Talk:Wave (audience)/Archive 1

Misunderstanding of "wave"
This statement:
 * "The result is a "wave" of standing spectators that travels through the crowd, even though individual spectators never move away from their seats."

is logically inappropriate. The molecules/whatever of a sine wave (which is what an "audience" wave would be) only move up and down without moving in the direction of the wave. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Simple_harmonic_motion_animation.gif And I'm not convinced that the word 'wave' should be in quotes. It really is a wave. The next part of the wave is triggered by the last part of the wave (the people that stand up saw the people in the seat next to them stand up and realized it was their turn to do the same) and moved exactly as a sine wave. It is, by even strict physical standards, a real wave.

Stanford 1984
I admit I was 8, but I remember doing the wave at an Olympic soccer game in 1984 at Stanford University, between the United States and Brazil, I think. I also remember the torch being run into the stadium, which means it was the first game of the tournament. Simple math makes that 2 years before the 1986 world cup mentioned in the article text. Gentgeen 23:28, 8 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * I looked it up, it was USA vs. Costa Rica. Gentgeen 09:45, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * It's very possible, the wave was also popular in Mexico before the World Cup, so it is definitely pre-1986.

Canada 1970s
I'd like to submit that the origins of the wave are slightly earlier than the article suggests. I recall participating in the wave here in Canada at Vancouver Whitecaps soccer games as early as 1978/1979. Crazy George worked both BC Lions (CFL) and Whitecaps (NASL) games back in the old Empire Stadium, so I would say that it's likely that he came up with the idea.

Michigan 1970s
Another possible origin:

I participated in "the wave" at Michigan Stadium in the late '70s.

San Jose 1970s
Since it is a second hand source and unciteable, but I want to mention it, San Jose State University recently celebrated at a football game the '30th anniversary' of the wave at a game i attended last year. That would make it 1976, and I don't know if Crazy George might have had something to do with it there. Also, it seems strange because Spartan Stadium isn't very conducive to a wave in the first place. Intrepidsfsu 06:11, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Intrepidsfsu, I suspect you were at the 25th anniversary. This story from San Jose State University newspaper says In addition to being known as "Krazy George," Henderson claims he invented the wave on Oct. 15, 1981. jnestorius(talk) 16:01, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Wikianswers
wikianswers: http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Where_did_doing_'The_Wave'_at_sporting_events_originate Franciscrot (talk) 00:13, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

THE DUCK WAVE
—Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.162.223.250 (talk) 19:00, 23 July 2008 (UTC) I can assuredly state that the first crowd wave action I ever witnessed was generated by rising and cheering University of Oregon distance runners like Steve Prefontaine in the late 60's and early 70s. I believe this phenomenon was copied at other facilities that featured a "bowl" setting such as football stadiums and venues similar to Oregon's Hayward Field. Hayward field, home stadium to the UO track team, is perhaps one of the few college staudiums in the world to regularly fill to capacity for track and field events. Cheering circling distance runners became a favorite pastime of the appreciative crowd, and caught on in popularity, being duplicated for lesser anticipated contests for crowd enjoyment. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.162.223.250 (talk) 18:55, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

A recent source on its history
May be useful, particularly wrt its origin: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/8742454.stm —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.9.58.250 (talk) 12:42, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Counterclockwise
Australian here... in my recollections, all waves I've seen have been anticlockwise... is this an australian or southern-hemisphere quirk? Some more opinions requested before adding to the article proper... Nemo Mon, 27 Dec 2004 01:45:59 +1100
 * Yeah I've noticed that it goes in an anti-clockwise direction at the MCG. Is this what you are referring to, or is it like this australia wide?  I've refixed the article to reflect the change anyway..
 * Unfortunately, I've had to reword that into a much more vague statement. The paragraph you added that line to was describing the findings of Tamás Vicsek's study which as far as I know didn't mention the MCG as a notable exception. The paragraph does say that it's usually clockwise, which does imply that it's sometimes counterclockwise. If there's a study somewhere that shows a particular pattern to these exceptions then by all means it should be mentioned here, but we need to avoid anecdotal original research otherwise. Bryan 06:35, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * From what I remember, when someone's trying to coordinate one, they point in the direction to go. --SPUI (talk) 09:24, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I think it may have something to do with the rotation of the Earth - ie clockwise in the Northern Hemisphere, anticlockwise in the Southern Hemisphere. Annatto (talk) 19:02, 10 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Your location on the Earth has no effect on what you do in regards to circular motion. How can it affect the direction? This is just a common misconception. You can do the wave both clockwise and counterclockwise depending on which direction people go towards; just think about it logically. How can the Earth's rotation prevent you from doing the wave in a clockwise direction? That's the stupidest thing I've ever heard - just like how it's supposed to affect the direction of toilet flushes. When you (in general) confirm that you are suddenly immobilized and cannot move when you try to do the wave in a clockwise motion, make sure to let me know. - M0rphzone (talk) 03:05, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

