Jump to content

Talk:Pittsburgh Panthers

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

Holes in text

[edit]

I found this page with incredible sparce information. I am currently researching the history of PITT basketball, and then will work forward from there. It is in pieces while i verify info and condense it. Needless to say, feel free to add and edit anything of use. --DruP55 02:53, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

This page had large numbers of redlinks to Dr. H.C. Carlson, which is not a good idea for various reasons. For one, having 30 links to a non-existent article caused Dr. H.C. Carlson to show up on this page: http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Wikipedia:Most_wanted_articles I removed all the redlinks but one. --Xyzzyplugh 15:17, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Basketball Section

[edit]

There are some woefully in acurate things in the table, e.g. the confusing of the "Eastern 8" and the "Atlantic 10" with the Big East. Not to mention some questions about the neutrality of the articale.

---please define what your "questions of neutrality" are or don't flag it as such. cp101p 17:50, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Color

[edit]

I changed the colors of the football section for year to year to reflect losing and winning (actually, non-losing) seasons. There seems to be some indication that yellow should indicate something else, but it makes no sense for me. At the very least, there should be some sort of key for the chart indicating what the color means. Further, I'm unsure what the "ranking" column means, though I suspect it's highest rank attained that season. If so, it's a pretty silly column title and should probably be changed to "final ranking". At the very least, it needs to be defined.Ltv100

I have no prob with definitions being made, it is highest ranking attained, which I think is most historically relevant given the popularity contest nature of college football. Hholt01 23:05, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

For the final time the highlights are any year ranked or won

[edit]

College football is pretty unique from any other sport, no playoff system, no balanced sch., not much one-on-one between opponents vying for a poll position. This is why ALL national title claims should be listed with the notes above on the National Title section, also why the highest poll # should be given (obviously one would assume that Pitt either held every lower or earned the right not to), and HIGHLIGHTED just as a 6-5 or 7-4 season would be. In some instances the media and reputation of Pitt in a 5-6 #13 year was MORE then the media and reputation around Pitt during a 6-5 NR year. To be fair in a sport that judges all team based on rankings any year in the top 25 by Pitt should be highlighted, interested in other opinions, but really anyone who understands college football would do it this way to be fair Hholt01 23:12, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tagging this article as POV

[edit]

Article claims that Pitt has 15 "National Championships" based on computer polls (many of which were devised years after the season in question). While "National Championship" in football is often preceded by the word "Mythical" there is general consensus among most football fans as to what is NOT a National Championship. To list the 1980 or 1981 Pitt Panthers, for example, as National Champions is wrong on several fronts- not the least of which is that the players on those teams and the fans at the time did not consider those to be National Championship seasons(both season- especially going to the lower tier Gator Bowl were disappointing to Pitt fans). If you want to bring "computer polls" into the entire discussion (which most people who follow college football tend to disregard), then it would be more balanced to show an average of computer ratings, not only the ones that, you(the primary author of this article) want to highlight as a Pitt Panther fan.

There are other POV flaws in this article, but this is the most glaring one. A good example of a more balanced and NPOV football article would be the article of your rival, Penn State Nittany Lions football. Jcam 16:32, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks so much for your input Jcam, and I only wish PennState was our rival still (we can't seem to get them on the sch. anymore :( ) but I will definetly check out the article on their program. Just off the top of my head though, PSU--although very competitive throughout the decades--never had many if any National title claims pre 1937 polls, so possibly a Yale or Princeton or like program might be a better indicator. As far as the modern-era, I can see your point that 1980 and 1981, though excellent years (though they went to the Gator Bowl they were ranked #3 in the nation prebowl and #2 in the nation postbowl, basically a BCS bowl berth today) were not celebrated by parades through Oakland. My intent was not to rewrite history or misguide readers, but to offer EVERYTHING that was said and occured to the program in those years. I had felt that it was clearly documented (especially above) what those "National Champions"hips were defined as. I would be all for more documentation on the 80 and 81 titles as well as some of the early ones, but I don't see the "averaging" being a success. Each poll is really its own animal in so many ways. I will check out PSU's site on the modern ones but again they don't have a season-by-season last I checked. Interested in hearing other opinions on this, if someone wishes to add further footnotes or explanations of what the 80 vs. 76 vs. 37 titles mean I wouldn't see anything wrong with that, as long as they are brief and to the point. Hholt01 21:01, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I would argue that the definition of the colors on the tables as well as the use of "highest attained ranking" are also a non-neutral POV. They seem to be used specifically to paint the team in the best possible light. I would think, for example, that using final season ranking makes the most sense or at most putting in one column for pre-season rank and one for final ranking. Putting in the highest rank during the season makes as much sense to me as putting up the best record at any point in the season rather than the season total. Also, the use of colors would make more sense to be simply losing versus winning/non-losing seasons.Ltv100
I have edited the national championship section slightly so that it now reads the there were 17 different seasons in which Pitt was named national champion by at least one selector, or something to that effect. This is exactly how similar information reads on other pages. I agree that the 1980 teams should not be considered national champions because these polls occured when there was a consenus that different polls defined national titles (AP and UPI). However this is a very different situation than what existed for the earlier championship years. A list of years in which any poll that awarded Pitt their national title is simply a factual listing so cannot be considered non-neutral POV and similar information is provided on other pages (see Notre Dame). A list of championships is justified because it highlights the number of outstanding seasons that were recognized by independent sources and is a testament to the historical state of the program at various timeponts. However, the championships listed on the year-by-year results chart should be updated and it would be nice to see maybe a column for preseason and final rankings. As far as championship listings, I would recommend including 9 national championships, probably the years officially claimed by Pitt with the possible exception of replacing the 1929 and 1934 championships officially claimed by Pitt with the non-claimed championships awarded Pitt during the undefeated years of 1910 (which is recognized by CFDW) and 1917 (was awarded to Pitt by at least 6 different selectors..see below). No matter how you look at it, even if some individual years can be disputed, Pitt is quite justified in claiming 9 titles. Here is more info on Pitt national championships:

