Jump to content

Talk:Arkansas–LSU football rivalry

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

List of notable games

[edit]

The list of notable games from the past is pretty common (I would almost say standard) across rivalry pages on wikipedia. They provide a good place to include information on specific yearly matchups from the past that might have more significance than others. See The World's Largest Outdoor Cocktail Party, Egg Bowl, Florida-Florida State rivalry, etc. etc. etc. (I can provide tons more if needed) for examples of pages that list past yearly matchups or information about past matchups in list form. I would agree that the points on the list likely need to be expanded, but removal is not in keeping with wikipedia standards of other pages, and the informational points are of sufficient notability to be included in the article. Cardsplayer4life (talk) 06:17, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There are just as many that don't, and I'd hesitate for one to make a generalization without looking at all of the pages. Just a few for example are Stanford Axe, Commander in Chief's Trophy, Florida Cup, Illibuck, and there are many more. The point is, first of all, it isn't necessary in an article as it can be in its current form subject to major POV issues. A history section of formatted prose would be fine, but the section in list form isn't suitable. Mastrchf (t/c) 12:11, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
So there is at least a disagreement over what should and should not be included. Fine, but removal of content should be undertaken in a less haphazard way. The information is valuable and should not be removed just because you do not like the formatting of it. There are plenty of pages that are formatted in this way, and I personally think the formatting is more clear than in paragraph form as you suggest. At the very least, change to the format that you advocate, but in any case do not remove the content. (in other words, of all possible scenarios, that is the worst choice) Cardsplayer4life (talk) 15:06, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Fine, flesh it out. Problem solved. But please try to be more civil in further disputes. Calling someone a "hostile reverter" is rather rude. Mastrchf (t/c) 20:40, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I was as civil as possible given the tone you used to start with. I apologize sincerely if any offense was taken. Cardsplayer4life (talk) 22:29, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Simply astounding. The tone I used to start with? Sure, whatever. I have no want to debate this any longer. Please try to be more civil in the future. Mastrchf (t/c) 01:15, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Dude, I apologized. What more do you want? It appears I am not the one needing a lesson in civility. You began with "Please refer to the talk page before simply reverting my edit again..", implying that 1) I had not read the talk page (when I was clearly the original commenter on this subject), and 2) that I was just willy-nilly reverting the page, so I responded in kind. This is getting tiresome, though; I don't wish to debate the rules of polite discussion as I have better things to do. Cardsplayer4life (talk) 18:07, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You said if I added information and references that the section would be fine with you, and yet I am adding said info and you keep deleting it. Here is what I have added to the section so far, and am continuing to do so. Please abide by your word and allow me to do so. Cardsplayer4life (talk) 02:26, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

First, if you'd take a second to look, all of this referencing you're doing and adding of info, I'm adding it into the prose section, as well as formatting the references. I only deleted that information because it is basically listed twice in the article. Second, I don't quite remember where I said that references and information would make that section fine. Could you provide a diff of that? Thanks, Mastrchf (t/c) 02:35, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well can you at least wait until I am finished adding information about the games? You said "Fine, flesh it out. Problem solved." (up above in this conversation, with 3 ":::") when I said I was going to flesh out the section. That is exactly what I am in the process of doing. Cardsplayer4life (talk) 02:53, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I'm quite sure that I was talking about this statement here "At the very least, change to the format that you advocate, but in any case do not remove the content." I would hope you would abide by your word if you want me to abide by mine. I fail to follow your mindset, though. It seems right now that you're going against our agreed course, and even if you wish to add the information in the poorly formatted and POV prone section to the prose section at a later date, wouldn't it be much simpler to add it to the section now? That's what I was attempting to do, in the hopes that you'd realize what was happening, when you reverted what I was doing.
It seems that we've had a break in communications, and we're both quite equally guilty of interrupting the other's work. Let's talk and just get a definite way to add the information, and in what format it will be presented in, so the article doesn't suffer the fate of being an edit war zone. Mastrchf (t/c) 03:01, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds good; sorry for any perceived hostility on my part, I was just a bit frustrated being in the process of adding info and then hitting "submit" only to see the wikipedia warning for conflicting intermediate edits. I don't mind at all moving some parts up to other sections, but some games (notably "Miracle on Markham" and the 2007 contest) really are important enough to have their own game recap, much like other rivalry games have on their pages. (examples of which I gave above) I don't mind writing an overview of what happened in the game and why the game was important, but I am not going to do a play by play of the entire games or anything like that. Cardsplayer4life (talk) 03:23, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
My apologies for both situations also. I agree that both of those contests should deserve their own sections, but I'd much rather that they be in the history section. Perhaps we split the history section into paragraphs, so as to keep the information together, but give each contest the merit it deserves? Mastrchf (t/c) 03:32, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds perfect. I am not sure if the recaps I wrote can be fit into one paragraph or not for the games, but you are welcome to do that. (or I can, whatever) I'll hold off on adding any more info for awhile if you want to give it a shot. Cardsplayer4life (talk) 03:35, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