German?
why is the reference to to German name so necessay- its out of place Mexaguil 05:27, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * It doesn't look too out of place to me. Right after the line mentioning that the wave was introduced to the soccer community in a Mexican stadium and is sometimes called the "Mexican wave" it says that the Germans use the Spanish words for "the wave" to refer to it. Spanish is the language spoken in Mexico, so it's another point in support of that. Bryan 05:52, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * As a German reader, I found it interesting, that this fact is mentioned here. Every Spanish speaking reader will find it interesting too, that a term of their language is used in our language. Furthermore, it may be happen, that even English speaking readers come to Germany this year to visit the World Cup. So they know exactly what's going on, when the people prepare a "la ola" - gives much sense and is thus relevant, because in the dictionary one will search for a "wave" and find "Welle" - which is not used for it as a single term "die Welle", but "La-Ola-Welle" or "Stadionwelle", but "La Ola" is very common, because it was a title of a TV sports magazine (or so). -- Arne List 16:20, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

article name
I don't believe Audience wave is a good name for the article. Almost the only googlehits for it are wikipedia mirrors. "Audience" is an inappropriate word as it is rarely used for stadium crowds; usually (as in the wikipedia article "audience") it refers to those attending a performance (film, music, theatre, etc) rather than a sports event. While there have probably been waves at some stadium concerts, it's not the norm. That said, I haven't (yet) requested a rename as I can't think of a definitive alternative: replacing "audience" with "spectators" hardly works, as it's not a collective noun; using "crowd" seems a little too vague (pas de pun intendé). Does anyone have any thoughts? Let me toss out some random suggestions: Mexican wave; The wave; The Wave; Crowd wave; Spectator wave; Stadium wave; Wave (crowd); Wave (stadium); Wave (spectators); La Ola; Doing the wave; Doing the Wave;... jnestorius(talk) 16:26, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Who the hell calls it an 'audience wave'?! I've only ever heard 'Mexican wave'. Yes, generically, it is a 'wave' done by the 'audience' of a sport, but it has a specific name: Mexican wave. Ben davison 22:00, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I never heard the term "Mexican wave" until today. Here in the US I believe it is only ever referred to as "The Wave".  This is for the obvious reason that almost nobody in the US watched the World Cup of 1986, and prior to 1986 it was a very widespread practice at US football matches and baseball games.  I agree that "audience" isn't so great, but maybe Stadium Wave is better as a generic term that Wikipedia could use?
 * I agree the name should be changed, but stadium Wave is a neologism like audience wave. I think the best options are either The Wave or The Wave (sports). "Mexican Wave" is probably a poor title, since the term is not used in the U.S., the birthplace of The Wave. -- Mwalcoff 01:17, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Everyone knows what a Mexican wave is. Audience wave is a lame title it is not even used in the US as there it is simple 'the wave'. The practice definitely became more famous and international after the Mexico World Cup of 1986 which popularized it. The wave must have predated that event and been well established in Mexico to be as impressive as it was. I doubt the Mexicans were watching many Ice Hockey games from Canada to have learnt it from there. There is good evidence to suggest that it was common in the 1970s in Latin America. The North Americans probably borrowed it from there and usurped ownership. No one has explained how the transfer from US to Mexico may have occurred. Even if the wave is from the US it is commonly known as the Mexican Wave and it is clear what every one is talking about when its called that.150.101.204.22 03:59, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
 * It should be mexican wave, because thats what it's most commonly known as. 149.135.29.62 22:31, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Mexican Wave seems to be the most popular name, despite US users being obvlivious to it. Additionaly, theo page states "The Wave" for America and "Mexican Wave" for British Commenwealth...there are more countries in the the commonwealth, whith only one country calling it The Wave, therefor, to call the page "The Wave" or similar would be catering to America, whereas re-titiling it to The Mexican Wave would be more universally accepted. -- Evilio, 17:29 5 Febuary 2007
 * There may be more countries in the Commonwealth, but two-thirds of native English speakers are in the U.S., and The Wave is widely regarded to be of American origin. "Mexican Wave" is an exonym of sorts unfamiliar in The Wave's birthplace. -- Mwalcoff 23:21, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Not to mention the politically and racially charged nature of term. Better if the Commonwealth simply switched to ola if they want to memorialize their first exposure. -LlywelynII (talk) 15:26, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
 * IF wikipedia is a Global Encyclopedia it should be called the "Mexican Wave", the name that almost the whole world knowns, but if Wikipedia is only for U.S. residents, you can call it whatever you wish.

