Jump to content

Talk:UConn Huskies

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected from Talk:Connecticut Huskies)

Fair use rationale for Image:UConn logo.jpg

[edit]
Resolved
 – —Elipongo (Talk contribs) 04:54, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:UConn 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 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 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 04:38, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Splitting off Men's Basketball

[edit]

Fuzzy510 (talk · contribs) posted the split template, but did not start a debate, so I'm starting it off.

  • Against - but not very strongly so. I don't really think there's enough material to be an independent article there.—Elipongo (Talk contribs) 21:57, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Against - also not very strongly. I feel that there should be a separate entry for UConn Men's Basketball in general, but in its current state the article isn't ready for the change. I think the article needs to be fleshed out a little more. I'll fill in some information, but I'm surprised there's so little there now. Toasterb 19:39, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strongly for: it's precedent for schools with major college basketball programs to have a page just for basketball. In the Big East alone, Syracuse, Pitt, WVU, Louisville, and Georgetown all have their own basketball pages. UConn's program is probably on a level with these schools. Oren0 (talk) 06:49, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strongly for: Connecticut has been a leader of Big East Basketball. Frankly, I'm disappointed that a program with such a history DOES NOT have their own article. It should be broken off, and expanded, ASAP.
  • Strongly for: I cannot believe UCONN's basketball team does not have it's own article with more information considering it's history. While there is not enough info in it's present state, splitting it off would lead to more data being integrated. --otduff t/c 09:11, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strongly for: After having edited Division I men's basketball articles, I am greatly surprised that Connecticut men's basketball does not yet have its own article. The Huskies have achieved enough, and have enough history, to have its own basketball article as a reward. Not having one puts the Huskies to shame as compared to West Virginia, Louisville, Syracuse, or even Florida Atlantic. FAU, for example, has appeared in the NCAA Tourney once, and lost in the first round, in 2002. If FAU, with only one postseason appearance, get its own men's basketball article, then Connecticut should rightly have its own at this time. --Thedarcinator t/c 21:01, 31 March 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.26.163.244 (talk) [reply]
  • Strongly for Connecticut has a substantial record of success since Jim Calhoun was hired in 1986. Multiple NCAA Championships, Big East Conference Championships as well as having 14 current NBA players is more then enough for a separate article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cjc000 (talk • contribs) 16:41, 15 July 2008 (UTC) [reply]

Men's Football

[edit]

Shouldn't this also be split off? There seem to be several articles on individual seasons (and none of them are linked here) so it seems that it would make sense to have a main article to disambiguate and cover the team more fully. ChildofMidnight (talk) 02:41, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nevermind. I see there is an independent article. The way this article is organized isn't helpful for readers. There are short sections. And then larger sections on the same sports elsewhere. It should be organized better. Many readers may not notice that there is more information in the article than just in the first section or may miss the first section and not see the link to the main article. ChildofMidnight (talk) 06:15, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Players / Former Players

[edit]

I took the liberty of correcting the capitalization on the "players" headings under various sports to make it "Players". However, shouldn't this be "Former Players" or "Alumni"? If nobody objects within three days I will make the changes myself. Smartyllama (talk) 18:31, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Solution for simplifying updates and reducing duplicate content

[edit]

I went to update the notable game section Connecticut Huskies#Notable games and realized that an almost identical section, except more up to date, existed at Connecticut Huskies men's basketball#Notable games. It made me realize that every article on this article should link as much as possible to the specific sports team's page, to eliminate version creep and simplify editing. I deleted the notable games on this article and linked to the notable games section on the men's team page. I'm now going to make sure I didn't miss any games listed on the main school page that hadn't been added to the men's team page. Thoughts? Timtempleton (talk) 17:10, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Overall, this article has WAY too much information in it, especially for the teams that have their own articles. For those teams that have stand-alone articles, the respective section here should be a few summary paragraphs. In turn, the athletics section on the University of Connecticut article should also have a few summary paragraphs about athletics and some of the most successful teams. No need to have extensive lists or detailed information. For instance, the women's basketball section has all the related templates in the section. None of those belong here since there is an entire article for the team. Wikipedia articles don't need to have every statistic or detail about the topic (see WP:FANCRUFT). --JonRidinger (talk) 03:34, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 9 external links on Connecticut Huskies. 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) 18:26, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Connecticut Huskies. 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) 22:09, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 29 March 2019