Pitt’s National Championships:

According to the Pitt Football Media Guide: To settle countless arguments, Sports Illustrated in 1970 researched the “first and only complete and wholly accurate list” ever compiled of college football’s mythical national champions.

Pitt has only recognized the national championships published in this list by Sports Illustrated in 1970 and added only its 1976 unanimous national championship to its totals.
Year Record Selector
1976 12-0 Unanimous*
1937 9-0-1 AP, DS, LS, IFA, WS, TFT#
1936 8-1-1 IFA, TFT
1934 9-1 Davis
1931 8-1 Davis
1929 9-1 Davis
1918 4-1 Unanimous@
1916 8-0 Unanimous^
1915 8-0 Davis

AP = Associated Press
DS = Dickinson System
LS = Litkenhous System
IFA = Illustrated Football Annual (Boand)
WS = Williamson System
TFT = The Football Thesaurus (Houlgate)
Davis = Parke H. Davis Ratings

The following additional selectors picked Pitt as National Champions (Pitt and Sports Illustrated do not list these selectors) in the years recognized by Pitt and Sports Illustrated (above).

Pitt was selected as National Champions in 1915 by Bill Libby, Mel Smith, and Jim Koger (in addition to Davis).

Pitt was selected as National Champions in 1931 by Bob Kirlin and 1st-N-Goal (in addition to Davis).

In 1936, in addition to the Football Thesaurus (Houlgate) and Illustrated Football Annual (Boand), Pitt was also selected by the College Football Researchers Association, 1st-N-Goal, Bob Kirlin, Esso Gas, Loren Maxwell, Earl Jessen, Jim Koger, Patrick Premo, and Angelo Louisa.

The following Pitt teams were also selected as National Champions. Pitt does not claim these MNCs (proving Pitt didn't just claim every championship it was given by every available source).

Pitt's 1910 undefeated team was selected as National Champions by the 1st-N-Goal, Century Football Index, Cliff Morgan, the National Championship Foundation, Patrick Premo, and Mel Smith. College Football Data Warehouse recognizes this as a consensus national championship for Pitt. Pitt doesn't claim this championship.

Pitt's undefeated team of 1917 was selected as a National Champions by Alexander Weyand, David Wilson, Earl Jessen, Jim Koger, Mel Smith and Angelo Louisa. Pitt doesn't claim this championship.

Pitt was selected as National Champions in 1925 by Soren Sorensen although Pitt doesn't claim this championship.

Pitt was selected as National Champions in 1927 by Esso Gas. Pitt doesn't claim this championship.

Pitt was selected as National Champions in 1933 by Bob Kirlin. Pitt doesn't claim this championship.

Pitt was selected as National Champions in 1938 by Patrick Premo. Pitt doesn't claim this championship.

In 1980, Pitt was also selected as National Champions by the College Football Researchers Association, 1st-N-Goal, Angelo Louisa, ARGH Power Ratings, College Football Researchers Association, Foundation for the Analysis of Competitions and Tournaments, Harry DeVold, James Howell, New York Times, Jeff Self, and The Fleming System. Pitt doesn't claim that championship.