Mexican wave? What's it got to do with Mexicans now? People everywhere do this, and even if people got the name from Spanish "La ola", why don't you just directly translate it as what is means into "The wave"? There's no reason to include a nationality adjective since that just complicates things. Either say "La ola", or "the wave". "Mexican" isn't even part of the phrase. - M0rphzone (talk) 03:03, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Complications
As discussed in the Largest Recorded Wave section, the execution of the wave can get pretty complex. Taking it one step beyond the University of Michigan is the University of Wisconsin-Madison. The order is as follows: regular CCW wave, slow CCW wave, fast CCW wave, regular CW (reverse) wave, split wave (ie: one CCW and one CW). I only offer this as the most complex that I've seen. Is it more complex anywhere else? Might this merit inclusion in the article?
 * Sorry, just had a random thought about this. If/when two audience waves are traveling in opposite directions and the crests overlap, 1. the wave will probably stop due to confusion about which direction it's supposed to continue in, and 2. there will be no constructive interference because it is impossible for this to double a person's height.  Jesin 16:21, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Commonwealth English
I'm not happy with the current wording of the opening sentence:
 * A packed crowd in a stadium does the wave (North American English) or the Mexican wave (British and Australian English) when ...

The intro could say that people "do the wave" in the U.S. and Canada; they do the "Mexican wave" in the UK, Ireland, Australia, New Zealand, South Africa, and possibly elsewhere (Serbia?). I don't like the singling out of British and Australian; are we meant to extrapolate the others or are they specifically excluded? Or should the list be lengthened? My preference would be for:
 * A packed crowd in a stadium does the wave (North American English) or the Mexican wave (most other English-speaking countries) when ...

or even:
 * A packed crowd in a stadium does the wave (U.S. and Canada) or the Mexican wave (most other English-speaking countries) when ...

I don't want to get into a lame edit war, and I accept that Commonwealth English is a poorly-defined neologism to be avoided. I think there needs to be some generic discussion in the Wikipedia: namespace about how to avoid using it: not for policy-profileration, but maybe someone has a good idea we could all benefit from in these situations. jnestorius(talk) 17:56, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Requested move
The current page title is a Wikipedia neologism that is clearly inappropriate. The only real debate is whether the page title should be "The Wave" or "Mexican Wave." The former is the original, North American term, while the latter is the term adopted by English speakers outside of North America.

As the article states, The Wave was invented somewhere in North America sometime in the late 70s or early 80s. In the 80s, it spread through North America and into Mexico. Mexicans performed The Wave during the 1986 World Cup, where British people first became largely aware of it. Presumably assuming The Wave to be a Mexican invention, the Brits called it the "Mexican Wave."

