championships are listed by sport, school and year in the first section. Please feel free to count the championships for each school. If we are missing one from the list, please provide a citation to a reliable source and I will gladly agree to include it. However, in the absence of a citation to a written source, I politely request that you stop randomly changing these totals. Thanks. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 17:55, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Endowment and football championships

Y'all have UA@Tuscalooser's endowment numbers wrong. According to the PDF file, the $796.5 million is the total for the Alabama system, including all three satellite campuses and the main campus in Birmingham. UA-Tuscalooser's endowment is neck and neck with Auburn's. I don't know the exact number, but I know AU and UA-Tuscalooser are close, and AU may even have more considering we're the number 1 school in the state. So this needs to be changed.

Also, Bammer football DOES NOT have 13 national titles. According to ESPN (the most reliable source) they have 8. No other school claims titles since before the AP. This needs to be changed as well. --AUalumnus (talk) 21:59, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Glad to know you're up to speed on all things Alabama. I wouldn't expect anything less from an Auburn fan. FYI, this isn't ITAT or some random internet message forum -- therefore, trolling is strictly prohibited. --SouthParkFanatic (talk) 18:56, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Equestrian titles?

In the national championships section, equestrian titles are omitted. It was officially added as an NCAA sport in 1998 and includes 23 schools. Georgia, Auburn, and South Carolina compete at the Division I level.

Researching the number of national titles that each school has won is difficult. The Varsity Equestrian website offers very little information about previous seasons.

According to the University of Georgia's website, they are the "five-time national champions."

Auburn won the national championship in 2010, and according to their Wikipedia page, also won in 2006.

I am not sure how many titles South Carolina has.

I finally took the time to research the women's equestrian championships won by Georgia and Auburn. These are officially recognized and university-sponsored varsity teams, even though equestrian is not yet recognized and sponsored by the NCAA. The NCAA has designated equestrian as an "emerging sport." The participating universities, including Auburn, Georgia, South Carolina and Texas A&M, have their own national governing body called Varsity Equestrian, and these teams adhere to NCAA eligibility and scholarship rules. These championships need to be included as much as the poll and BCS (non-NCAA) football championships, the AIAW (pre-NCAA) women's championships, and the NCAA championships in sports not sponsored by the SEC (bowling, boxing, rifle). They are 100% legitimate, and are claimed by the Auburn and Georgia athletic departments. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 00:51, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Arkansas' National Championships/Claimed by SWC?

In the list of "National team championships", it gives the impression that the SEC is taking claim for some of Arkansas' national titles won while they were members of the Southwest Conference. According to the information at the top of the article, that would have been anything prior to 1991. I understand it's a list of national titles won by current SEC members, but it'd be like the Big Ten claiming Nebraska's national championships prior to 2011.

This would include Arkansas' national titles in:

  • Football: 1964
  • Men's Cross Country: 1984, 1986, 1987, 1990
  • Men's Indoor Track: 1984-1990
  • Men's Outdoor Track: 1985

Thoughts? Maybe asterisks denoting those titles? Frank12 (talk) 16:33, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

The same comment applies to the first three national football championships claimed by Alabama, all of which date from before the founding of the SEC in December 1932. There is a similar issue with regard to several other national championships in sports that the SEC does not sponsor, or did not sponsor at the time the championships were won. I think the appropriate solution is an asterisk (or other footnote character), with explanatory footnotes. FYI, the Texas A&M Aggies are bringing 13 national championships with them, too, so we might as well get this sorted out now. By the way, I thought we were pretty careful with the actual phrasing of the section, stating that these are the national championships claimed/won by current SEC members, not claimed/won by the conference. After all, the conference doesn't win anything; its members do. Otherwise, there are sveral national championships won by Georgia Tech while it was an SEC member that the conference could claim . . . . Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 18:17, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
Great points. I tried to compile a list of national titles won by Georgia Tech, Sewanee, and Tulane from their tenure in the league, and so far I can only determine that Sewanee didn't win any, and Tulane won the men's tennis title in 1959.
Georgia Tech seems a little more complicated. The only football title they claim from their SEC tenure is 1952, and it looks like they only have 5 total national titles claimed. I'm still in the process of looking around just to make sure. Frank12 (talk) 14:49, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Endowments?

I don't know for sure that everyone would consider it relevant, and I'm not sure what data underlies the figures in the articles I'm about to reference, but the comparative-data tables in Southland Conference and Lone Star Conference include not only the enrollment figures for each school and the population of its town, but also figures for the financial endowment of each school. Personally, I was finding it useful in analyzing Abilene Christian University in how it compares to other schools in its present and possible-future conferences (LSC and SLC, respectively), but I'm not sure if it's considered a widely useful detail that should be added to these tables. Offered FWIW.Lawikitejana (talk) 05:49, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Standardize facility sections

See the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject College baseball#Standardize conference pages' facility sections.

Cross-division rivalries

On June 1, 2012, it was officially announced that Arkansas-Missouri and South Carolina-Texas A&M would become permanent cross-division rivals starting in 2013. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.148.31.77 (talk) 22:02, 2 June 2012 (UTC)


Archive 1

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 9 external links on Southeastern Conference. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 02:05, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Southeastern Conference. 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}}).

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) 21:51, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Southeastern Conference. 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) 07:23, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Southeastern_Conference/Archive_1&oldid=1140253817"