<-- (Moving) Actually, if you want to go ahead and do that, I'm most likely going to be busy tonight and tomorrow (due to the game). Whatever you do can be formatted later. Mastrchf (t/c) 03:52, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cool, I'll probably just leave it alone right now. (got busy doing something else) I'll add some more at some point, though. Cardsplayer4life (talk) 04:07, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Plagiarism?

[edit]

The 2008 game summary is eerily similar to this article. For example, compare the first sentence (same words in bold):

Casey Dick threw a 24-yard touchdown pass to London Crawford on fourth-and-1 with 22 seconds remaining to give Arkansas a 31-30 victory over LSU on Friday night.

In 2008, Arkansas quarterback Casey Dick threw a 24-yard touchdown pass to wide receiver London Crawford on fourth-and-1 with 22 seconds remaining in the game to give the Razorbacks a 31-30 victory over the Tigers at War Memorial Stadium in Little Rock.

I know that games are often summed up in this way, but I think it is too similar. You also have this line, which is identical to a line in the article.

With the help of several LSU penalties, Arkansas slowly chipped away before converting twice on fourth down on the winning drive.

Great game, great win. Brandonrush Woo pig sooie 18:46, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The first sentence definitely seemed ok, but I changed it a little bit just for the heck of it. I rewrote the entire second sentence you mentioned to say the same thing in a different way. Should be fine now, I would think. Cardsplayer4life (talk) 00:00, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: No consensus. Editors clearly believe that some of these articles should move, but there is no good way to do that except in separate discussions. As User:Cuchullain said, "My recommendation would be to end this group RM with all articles staying where they are now, and starting individual RMs on any articles where it's felt necessary." It is up to those interested to start the separate move discussions, though the people opening those RMs could mention the opinions already expressed here. It does not seem worth the effort to determine which of the previous moves were undiscussed so they can be reverted. EdJohnston (talk) 07:30, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

