Talk:Oregon–Oregon State football rivalry

Oldest?

Isn't the Big Game between Cal and Stanford the oldest rivalry game on the West Coast? [[1]] This Pac-10 release shows that the Big Game is older and the Civil War is most contested. Peter J. Mello, Jr. 01:15, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

After checking I found that the first game between Cal and Stanford was played before the first civil war game but the civil war game has been played more times.Jerry Erkenbeck,11-24-06

scores

I made the "scores" section two columns for better readability. I'd like to make it into a table in the future, perhaps in 3 columns; notes could be separated out as footnotes. One question - it seems that the home field is not reflected in this chart. Is that so? It would be nice to have that info in there somehow. -Pete 23:48, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes, making all those changes is a good idea. VegaDark 04:03, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Standard sports etiquette says list the home team second, but in this case I think it would be easier to just bold the home team and make a note of that fact on the top. I would also suggest maybe several tables with headers between so people could use the TOC to skip to the era they want, maybe: Start to 1919, 1920 to 1949, 1950 to 1979, 1980 to current. Or something like that, though I think every decade would be a little too much. I think it would also make it easier to edit with sections. Aboutmovies 04:39, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Well done, AM! This will make it much more readable. If I might suggest: two pieces of info that you're keeping track of for each game are:home team, and victor. Of the two, "victor" seems the more important. I'd suggest using color coding to shade the boxes and indicate the victor, so that the reader doesn't have to read the actual scores for each game to figure it out. Also, using the "etiquette" you suggest seems best - list home team second. Short of that, bolding or italics could work. But I think home-team-second is best, because it's what sports fans are used to - they don't have to learn a new system just to understand this page. Finally, some of the year cutoffs seem pretty arbitrary - why 1968? Why 1992? And if games were suspended for WWII, there should be a note to that effect. -Pete 21:53, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

PS- The logical colors for "color coding" would be green and orange...but boy, would that look hideous. Any other suggestions? -Pete 21:55, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Once the scores are moved, then I'll see about making home team second, and maybe bold the winner so it stands out. For now it's enough work just moving the scores into the table and adding the notes. But anyone can Just Do It. I think color coding might be too much work plus the visual issue. The years are that way only because I went with a table that was 8X3, so 24 year blocks. So no hidden meaning. When I get to the WWII years I'll add them in with notes. Should I make the table be one more column? Aboutmovies 22:54, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Pete, looks good. Now you can do the other table too :).Aboutmovies 03:09, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Nikeized logo.jpg

Image:Nikeized logo.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 Wikipedia articles 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 insure 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 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 uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 16:15, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Scores Round II

As I've been putting these into the tables, should we make it "ducks" and "beavers" instead of Oregon and Oregon AC/OSC/OSU/OS? That would make it consistant throughout, and the footnotes would clarify the changing name of OSU. Thoughts? Aboutmovies 17:24, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't agree. Just saying 'Ducks' and 'Beavers' instead of 'Oregon' and 'OSU' wouldn't be consistent with the other sports articles, which all use 'Oregon' when referring to the Oregon Ducks, and 'OSU' when talking about the Beavers. I believe it should remain the way it is now. FreakyMutantMan (talk) 06:40, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Another point to consider here: the University of Oregon's athletics teams haven't always been known as the "Ducks". For a time, they were known as the "Webfoots" and, for another period of time, they were known as the "Tall Firs", as the 1939 national championship basketball team was known. It is, therefore, just as problematic to use "Ducks" and "Beavers" as using "Oregon" and "Oregon State". 2601:1C0:5201:BEA0:D4BF:BFA4:257A:8DA9 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 23:01, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

Valuable article for references

The Oregonian had a game-by-game recap of the entire Civil War, available here. Would be considered a solid reference if used. --Bobak (talk) 19:59, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Game results table

Anon 98.246.165.151 changed the game results table from a stable format to a format very similar to one that was abandoned a couple of years ago. Can we get some discussion on what format works best? I find the new format hard to read and it is missing a lot of the detailed footnotes that made the previous format useful. It might be good to use the format that shows more color, similar to the one used in the Big Game and Apple Cup articles. Ideally all the Pac-12 rivalry games should adopt the same format. --Esprqii (talk) 22:02, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