In 1981, Pitt was selected as National Champions by Montgomery Full Season Championship and the National Championship Foundation. Pitt doesn't claim this title.

So, Pitt's claim (and Sports Illustrated's research) total is 9 (1915, 1916, 1918, 1929, 1931, 1934, 1936, 1937 and 1976). There are also 9 years (only pre 1940 era plus 1976) that Pitt was picked as National Champion by more than one source (1910, 1915, 1916, 1917, 1918, 1931, 1936, 1937 and 1976).

However, there are 17 years Pitt was named a National Champion by at least one source according to College Football Data Warehouse and Pitt (and Sports Illustrated). They are: 1910, 1915, 1916, 1917, 1918, 1925, 1927, 1929, 1931, 1933, 1934, 1936, 1937, 1938, 1976, 1980 and 1981. Of these, Pitt claims only 9.

In addition, Pitt had undefeated teams in 1904 and 1920 that were not named national champions.

Sources:

All information was obtained from the 1) 2004 Pitt Football Media Guide http://www.pittsburghpanthers.com/sports/football/mediaguide/2004/panthers_history.pdf 2) College Football Data Warehouse (CFDW only lists 6 MNCs for Pitt in their recognized championship totals as opposed to the 9 recognized by Pitt. However, from 1869 to 1918, CFDW still only relies on one source, which seems in appropriate because even by 2003 standards there are multiple recognized selectors (AP and BCS/Coaches Poll). This causes CFDW to fail to recognize Pitt’s 1915 undefeated team recognized by Parke Davis. Their exclusion of the Davis rankings also causes them to miss the 1929 and 1931 Parke Davis National Championship teams. http://www.cfbdatawarehouse.com/ 3) NCAA.org (The NCAA maintains a list of past champions from various polls on their website. Though not as complete of a listing as CFDW, they do list 11 years that Pitt was selected by national champions. The page also contains some interesting information on the different selectors. http://www.ncaa.org/champadmin/ia_football_past_champs.html


  • ,#,@,^ not really unanimous, but mostly undisputed. As the AP and UPI polls were instituted, most other rankings diminished in prominence.
  • Associated Press, United Press International, 1st-N-Goal, Angelo Louisa, ARGH Power Ratings, Bob Royce, Century Football Index, Cliff Morgan, David Wilson, Football News, Football Writers Association of America, Foundation for the Analysis of Competitions and Tournaments, Harry Frye, Helms Athletic Foundation, James Howell, Jeff Self, Loren Maxwell, Massy Ratings, Mel Smith, Montgomery Full Season Championship, National Championship Foundation, National Football Foundation and Hall of Fame, Patrick Premo, Poling System, Sagarin Ratings, Soren Sorensen, The Fleming System, The Sporting News, Washington Touchdown Club.
  1. Associated Press, 1st-N-Goal, Angelo Louisa, Bill Libby, Billingsley Report, Boand System, Bob Kirlin, Bob Royce, Century Football Index, College Football Researchers Association, College Football USA, Dickinson System, Earl Jessen, Edward Likenhous, George Trevor, Harry Frye, Houlgate System, James Howell, James Whalen, Jim Koger, Massy Ratings, National Championship Foundation, Patrick Premo, Poling System, What’s What, Williamson System

@ Helms Athletic Foundation, 1st-N-Goal, Alexander Weyand, Angelo Louisa, Bill Libby, Bob Kirlin, Bob Royce, Century Football Index, College Football USA, George Trevor, Harry Frye, Houlgate System, James Whalen, Jim Koger, National Championship Foundation, Patrick Premo

^ Helms Athletic Foundation, Alexander Weyand, Angelo Louisa, Billingsley Report, Bob Kirlin, Bob Royce, Century Football Index, College Football USA, David Wilson, Earl Jessen, George Trevor, Harry Frye, Houlgate System, James Whalen, Jim Koger, Mel Smith, National Championship Foundation, Parke Davis, Patrick Premo--cp101p 04:11, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Football needs own page

[edit]

I think this page could be improved if football were summarized and given its own page, like hoops. There is so much Pitt football history, this could also be greatly expanded.


Pitt vs Pittsburgh

[edit]

This has recently come up as two separate editors have taken it upon themselves to change every mention of "Pitt" to "Pittsburgh" in an effort to "formalize" the articles...particularly the sports articles. For now I have undone the revisions on the Pittsburgh Panther web page. There is some history here that those from outside the Pittsburgh/Western PA area are probably unaware of.