The Wikipedia Manual of Style establishes no preference among varieties of English but says that, "An article on a topic that has strong ties to a particular English-speaking nation uses the appropriate variety of English for that nation." In this case, since The Wave is of American origin, the American name should be used. -- Mwalcoff 23:38, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Oppose this nomination per WP:NCD but support a move to another title such as Wave (stadium) since the current title appears to be original research. It doesn't seem to be a WP:ENGVAR issue since the term is usually wave everywhere. —   AjaxSmack   00:29, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
 * A, WP:NCD doesn't seem to have much to do with the proposed move. B, obviously from the repeated posts and moves here WP:ENGVAR is certainly in play. Wave (stadium) or Wave (audience) is probably a neutral, appropriate improvement on the current title, though. -LlywelynII (talk) 15:26, 18 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Alternative: doing the wave. It is manifestly incorrect to say the term is usually "wave" everywhere.  It is "Mexican wave" everywhere outside North America. I accept this is meaningless to North Americans; but, conversely, The Wave, currently a disambiguation page, has several other meanings which are more usual referents for the term outside North America. I think this page should be at doing the wave, which is unambiguous and fairly self-evident, as well as being current in use.  Using the gerund conforms with Naming conventions (verbs). Checking google for capitalisation and quotes, doing the wave is most common; next is Doing the Wave in titles, where capitalisation can be discounted.  There's some support for doing "the wave", doing The Wave, "doing the wave", doing the "WAVE", etc; but the plain form is most common. jnestorius(talk) 13:34, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
 * But if one doesn't 'do the Mexican wave' then 'wave' would be the common term and most appropriate under WP:ENGVAR. -LlywelynII (talk) 15:26, 18 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment: I think we're OK with "The Wave" despite WP:NCD since the "The" seems to be inherent to the name -- one does "The Wave," not "a wave." That said, I'm not all that worried about the "The" and think that something like Wave (crowd action) would be far better than Audience wave. -- Mwalcoff 23:21, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm not OK with "The Wave". The article is okay, but
 * Usage indicates it should be "the wave", as per WP:CAPS; given the initial-capital restriction that means "The wave".
 * Would we intend to move The Wave to The Wave (disambiguation), or to merge it into Wave (disambiguation)?
 * I would prefer Wave (crowd) to Wave (crowd action).
 * Wave (stadium) isn't quite accurate as it's been done in theatres, and probably random fields and streets if you count people raising their arms rather than standing up.
 * I still say it's simpler to have doing the wave. Everybody knows what that means. No parentheses.  Wary of verbs? I give you: Doing a Ratner, Doing business as, Taking the Fifth, Taking the arms, Making an entrance, Making fire, Making out, Being beautiful in spirit, Getting the wind knocked out of you (okay, not sure about some of those, but still ...) jnestorius(talk) 00:16, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
 * You've done a good job of finding examples of gerunds used as article titles, but there's a difference: Most of your examples would work as ordinary nouns. For example, we have Taking the Fifth because it is an action distinct from the Fifth Amendment itself. Making out is an intransitive phrasal verb that has no ordinary noun equivalent. "Doing the wave," on the other hand, is the same subject as "the Wave," or however you want to capitalize it. Your other suggestion, Wave (crowd), is better in my view, but I'm a little wary because a wave is not a type of crowd. Usually, in article titles of the sort X (Y), X is a type of Y. Unfortunately, it's not easy to explain what the Wave is in one or two words! So I don't know what the best title is. I'm not too worried about it as long as it's not Audience wave or Mexican wave. -- Mwalcoff 02:01, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I think we all agree the current title has to change. If Americans called it "wug" and Brits "Mexican wug" I would have no problem having it at "wug"; but I prefer "doing the wug" to "wug (qualifier)" if, as in this case, the qualifier is verbose and/or opaque.  Having said that, I'm not that bothered either; I hope this is my last comment on the matter, whatever decision is reached. jnestorius(talk) 03:20, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Mwalcoff wrote "one does "The Wave," not "a wave."" -- I disagree... it is not unusual to hear someone talk about trying to "get a wave going". Ewlyahoocom 07:58, 27 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Alternative How about Bleacher wave? Ewlyahoocom 08:35, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Having read the discussion above, I'd prefer "Mexican wave" the most: despite the American origins, that is the only term unambigously recognized across most of the globe; American readers would have to do some digging through disambiguation pages to reach it anyway. Barring that, I prefer the current descriptive title: I don't mind "neologism" titles if they're accurate and have obvious meaning, rather than ugly parenthesized disambiguators. Duja ► 13:06, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Oppose First and most importantly, people wanting to know about such an important encyclopedic article as wave should not risk not getting there by typing unorthodoxly. Second, without checking, I'm pretty sure there plenty of films, books, songs, etc called "The Wave" and that many arguably also should have priority over this. Third, I can understand that the current title does not feel the most natural. I would opt for Mexican Wave, as it is unambiguous and the name by which it is more well-known to English speakers (per Duja)--victor falk 14:41, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Maybe where you live, but most native English speakers live in the U.S., and, perhaps as a result, Wikipedia's Manual of Style does not follow the "we should use British English because it's more widespread" approach. -- Mwalcoff 23:44, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Alternative How about Propagating human wave? Ewlyahoocom 16:35, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Not bad... "Generating, congregating, propagating.... new wave, new wave"--victor falk 17:23, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Bad. WP:OR worse than current OR. -LlywelynII (talk) 15:26, 18 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Support I support "The Wave" which is the common name for it or in the alternative "Wave (crowd)" since it is done in many different venues besides just stadiums. --Coz 17:54, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
 * How about crowd wave? Always nice not having to have parenthesises, and plain speak, unlike "audience" which is a tad pedantic?--victor falk 18:32, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I'll go with crowd wave. -- Mwalcoff 23:44, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm fine with that, too. Duja ► 09:55, 30 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Oppose The Wave could mean the royal wave. 132.205.99.122 19:18, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
 * WP:Name says "Generally, article naming should prefer what the majority of English speakers would most easily recognize, with a reasonable minimum of ambiguity, while at the same time making linking to those articles easy and second nature." 750 million speak English, with 300 million in the USA , and another 32 million in Canada, that leaves 418 million who speak English but do not live in North America. If we are tallying beads then Mexican Wave would win as the term understood by most English speaking people in the world. If we are looking at ambiguity, Mexican Wave again wins because as pointed out above, The Wave can be understood to refer to several things. If we are looking at the tricky nature of Wiki naming convention, again as has been pointed out above, "The Wave" or "the wave" or "wave" are all problematic. I can understand why someone has used Audience wave - but as Audience wave is not the term for the topic in question whereas The Wave, Mexican Wave or La Ola all are the terms used then the selection would best come from the term actually in use. La Ola is the least understood for most English speakers. The Wave is problematic. Mexican Wave is the best fit and the most appropriate solution.  SilkTork  * SilkyTalk 22:01, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
 * "The Wave" has many meanings. Be neutral and keep on letting The Wave be the disambig page. Anthony Appleyard 22:43, 4 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Oppose - just merge into Krazy George and redirect this title there. ;) None of the proposed names is ideal, and all have problems. Keeping it here is the best option. Gentgeen 23:35, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment A lot of people seem to be opposing "The Wave" but then offering a third option rather than supporting the status quo of "Audience wave". It would be helpful to comment on all suggested names.  Bear in mind that Polling is not a substitute for discussion, i.e. this isn't a vote. jnestorius(talk) 23:46, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
 * The requested move discussion is because the status quo is seen as unacceptable. The request is to move from Audience Wave to The Wave. People are mainly opposing a move to The Wave, but suggesting alternatives because otherwise an oppose could be seen as an acceptance of Audience Wave. No clear consensus is emerging, other than that most people are not comfortable with Audience Wave. There are three clear calls for Mexican Wave, and three clear calls for The Wave. Then there are suggestions for alternatives, none of which are getting support, because the alternatives would leave us with the same problem we currently have. There appear to be two calls for keeping the status quo, and that is the way this discussion is likely to end. Ah! There is a suggestion for Crowd wave with two supports. Hmm. What's the difference between crowd wave and audience wave? Anyway - I hope I can resist the temptation to comment again on this.....  SilkTork  * SilkyTalk 16:03, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I think, under the circumstances you summarize, Crowd wave might be the best option as the least-radical solution to the problem we all agree on with the original name. -- Mwalcoff 01:12, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
 * But crowd wave is no different from an audience wave. It would be Wave (crowd). -LlywelynII (talk) 15:26, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