{{requested move/dated}}

– Once upon a time, a user named User:Bt8257 tried moving pages about college football rivalries from their natural common names to long-form names. Theoretically defensible, right? He did this without any discussion and often would try repeatedly--see the history of one rivalry page that had enough editors watching it that his consensus-free edits were repeatedly reversed. One of his things that he liked to do was rewriting the lead sentence of articles so that it no longer included the main title... like here. Anyway, he was banned for sockpuppetry. No worries, though, as User:AL2896 has picked up the slack and moved all of these pages without any discussion. And even done things like rewrite lead sentences to no longer include the main title. Repeatedly. Interspersed among the undiscussed moves have been many good edits that have improved the overall encyclopedic content of Wikipedia and I am grateful for those edits. But the mass-scale pagemove here I think ended up hurting the encyclopedia a little bit. I would like for all of these pages to be moved back and for us to discuss them if there are any that people do want to move back on a strictly individual basis. I would also love to introduce User:AL2896 to our move request process, as he may not be familiar with it as of right now. Red Slash 17:20, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Agreed 100% And you can add Air Force–Hawaii football rivalry → Kuter Trophy, Boise State–Fresno State football rivalry → Milk Can (college football), Michigan–Minnesota football rivalry → Little Brown Jug (American football) and Hawaii–Wyoming football rivalry → Paniolo Trophy to the list as well. There are probably some others that I'm missing, too. All of these moves were made unilaterally, and all without the slightest regard for WP:COMMONNAME. Let's go back, take a look at these, evaluate them on a case-by-case basis, and build consensus on what each of these articles should be named. Ejgreen77 (talk) 18:11, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose any blanket move of these articles, and oppose several of them specifically. First off, many two of those articles (UCLA-USC, Arizona-Arizona State, and Kansas-Kansas State) were decided by RMs or other discussions, and Arkansas–LSU football rivalry was never located at the nickname "Tiger Bowl". The first three track with the results of other discussions for college sports rivalries.[1][2][3][4][5][6][7] In those cases, it has been shown that the relevant sources more usually use descriptive names ("Foo-Bar game", "Foo-Bar rivalry", "Foo vs. Bar", "the Foo game", etc.) than the trophy/nicknames, which are in some cases quite obscure. As such, the descriptive article titles are more in line with the sources, and in virtually all cases they are much more recognizable and natural for readers. It seems that this is the situation with most if not all of the listed articles as well. There are likely somewhere out there, but those are better decided on a case-by-case basis.--Cúchullain t/c 19:12, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I have a lot of respect for you, Cuchullain, but your assertion is a bit off. The AU/ASU one was moved with no move request and then the move request back didn't achieve consensus (which should've resulted in a move back to the previous title); the KU/KSU one had a verrrry sketchy "consensus" to move; there was no move request for UCLA/USC. None of these were decided by discussion, though there were a couple of attempts at discussion post-move to sort them out. You are right to say that they should be decided on a case-by-case basis--I can easily imagine it being that the Colorado-Colorado State football rivalry is rarely called the "Rocky Mountain Showdown" but the BYU-USU football rivalry is often called the "The Old Wagon Wheel". (I think that the problem with LSU-AU was that there were some cut-and-paste moves of that page, by the way. I'm fine with removing that one though as this user was actually just reverting a cut-and-paste move, as he should have.) Red Slash 21:17, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, yes I misinterpreted the UCLA-USC discussion. However, the other two had move discussions that resulted in them being at their current titles (and as you say Arkansas–LSU football rivalry was always at a descriptive title minus a brief period of cut-and-paste weirdness). I participated in both and think the closers made the right call in both cases - of the many sources that mention the subject, comparatively few actually discuss the trophies at any length. In fact, in the Arizona-ASU (which I've since largely rewritten) trophy has only been used since 2000 after being used once and forgotten about in 1899. The descriptive names are also much more recognizable and natural for readers. I'd be happy to discuss the merits of the moves individually, but I think a mass move isn't a good idea.--Cúchullain t/c 22:00, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Good to hear that we're both human and have made mistakes today! :) And yes, unfortunately these should be discussed on a one-on-one basis, but the default title should be the one that has existed under a long-standing consensus--the "exciting one", as I'm going to call it smile AL moved many of these, edit-warring with me over Apple Cup, and it's apparent that we need a move request for each of them... a move request FROM the original, long-standing title to the new, long-form title. Obviously one is more recognizable and one is almost invariably more concise, and so the criteria in question is naturalness to tiebreak. That should be up to editors at each individual page. Let's revert all these moves at once and then discuss any that should be moved. (I've removed the AU-LSU rivalry from the list.) Red Slash 22:12, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Need help understanding what the rationale is for all these moves to {school-other school} rivalry. As stated above, AL2896 has added some good content, but has created confusion in the wake of the edits, and left a lot of cleanup for other editors. The moves of the names of the trophies to a generic name for the rivalry seems to be backwards. My recommendation is to restore the trophy names or rivalry nicknames. A redirect page of the generic name could then point to the more well known name. Example: Michigan-Minnesota football rivalry would redirect to Little Brown Jug trophy page. The UCLA-USC football rivalry could redirect to either UCLA-USC rivalry, which encompasses all sports, or Victory Bell (UCLA-USC) which is the trophy for the football rivalry. Group29 (talk) 21:21, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Group29, discussions of two of the above articles can be found here and here, and I've linked to others along these lines here:[8][9][10][11][12][13][14] As I said, in those cases, it turned out descriptive names were much more common in the sources than the trophy/nick names. In some cases, the nickname was well established but not the most common way of referring to the subject, and in some the nickname was pretty obscure. In addition to being more in line with the common names, in those cases, an additional rationale for descriptive names is that they make it immediately clear what the article is about - "recognizability" and "naturalness" are the first two of the article title criteria. Again, I'm sure there are exceptions, but that's best handled on a case-to-case basis.--Cúchullain t/c 22:00, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Let me go down one-by-one on these proposed moves:

Well I gather from comments above that some, though not most, were discussed. For those that weren't discussed, then certainly if there is no consensus for the new title, the article should be moved back, per the principle of reverting to the stable version in a no consensus situation. Neljack (talk) 03:32, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well, now several have been moved back to their previous location by UW Dawgs before they realized this discussion was happening. I don't fault them for doing that, but it does complicate the matter somewhat. Regardless of who moved them initially, at this stage enough time has passed that the old names shouldn't be considered the default "stable versions," nor are they out of line with the emerging trends. My recommendation would be to end this group RM with all articles staying where they are now, and starting individual RMs on any articles where it's felt necessary.--Cúchullain t/c 04:11, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed this is a classic case of the recognizability criterion being interpreted as relevant only for those already familiar with the subject. It used to not be that way. Dicklyon (talk) 00:43, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Arkansas–LSU football rivalry. 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) 01:11, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Arkansas–LSU_football_rivalry&oldid=1251618982"