• Prefer decade format. Full disclosure: I'm the one who originated that format in this article and in Apple Cup; it has been improved a lot since then. Having said that, I am not opposed to changing back to a one-year-per-row format, particularly if any useful sorting would be possible. But if we revert back to the decade format, we should definitely change to the color-by-cell as that is definitely better. YBG (talk) 05:40, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
• Link to related discussion with analysis: Talk:Big Game (American_football)#Results_table. --Esprqii (talk) 18:36, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
• Thanks for pointing that out to me. It was nice to know that my work had been noticed. To me, compactness is the biggest point in favor of the decade format, although the recent addition of attendance to the Apple Cup means that the decade format isn't quite as compact as it was before. I began my edits because I was thought it was pretty hard to comprehent a list of 100+ items when you had to scroll several times to get from the top to the bottom. But I'm not opposed to change if there is a consensus. But it would be nice to hear from more than just a few readers. YBG (talk) 06:34, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Agree that compactness really is the nicest thing about the grid format. The table format wastes a lot of space with columns for year and location. With very few exceptions, the location is obvious and can be handled with footnotes for oddball locales. The year is also a waste because, again with exceptions that can be handled with footnotes, it is once a year. I suppose sorting would be a nice feature for a true table format; some useful sorts might be sorting by winning school to see their victories in a bloc, or sorting by winning or losing score. Pretty narrow usefulness though, but you never know. --Esprqii (talk) 18:09, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

• For those of you who clicked on Esprqii's link, you would see that I favor a color-heavy format. The table currently on the page and the grids at Big Game and Apple Cup both do that. If we revert to the grid, it should be with the type of coloring used at Big Game and Apple Cup. I slightly prefer the table (I think it's more readable), but I am not opposed to the compact grid, provided that the coloring is implemented. OCNative (talk) 06:48, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

• SEC rivalry games used the table format (see Alabama–LSU football rivalry, Georgia–South Carolina football rivalry, and others). This grid format doesn't look aesthetically pleasing. 24.20.141.43 (talk) 23:31, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Bumping. My main objections to the single-column table is that it is going to be very long, have tons of redundant info taking up space in the columns (90% of the time it's played at Eugene or Corvallis), and it also uses a column which will always be one value or another. The color coding should be plenty to give the information. Just seems like a compact grid shows the information at a glance a lot faster. --Esprqii (talk) 15:12, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

• I agree with OCNative. I am in favor of tables, compact or not, with a color coding system. I like the SEC format (see Alabama–LSU football rivalry, Georgia–South Carolina football rivalry, and others). The main reason that I went ahead with the change yesterday was because the other Oregon rivalry page, Oregon-Washington football rivalry is already a color coded table broken into columns and I was trying to achieve some continuity on Oregon football related pages.Athies22 (talk)

• Since using this article as a reference guide the past few weeks I have grown to favor this layout as opposed to the table format. I plan on switching the Oregon-Washington page to match in the interest in uniformity.Athies22 (talk) 12:50, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Oregon State Beavers logo.png

The image Image:Oregon State Beavers logo.png is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

• That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
• That this article is linked to from the image description page. DavidSSabb (talk) 01:28, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

7th oldest rivalry game?

The lead says that the Civil War is "the seventh-oldest college football rivalry game in the United States." The article, List of NCAA college football rivalry games, lists about twenty games that started earlier, and ten games that started the same year, 1894. Am I missing something? Grayfell (talk) 02:30, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

Yes, that sentence probably meant to refer to the list of Most played rivalries in NCAA Division I FBS (lots of games started earlier but didn't continue). It's a little hard to compare the games on the list since some have already been played and some haven't, but it looks to me that it will be tied for seventh on that list at the end of the season. I'll edit the lead. Good catch. --Esprqii (talk) 04:57, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

2024?

Contrary to columnist John Canzano, Boise State and Oregon are still officially scheduled to meet on September 14, 2024. Please wait until either Oregon team confirms for next year.   –Skywatcher68 (talk) 19:39, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

In fact, StubHub is already selling tickets to that game between Boise State & Oregon (event #152573548).   –Skywatcher68 (talk) 21:50, 8 December 2023 (UTC)