It was requested that this article be renamed but there was no consensus for it to be moved. Angus McLellan (Talk) 09:28, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Oppose moving to The Wave. Though open to discussion of alternative names. Just a thought, but isn't this what Disambiguation is for? - jc37 20:51, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Mexican Wave

 * Comment I think that it is more internationally know by that name is a strong argument.victor falk 16:53, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment Agreed. This article is incorrectly and confusingly titled. Everyone knows the term "Mexican Wave" and it is this term that requires explanation. No one would look up in an encyclopedia the term "Audience Wave".Colin marks (talk) 08:14, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Colin, I don't know where you live, but in North America, the term "Mexican Wave" is completely unheard of and would be considered factually incorrect. Although I agree that "Audience wave" is absurd and needs to be changed. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 03:25, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
 * As someone who participated in the first "Wave" and who has watched with great interest as place after place tried to claim they did it before then (without any proof) I can tell you I had NEVER heard of the phrase "Mexican Wave" until I saw the reference on Wikipedia. It has always been known as just "The Wave" here in the region it was invented.  --Coz (talk) 19:18, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Its 100% known as a 'Mexican Wave', always has been! I think this is probably another example of Americans refusing to recognise standard English usage.  Perhaps they don't call it a Mexican Wave in the USA but everywhrre else in English speaking the world does - as such, the title is incorrect!  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.0.33.157 (talk) 19:02, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
 * By definition, it can't be 100% the 'Mexican Wave' if that term is not uniform throughout the English speaking world. Even if it is only called 'The Wave' in the U.S. and Canada, that would be the majority of the primarily English speaking population.  Whether or not it originated in Latin America, the term 'Mexican Wave' originated from the '86 World Cup.  It has been demonstrated many times that the phenomena existed long before that World Cup.  Just because the Brits didn't know about it before 1986 doesn't mean it didn't exist and they have no authority to change the name of a term that had long been in existence. (173.79.161.250 (talk) 16:15, 3 July 2010 (UTC))

