This article is within the scope of WikiProject College football, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of college football on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.College footballWikipedia:WikiProject College footballTemplate:WikiProject College footballcollege football articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Chicago, which aims to improve all articles or pages related to Chicago or the Chicago metropolitan area.ChicagoWikipedia:WikiProject ChicagoTemplate:WikiProject ChicagoChicago articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Illinois, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Illinois on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.IllinoisWikipedia:WikiProject IllinoisTemplate:WikiProject IllinoisWikiProject Illinois articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Michigan, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of Michigan on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.MichiganWikipedia:WikiProject MichiganTemplate:WikiProject MichiganMichigan articles
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 discussion.
Michigan–Northwestern football rivalry → George Jewett Trophy – Since the AfD ended in a keep (which IMO was a very poor close, as there's clearly no consensus for a page with this title to exist), but there was general consensus that the trophy might be notable, I've decided to open up a move discussion to make this page reflect the trophy as opposed to a fictitious "rivalry" currently unsupported by sources. I would support such a move. SportingFlyerT·C16:23, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Conditional non-opposition. I understand the request and acknowledge that most college football fans today do not think of Michigan and Northwestern as football "rivals". However, an exclusive focus on the trophy would be too narrow.
First, and as outlined in the article, the football history between Michigan and Northwestern includes many historic and notable games.
Second, there are sources referring to it in earlier times as a rivalry. For example, the 1936 Associated Press piece currently cited in the article notes: "Michigan, which three times has tied Northwestern for the Western conference title, holds an edge of seven victories to four for the Wildcats in a rivalry which dates back to 1892."
Third, the long history of competition between the Wildcats and Wolverines is the core foundation upon which the trophy has now been established. Any article on the trophy should appropriately include a review of that foundational history.
In the end, I end up as a conditional non-opposition to proposed move/renaming subject to two caveats: (i) a redirect is established from the old title, and (b) the move is not used as a pretext to excise the important historical and foundational elements, including the results table. Cbl62 (talk) 17:10, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The prior AfD was closed as "Keep". Accordingly, and pursuant to WP:RENOM, it should not be renominated "for at least six months, unless there is something new to say, and even so, usually wait a few months." Cbl62 (talk) 19:13, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
UW Dawgs, We can quibble about "generally" (I don't feel that Cbl62 has unfairly quoted this essay), and I also share the concerns about the quick renomination. Cbl has stated in the AfD that they plan to improve the article, a quick nomination in this case does seem mildly combative and unfair to others who might improve the article. Etzedek24(I'll talk at ya) (Check my track record)21:30, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Etzedek24: I didn't think this would be a controversial move, because I think this would be the clear compromise result from the AfD which didn't ultimately require deletion. I'm clearly wrong based on the responses so far. The AfD probably shouldn't have been a keep but rather a no consensus, but I thought this would be the best way forward – acknowledging there's absolutely nobody who thinks there's a rivalry between Michigan and Northwestern and the title is WP:UNDUE, while respecting the fact the two schools have created a trophy to compete for last month. If this doesn't achieve consensus, maybe DRV would be an option. SportingFlyerT·C19:59, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
So far, I count one vote to move (SportingFlyer), two conditional non-oppose votes (me and Etzedek), and one "relist"/non-oppose to bold move (UW Dawgs). I suggest letting it run a full week in case others wish to comment. If no further input is received, I agree the move would be in order, subject to the caveats noted, and I would be willing to help with cleanup to reflect the new title. Cbl62 (talk) 21:40, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose (Edit: Support per user Cbl62 below). Since a game trophy has been created that seems to make it an "official" recognized rivalry (although looking at the victory totals it seems to have been mostly one-sided). The Big 10 (Big 30 yet?) only has 16 official rival games recognized with trophies, per one of the page sources: "This becomes the Big Ten's 16th rivalry game trophy -- the third for Michigan (Little Brown Jug, Paul Bunyan Trophy) and second for Northwestern (Land of Lincoln Trophy)." Randy Kryn (talk) 21:44, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
As you correctly noted above, this was announced narrowly, specifically, and only as a new "rivalry game trophy" on Feb 25. Here are the schools' releases for reference (not offered as a primary citations) which make the identical characterization. At mgoblue.com there are 3 statements of "rivalry game trophy" and and nusports.com also makes 3 statements of "rivalry game trophy", both contain appropriate recognition of George Jewett, but neither references a new rivalry game. All of the focus was made on the man and the new trophy. So the current purported topic fails WP:SIGCOV (and WP:SYNTHESIS), while Category:College football rivalry trophies in the United States is the standard treatment for our articles about such GNG-sufficient game trophies. UW Dawgs (talk) 22:14, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I see your point, but the frequency of play here is far closer than that, with a proposed span of 6 years between games. The frequency of NW/UMICH, while it has slackened a bit, still appears to be once every three seasons. Etzedek24(I'll talk at ya) (Check my track record)22:52, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Frequency doesn't really matter for the WP:SYNTH issue, though. For instance, Michigan has played Illinois 21 more times than Northwestern and that's not considered a rivalry either. I guess if they created a trophy for it... SportingFlyerT·C00:17, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Within the 16 official rivalry games/trophies recognized by the Big Ten, as referenced by User:Randy Kryn, the Jewett Trophy is far more significant as a rivalry than some of the others. Compare, for example, the Minnesota–Penn State football rivalry (Governor's Victory Bell). When one looks at the typical indicia of a rivalry, you see that UM/NW is far higher on the scale than MN/PSU: trophy (both have trophies), frequency of play (75 games played vs. 15 games played), long history (began in 1892 vs. 1993), marquee matchups between two ranked teams (ten marquis match-up vs. one), and geographic proximity (259 miles vs. 974 miles). Cbl62 (talk) 00:24, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The "indicia of a rivalry" is whether two teams mutually consider themselves to be rivals, not statistics about meetings or distance. There's no evidence that's the case here. SportingFlyerT·C00:27, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
In assessing the bona fides of college football rivalry articles, these are indicia that we have typically looked at in assessing claims of "rivalry" status. Cbl62 (talk) 00:32, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not arguing against Chicago-Michigan, but I'm surprised that you would use those indicia as opposed to looking at reliable sources. As an experiment, I typed in "Michigan Ohio State Rivalry" and "Collingwood Carlton Rivalry" into a search engine, and then followed it up with "Michigan Northwestern Rivalry." The first two as expected had heaps of coverage. The latter had only regurgitations of the press release about the trophy, including [1]Michigan and Northwestern are not rivals in a true sense. If you search and exclude the trophy name, you get very little - a fan site ranked Michigan tied for fifth for the biggest Northwestern rivals, which doesn't mean much. This is why I'm concerned about WP:SYNTH and why I think this is better titled under the name of the trophy. SportingFlyerT·C00:55, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
(As an aside, the Minnesota–Penn State article is very badly sourced, and I wouldn't mind re-titling it to the name of the trophy either.) SportingFlyerT·C00:28, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support move. Arguments can be made both ways as to whether this is a "rivalry", and there is some third-party support for the contention that it's a rivalry. The reality is, however, that it does not rank among Michigan's top five rivalries of the past 50 years: OSU, MSU, ND, Minnesota, and Penn State rank as more significant rivalries, and we don't even yet have an article about the UM-PSU rivalry. In the end, I think the best way to deal with this topic is under the title of the trophy. I do, however, continue to believe strongly that there needs to be room in the retitled article to deal with the long history of the series which is the foundation upon which the trophy is based. Cbl62 (talk) 01:22, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