[edit]
The following is a closed 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 after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Moved as proposed.(non-admin closure) Red Slash 01:19, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Connecticut Huskies → UConn Huskies – The consensus of the requested move at UConn–UMass football rivalry → Connecticut–UMass football rivalry was that the naming convention for the Connecticut Huskies should probably be changed to UConn. The most convincing piece of evidence I saw was this press release from 2013 in which the university officially re-branded to UConn. Their athletics website is also called UConnHuskies.com, they use UConn instead of Connecticut branding pretty much exclusively in sports, and ESPN uses UConn in their standings tables. However, CBSSports.com, Yahoo, and FoxSports.com all use Connecticut. A google search of UConn Huskies returns 9.6 million results, whereas Connecticut Huskies returns 6.4 million. Also of note, "UConn" is found 77 times in this very article, compared to 41 cases of "Connecticut". See WP:Common name.

This requested move should also be understood to cover changing the naming convention itself on Wikipedia; if approved, all Connecticut Huskies athletics articles, and season articles since 2013–14, will be changed to UConn as well Ostealthy (talk) 13:20, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Question – If this were to change to UConn, would the standard defaultsort be considered a "C" (Connecticut) or a "U" (UConn)? 72.82.244.212 (talk) 16:16, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The similar case of UMass Minutemen and Minutewomen seems to have inconsistent treatment of this. That article is sorted on "Mass", but I don't really see any other places where this is the case. I would be in favor of sorting on "UConn", because that's what makes intuitive sense to me. If I were looking for UConn in an alphabetical list, I would go to "U" first, not "C". Ostealthy (talk) 16:51, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support UConn is clearly the common name, and, at least since 2013-14, the official designation as well. It is very much like Penn or UCLA in that regard and note Penn Quakers and UCLA Bruins. Support changing all articles from that point on. Smartyllama (talk) 18:18, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. UConn is the common name, and that should control per WP:COMMONNAME. A search of newspapers.com for the past four years (March 2015 through March 2019) pulls 145,000 hits for "UConn". Looking at particular sports/variants, there are 2,317 hits for "UConn football" (345 for "Connecticut football"), 3,964 for "UConn basketball" (1,038 for "Connecticut basketball"), 2,610 for "UConn women's basketball" (823 for "Connecticut women's basketball"), 1,128 for "UConn hockey" (88 for "Connecticut hockey"), 1,574 for "UConn athletics" (256 for "Connecticut athletics"). Also, the treatment of the school name by authoritative sources like ESPN.com (including in standings templates) has evolved toward "UConn". See here and here. Cbl62 (talk) 18:53, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I am not fully convinced either way, however I strongly oppose changing all articles for season articles of the past. There needs to be research into which years "UConn" was used, because the school was not always called UConn as a nickname and branding has not been consistent across all sports in the past as either "UConn" or "Connecticut". I would agree on starting in 2013-14. I will also point out that women's basketball is commonly still referred to as "Connecticut" by many in the media. Finally, for the record, this does differ from how we handle article naming using the official school name vs branding for almost every other school except the few listed above (See UofL, UNH, URI, UVM, Mizzou, etc.) - There seems to be no consistency across wikipedia in this topic. Mjs32193 (talk) 19:49, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The consistency flows from WP:COMMONNAME. In some cases, the usage of a "brand" name (often an acronym or short form) becomes so common that Wikipedia policy dictates that we use it in article naming. Such cases include UMass, UCLA, BYU, TCU, LSU, USC, UCF, Georgia Tech, Virginia Tech, VMI, RPI, SMU, etc. Each case must be assessed in its own right to determine which usage is most common. Unlike UConn, I do not believe that "UofL" "UNH", or "URI" would pass the COMMONNAME test. Cbl62 (talk) 20:35, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
As for "Mizzou", a Google search turns up 6.3 million hits for "Missouri Tigers" and only 250,000 hits for "Mizzou Tigers". This shows that we actually do a pretty good (and consistent) job in applying the COMMONNAME test. UConn is one of those unusual cases where the common usage has changed in recent years. Cbl62 (talk) 20:47, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You say that the media tends to prefer Connecticut over UConn for women's basketball, but Cbl62 pointed out right above you that a search of newspapers.com yields 2,610 articles for "UConn women's basketball" and 823 for "Connecticut women's basketball". Ostealthy (talk) 22:11, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Newspapers are not the only form of media. Mjs32193 (talk) 21:00, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support name change to UConn per nom and Cbl62. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 21:14, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support move per what I've said before. ONR (talk) 02:46, 30 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. This is common sense, given it's the way the University is mostly known, esp in the media. Markvs88 (talk) 11:59, 30 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. I'm sure this is going to get dismissed as some sort of IDONTLIKEIT vote, but I've come to think we should avoid using nicknames or acronyms in our naming conventions completely, except in cases where using the full name would be clearly wrong (i.e. obviously we shouldn't be using "California–Los Angeles" instead of "UCLA"). I'm just not comfortable with Wikipedia being used as a tool by school marketing departments to push & advance their various branding initiatives, which tend to change over time anyways every time the school hires a new AD. I realize that the could be seen to fly in the face of WP:COMMONNAME, and the only real policy I can cite is WP:NOTADVERTISING, but that's where I'm at with this. Rather then trying to make this move, I think we should be trying to move "UMass" back to "Massachusetts," but that's just my opinion. Ejgreen77 (talk) 13:01, 30 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. “UConn” does appear to be more popular now, but “Connecticut” is far from deprecated. [1] [2] [3] [4]. Connecticut was by far the common name through at least 2016.[5] [6] [7] [8] [9] I also find some of the arguments made in favor of the move wholly unpersuasive. For one, we don’t use official names, which means the press release referenced by the OP should be ignored. The use of UConn vs Connecticut in the article itself is also irrelevant, because Wikipedia is not a reliable source. The search engine results do hold some value, I admit, but even those numbers are split pretty close. Calidum 17:59, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Calidum: I would argue that per WP:COMMONNAME, the bar to clear is not whether Connecticut is "deprecated", but whether UConn is the more recognizable name right now. The Google and newspapers.com results mentioned above are strong evidence that this is the case. Just as I could probably find articles that refer to BYU as Brigham Young or UCF as Central Florida, you can find articles that refer to UConn as Connecticut, but these do not change the fact that overall the more recognized names are the short versions. Ostealthy (talk) 18:09, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. I was in between on this, but seeing the school website saying UCONN - University of Connecticuit swayed my thoughts. Brian (talk) 16:50, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. As a relatively recent UConn alum, I can provide a little bit of first-hand knowledge. After the 2012-13 season, the school underwent significant rebranding through Nike, including a refresh of the Husky logo. Part of that change also included relegating "Connecticut" to a secondary designation for the university. Previously, the athletic teams would alternate wearing jerseys that said "UConn" and "Connecticut" on the front. That ended after 2012-13. It is now exclusively "UConn" on the uniforms and all other sanctioned university branding. I would encourage anyone looking for further detail to read through brand.uconn.edu. Specifically, you can refer to the page "Trademark Licensing and Branding" under "The Brand" to find this document, which explicitly states "Connecticut" is now secondary branding (instead of co-equal branding as it was prior to the 2013-14 academic year). Kyle (talk) 02:14, 8 April 2019 (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.

