Talk:Dawg Pound

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

Pictures[edit]

  • Would be great to have some good photos of the fans, and maybe a shot of the Big Dawg. Pimlottc 19:02, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I have some pics of the fans that I'll get here eventually, but I don't think I got any of Big Dawng... Minkus 23:54, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

More Sourcing on Formation Please[edit]

The entire section about the formation is sourced from a single book. I've read a number of articles from the 1985 NFL season that suggest that the Chicago Bears started the barking trend and the Browns co-opted it the following season (not in 1985 preseason). Can any online sources (game recaps or photos from the 1985 season) be found to support the idea that Hanford Dixon was barking at Browns games prior to Otis Wilson and the Junkyard Dogs?--Tvainisi (talk) 17:03, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong Logo Being Used[edit]

The dog logo appearing on this article is not the Dawg Pound logo, but rather a secondary logo the team uses. The official NFL Dawg Pound logo appears here: Official Dawg Pound Logo --216.253.95.34 (talk) 19:55, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Expansion team[edit]

You are really splitting hairs if you say the Browns were not an expansion team in 1999. A new franchise was granted to the Lerner group and the roster populated through an expansion draft. A Google search for /Browns expansion site:nfl.com/ indicates the league has no problem calling the 1999 Browns an "expansion team." Saying the team simply "returned to the league" is confusing and misleading. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 04:12, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • The NFL officially views the Browns as a team that joined the NFL in 1950, suspended operations in 1996 and rejoined the league in 1999, and the article should reflect that. There is a much larger discussion of this in Talk:Cleveland Browns Frank Anchor, U. S. American (talk, contribs) 02:41, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The sentence you have written, "In 1995, owner Art Modell moved the original Browns to Baltimore, and the Browns rejoined the league in 1999," would make no sense to someone not familiar with the NFL. What do you mean they "rejoined the league?" Where did they go? If they moved to Baltimore, how could they rejoin the league? The fact that the NFL considers the Browns a single team for records purposes does not distract from the fact that they were an expansion team by every definition of the term. The discussion at Talk:Cleveland Browns is not really relevant because it addresses a proposal to split the article Cleveland Browns into two pages. It's not a similar dispute. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 05:06, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, but your changes made the section even harder to understand. I'm going to revert and get a third opinion. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 08:21, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Third opinion[edit]

If the NFL and reliable sources indicate the current Cleveland Browns are an expansion team, this is what the article should state. We must report verifiable information from reliable sources. We should not use our own feelings or interpretations. Vassyana (talk) 12:44, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am aware of the confusing and controversial nature of the expansion vs. one-franchise issue with the Cleveland Browns. However on a page about the Dawg Pound we should be clear and avoid getting too far into the issue, which is what the Browns History article should be about. The previous version of this article seemed to assume too much knowledge about Browns history. There was no mention of the move, and the article just said the Browns rejoined the league. IMO we need to tell the reader that the team was moved, otherwise there is no context for them to "rejoin". I hope this version is an improvement and can be agreeable. --Matches10 (talk) 21:22, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think your version is an improvement but still confusing to a newbie. I imagine a person saying, "What do you mean, 'set to return in 1999?'" Did they move back from Baltimore?" The fact is, the NFL has no problem calling the 1999 Browns an expansion team, as a Google search of /browns expansion site:nfl.com/ proves. For example, the NFL's online history says "The NFL clubs unanimously approved an expansion team for Cleveland to fulfill the commitment to return the Browns to the field in 1999." The "new" Browns inherited the "old" Browns' records and history. But there's no question that the 1999 team was, in every sense of the word, an expansion team. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 00:26, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hopefully this last edit will take that into account and acknowledges both aspects of the return: same-franchise, expansion team.--Matches10 (talk) 21:35, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
OK to me -- Mwalcoff (talk) 00:14, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • But what remains is that the 1999 Browns are not an expansion team. They are the same franchise that did not play for three seasons. The way the article is now, that says the team has new owners and players is an appropriate way of showing how they returned to the leagueFrank Anchor, U. S. American (talk, contribs) 20:05, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed; they are the same franchise, but to not explain the circumstances of their return is confusing for anyone unfamiliar with the issue. As cited above, the NFL calls the 1999 Browns an expansion team. The Browns themselves referred to the 1999 draft as an "expansion draft." The previous edit specifically stated that the franchise was the same, and explained that the franchise's return was facilitated by expansion. The reality is that 1999 Browns were a new team of players selected in an expansion draft, and inhabited the Cleveland Browns franchise. Because of the Browns, there is a subtle distinction between an expansion franchise (i.e. the Jacksonville Jaguars) and an expansion team. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Matches10 (talk • contribs) 21:00, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Frank, we have clearly presented evidence that the NFL and the rest of the world consider the 1999 Browns to be an expansion team. You have not presented any evidence to the contrary. You are obviously confused about what the NFL's policy on the history of the Cleveland Browns means. I'm going to go back to Matches10's version with a footnote to the NFL's own description of the 1999 team as an expansion team. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 03:36, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Frank, you are confusing "expansion team" with "expansion franchise." The Browns are an expansion team because they had an expansion draft, got new players/owners, started fresh. They are not an expansion franchise, as they are a continuation of the franchise that started in 1946 and suspended operations for three seasons. An expansion franchise (such as the 1995 Panthers) is a franchise that has no history associated with it whatsoever, and nobody is disputing the great history of the Browns. Busta Baxta (talk) 01:33, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Dawgpoundlogo.jpg[edit]

Image:Dawgpoundlogo.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 21:35, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No doubt in response to BetacommandBot's demand, User:Heavy1974 furnished the needed rationale in Feb 08. - 67.224.51.189 (talk) 16:22, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Dawg Pound. 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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 14:36, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Dawg_Pound&oldid=1201385197"