Crowd wave

 * Comment Simple plainspeak, easy to understand, no parenthesis, neutral, no hurt national feelings, not limited to stadiums. Plus, that's my proposition:) Support . victor falk 16:53, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I see no significant difference between Audience wave and Crowd wave - the same problem remains: this is not the name of the topic under discussion, but something invented in order to avoid the problem of a cultural dispute between North American usage and rest of the word usage. I think people are trying to avoid nationalist issues but are ending up diminishing the encyclopedia. It should be The wave or Mexican wave. Putting forward other ideas is understandable, but not what we are supposed to be about. I promise I'm not going to get involved anymore. I've going to have a nice cup of tea, and perhaps a custard cream.  SilkTork  * SilkyTalk 19:53, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I share your point that wishy washy compromise wikineologisms should be avoided. In that case, I go for Mexican wave.--victor falk 23:18, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I much prefer even "audience wave" to "crowd wave", given that "crowd wave" could imply this type of thing happening in any type of crowd or mob of people. My impression is that this almost always occurs within a group of spectators of some sort, rather than any crowd of people milling around in the mall, or whatever.  As a North American, I've never heard it called the "Mexican Wave."  However, given that that title seems to be prominent outside of North America, I don't have any real problem with it (providing, of course, that this article is linked to the the wave disambiguation page).  I do not think that "The Wave" would be an appropriate title, if for nothing else than the ambiguous nature of such a title.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Buddy431 (talk • contribs) 23:49, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry; here's my signiture for the above comment.Buddy431 (talk) 23:51, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Wave (crowd)

 * Comment variant of above. Cons: parenthesis, which make it not as easily understandable what it's about. I think parenthesis should be avoided wherever possiblevictor falk 16:53, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment The problem is that they cannot be avoided where disambig without neologism is necessary, which it is here. -LlywelynII (talk) 15:26, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Wave (crowd action)

 * Comment Same as above, but "action" makes it even more ambiguous. What's an an action, assault waves on the turf when the referee has mad a call the public doesn't like? :)

Wave (stadium)

 * Comment Doing the wave it not limited to stadiums, but also done on concerts and mass meetings (though I guess it's not very usual on classical concerts.) Parenthesis again.

Stadium wave

 * Support about 2,700 ghits for "stadium wave" and they all appear to be about this topic so very little ambiguity. Ewlyahoocom 09:20, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Propagating human wave

 * Comment Pros: Clear description. Cons: a bit neological, "propagating" and "human" are not the first words that come to mind when thinking about it. New wave is a nice song, I like it.victor falk 16:53, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

doing the wave
158,000 unique ghits for "Mexican wave" vs 40,000 ghits. Seems clearly less notable. I think having a verb makes it harder to think of typing that in the search box.victor falk 16:53, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Wave (audience)
I don't think (crowd) is precise enough. These are almost always audience actions. - jc37 20:51, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Moved to Mexican Wave
I have been bold and moved the page to 'Mexican wave' as there appears to be consensus above that 'Audience wave' is a term which is never used and Mexican wave seems to be the more well known international term. --The High Commander (talk) 19:04, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
 * It's nice to be bold sometimes, but after the first time someone undid your move, you should have gone through the formal process at WP:RM before moving the article again. Gentgeen (talk) 19:22, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Moved to Wave (audience)
Ditto about 'audience wave' being a wp:neologism, only minus the wp:engvar issues of 'Mexican wave.' Moving back is fine, but consensus above seemed to be antineologism and 33/33/33 between American partisans, Commonwealth partisans, and ... some version of Wave (audience/crowd/stadium). Returners should be sure to support an opinion above. -LlywelynII (talk) 15:30, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Um, did you notice the datestamps on the preceding discussion? jnestorius(talk) 16:23, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Time travelling cheerleader Bill S. Preston?!
What kind of joke is that supposed to be?--84.149.22.13 (talk) 16:47, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
 * http://www.imdb.com/character/ch0027174/Edwizard (talk) 11:55, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

origin's
Any objection to the removing of the first two paragraphs in the article. They are not citated, and it appears they are original research. I'll come back in a week or two and remove them. Drorzm (talk) 19:33, 1 June 2012 (UTC)