University of Connecticut Official Brand Standards

[edit]

I’m unable to edit the official school colors as listed in the opening table. One can click the cited page or visit brand.uconn.edu to confirm that “National Flag Blue” is not the official brand color. It’s been about 5-6 years (to my knowledge) since that was what the school called it’s blue color. They then adopted a deeper shade in 2013. Dynen (talk) 04:23, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

UConn vs Connecticut historically

[edit]

Recently, 3 men's soccer pages dating from before 2013–14 were moved from YYYY Connecticut Huskies men's soccer team to YYYY UConn Huskies men's soccer team (1981, 2000, and 2011) which appears to be against the consensus above, which called for only moving recent pages. I suggest either moving them back and leaving redirects, or reopening the discussion to see if we believe pages from earlier than 2013–14 for all sports should be moved as well. Billcasey905 (talk) 18:41, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I think they should be moved back. Additionally with the schools rebranding back to Connecticut in all sports for select games, I would not be against having the discussion to move all pages back to Connecticut. I think the rationale to move them to UConn wasn't the strongest as all schools have nicknames and the vast majority of those nicknames are not used on wikipedia. Mjs32193 (talk) 20:27, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
For those with a view on this topic, I've opened a requested move on each of the three pages listed above. Billcasey905 (talk) 17:10, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:UConn_Huskies&oldid=1212958819"