1. Since 1908 when the University of Pittsburgh changed its name from the Western University of Pennsylvania (until 1819 it was known as Pittsburgh Academy), those inside and outside of the university have referred to it as "Pitt". Official documentation also self-refers to the university as "Pitt". The quintessential history of the University by Alberts is called "Pitt" and the most referenced slogan and fight song is "Hail to Pitt". Press releases involving the athletic teams (see here for the most recent :press release) refer to the teams as "Pitt". The web site url is www.pitt.edu. It is very similar to the University of Pennsylvania self-referring to itself as "Penn", Pennsylvania State University referring to itself as "Penn State", or the University of California-Berkley referring to itself as "Cal".

2. Locally and regionally, and even nationally, "Pitt" is used to differentiate the University's sports teams from the professional sports teams of Pittsburgh (the Steelers, Pirates and Penguins).

3. Controversy struck in 1997 when new athletic director Steve Pederson took over a sagging athletic department at the university. In an effort to reinvigorate the sports programs by suggesting a fresh start, as well as to tie the Universities athletic teams closer the city in an attempt to revive flagging fan support among the city's non-alumni sports fans, Pederson introduced a new athletics logo, new blue and gold color scheme, and new uniforms. Highlighting these changes was the replacement of the "script" Pitt logo (used to adorn facilities, uniforms, football helmets, and even used for non-athletic university markings) with a logo that incorporated the word "Pittsburgh" in a torch-cut font. Pederson also sent press releases to all local and national media outlets requesting that they no longer refer to the University as "Pitt", but as "Pittsburgh". This met with outrage among some elements of the fan and alumni base, and was generally received by local and national media outlets with scorn, although they did generally comply. A torch-cut "Pitt" logo was produced during this era and was meant to be used only for internal university markings and was seldom seen. Upon the departure of Pederson to the University of Nebraska and the arrival of athletic director Jeff Long, the torch-cut Pittsburgh logo was gradually phased-out, and, to coincide with the hiring of Pitt alumni Dave Wannstedt as head football coach in late 2004, a new (yet retro) "block" Pitt logo was introduced thereby completely reversing the edicts of Pederson to replace "Pitt" with "Pittsburgh" in promotional and media fronts. Interestingly, the change in blue and gold shades remains, as they have been adopted university-wide and Steve Pederson has since returned as AD at Pitt, although he promised there will be revisions of the current logo this time around. However, the replacement of "Pitt" with "Pittsburgh" remains a very sensitive issue for many involved with the university, and unilateral conversion of "Pitt" to "Pittsburgh" may result in edit wars between alumni factions.

4. That said, the official name is the University of Pittsburgh and "Pittsburgh" is used to some extent, generally when referencing other academic criteria in the same sentence that would immediately signal that it was referring to the University, not the city. For instance, when using "Pittsburgh" it is typically either proceeded with the words "University of" or followed by "Panthers", etc). This holds true for administrators through alumni of the university.

These are the reasonings to leave "Pitt" alone, so to speak. I welcome further opinions but, again, direct you the usages of "Penn", "Penn State", and "Cal" by those respective universities. Just so its clear, I do believe the use of the word "Pittsburgh" when referring to Pitt is useful to reduce repetitiveness in the text. Please leave your opinions on this opinion. cp101p (talk) 23:50, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Block logo versions

[edit]

The version of the block Pitt logo, Pittsburgh Panthers.svg, has been floating around, but it has inaccurate color reproduction and drop shawdowing (there should not be white trim around the gold lettering border) in this format (blue letters on white background) of the logo. This image therefore does not meet the criteria of accurate reproduction of the registered trademark that is being used to represent the entity and shouldn't be used. See a high resolution example of the logo at the school's official athletic department website here and multiple other examples at pittsburghpanthers.com CrazyPaco (talk) 20:42, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In fact, upon examining this .svg version of the logo in Adobe Illustrator, it appears that it may have been traced from a bit map image. This is why the black dropshadowing pulls apart from the gold rim of the letters unless the image is viewed at a very small size. It does not appear to be an original .svg from the university, and after examining 100s of uses of the logo by the university, none were found to display this anomaly or particular color shading. It is definitely an inaccurate representation. CrazyPaco (talk) 21:51, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Inclusion of Fordham for rivalries

[edit]

I see CrazyPaco has correctly been wary of including Fordham in the same context as Pitt PSU and WVU. I did add it again but was very specific this time with the era and added a citation and explanation of why the short lived series is remembered by some (70 years later no less) as so memorable as to be confused with other colleges. Fordham being a national power (even a yearly contender for the national title) over the entirety of the series and many games ending in deadlock ties is probably why it is so remembered by those that were there. Willing to compromise on this or tweak it some but as Cincinnati is listed as a "rival" despite year-to-year games only happening in the last 6 seasons or so as well as virtually no national significance or poll implications in any of them a side by side would have the Fordham series though very short lived ranking far ahead of Cincy in football and possibly with the benefit of hindsight 20 years from now even Villanova or UConn in basketball. Interested in hearing other opinions on this and open to suggestions on how to place Fordham in its proper context. Marketdiamond (talk) 15:29, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fordham, contemporaneously, was not a rivalry in the way the term "rivalry" is understood at large. However, I edited the wording to reflect that better and left it in as the series has been highlighted in various University productions, notably, its 100 Years of Pitt Football video production from 1990 and the book Greatest Moments in Pitt Football History. So I would say it was a historically notable series, although I still contend it was not a rivalry if you examine contemporaneous historical documents of the university, like the student yearbooks or alumni publications which are available on university's Documenting Pitt website. In that material it is clear it was never viewed as a institutional/school rivalry as was Penn State, WVU, Carnegie Tech, W&J, Duquesne or Notre Dame. Cincinnati is not a rival either in that there is no true sense of rivalry between the two institutions' student or fan bases, but it is a named trophy rivalry which precedence of the College Football Wikiproject suggests that it is notable and worthy of its own article. All college football trophy rivalries have their own article (see List of NCAA college football rivalry games). Thus rivalries are either notable for their long-standing series that in and of itself naturally generates significant 3rd party-coverage (PSU, WVU, Duquesne) or because they are named and have a trophy (Cinncinnati), which means they typically additional rivalry coverage as well as opposed to routine game coverage if for no other reason than it is pushed by the PR mechanizations of the schools and conferences. Fordham, on the other hand, was not an institutional rival and was never a trophy rivalry. Actually, for a short time in the first half of the 20th Century, there once was a trophy for the winner of Pitt vs Penn State, and the City Game basketball winner is awarded a trophy, but there is no other current football trophy rivalry for Pitt other than the River City Rivalry. BTW, the Cincinnati series has been extremely significant as it determined the conference championship or BCS bowl representative in 2008 and 2009. The 2009 contest was the defacto, season-ending Big East Championship game. In both cases, the both Pitt and Cinncinnati were nationally ranked. [1]. You are right that Villanova and UConn may not be viewed as rivals in the future. I didn't add those schools as rivals in the article in the first place and probably wouldn't have done so. Still, in the case of Villanova, the the rivalry between the fan bases was intense in the 80s and centered around finger pointing over the recruitment of Doug West (Villanova) and Bobby Martin (Pitt). Rollie Massimino and Paul Evans openly despised each other. But after those two coaches moved on, the rivalry dissipated, and really, didn't exist other than some good games in the last half of the 2000s. The UConn "rivalry" was more about both teams being the two winningest programs in the Big East during the 2000s. I would bet neither is likely to be seen as a historical rivalry down the road, although perhaps they may be viewed as notable series like Fordham, unless they are somehow regularly scheduled out-of-conference going forward. But I have no issue with Fordham staying in the article as it now exists. In the future, because Syracuse and Pitt are scheduled to become designated cross-divisional rivals in the ACC, that series, which is not really emanate from the fan bases but from historic length and conference designation, will warrant a stand-alone article. CrazyPaco (talk) 16:52, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Enjoyed that read CrazyPaco, interesting data, I agree this section may need to be looked at a few seasons after the ACC move and you're right things like Fordham and UConn and Cincy have the impressions of rivals to some fans/alums but don't neatly fit into that box compared to PSU and WVU. Made a few minor syntax corrections to the section and thanks for the input, edits and expertise! Marketdiamond (talk) 10:05, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 9 external links on Pittsburgh Panthers. 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 18:18, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 4 external links on Pittsburgh Panthers. 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 04:06, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Pittsburgh Panthers. 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 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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 12:13, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Pitt logo update

[edit]

Pitt is returning to its old script logo effective 5/18/2016. Update the logo on the page and maybe add the phased-out block logo somewhere else on the page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.23.209.227 (talk) 18:03, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 8 external links on Pittsburgh Panthers. 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) 14:06, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Pittsburgh Panthers. 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) 00:39, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "http://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Talk:Pittsburgh_Panthers&oldid=1250153387"