Talk:Carolina-Duke rivalry/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Archive 1
| Archive 2 →


Contents

Page name

I noticed that this page has now been switched around from Duke-UNC rivalry to UNC-Duke rivalry. I don't really care which way it is set up, but I thought Duke-UNC rivalry made more sense since it was stated in the alphabetical order of the schools. Being a UNC alumni and fan I like the idea of UNC coming first, but I just want to make sure that people don't constantly switch this around. Remember 21:57, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Roy Williams Record V. Duke while at UNC

The previous record was listed as 5-6. This is incorrect. It is now corrected as 4-4. If there is any dispute about this, simply check the facts listed on this very page. Doherty coached the games that occurred in 2003 (click the links for the game on this page if you need to confirm this). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.128.164.169 (talk) 00:13, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Coach K - Coach of the Year?

Is that stat accurate? Dubc0724 15:29, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

After reviewing, it looks like whoever edited that part took any "National Coach of the Year" award listed in the NCAA record books and put it here. The AP Coach of the Year is the award that carries the most weight, and should be the one used. Neither Dean Smith nor Coach K has ever won the AP Coach of the Year. Dubc0724 15:29, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
I was the one who listed the honors for coaches. I didn't mean it to seem confusing. I was unsure of which national coach of the year was considered to be the most prestigious so I simply listed the year that they won a national honor for coaching. Feel free to clarify it. Remember 19:08, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Game Capsules

We should highlight the most famous contests, giving brief capsules from the game and special moments. Perhaps even a few pictures would help.Squadoosh 00:51, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree. I've added the expand tab and a notable games section. Remember 19:16, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Wording/format

A lot of the wording and format in this article is somewhat amateurish, we should fix it up quite a bit.Squadoosh 00:51, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree and I'll try to do that. But I also wrote a lot of the copy so maybe I'm not the best person to fix it up. Remember 15:01, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Complete Series

When I have time, I'd like to expand the "Scores" section to have a table listing the entire Carolina/duke series. We should be able to use the existing table as a template and expand it. Thanks Dubc0724 14:35, 28 August 2006 (UTC).

I agree. I have been meaning to do this for awhile but I haven't been able to get around to it. I also thought that maybe we should make the score table collapsable (but I don't yet know how to do this but I have seen other tables that have this property) because it will probably take up a lot of room and many people won't care to see all of the scores from all of the games. Remember 17:12, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
Good idea. I didn't know that was possible. I'll try to learn a bit more before I start anything. Thanks Dubc0724 17:27, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
How does this look? Remember 01:28, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
looking good. sorry I haven't helped; been arguing with our friend Duke :-) Dubc0724 02:14, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
When you get a chance could you try to figure out how to put hypertext in a different color besides blue. All the dates on the chart for the Duke wins don't show up well because it is blue on blue. Remember 13:33, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
Instead of highlighting the whole thing in the winning team's color (Carolina v Royal blue) could we just bold the name & score of the winning team? Just a thought, I agree with you about the date being hard to read, but I don't think we can change the link color. Dubc0724 18:21, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
That's probably a good idea. I liked the easy presentation of the different colors but it doesn't work very well in this instance. Feel free to change it or I'll change it when i get around to it. Remember 19:37, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
I agree - the bold won't look as sharp as the color scheme, but it should be easier to read the dates. I may have some time tonight to start changing part of it over. Dubc0724 19:41, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

University of New Jersey at Durham redirect

The redirect from University of New Jersey at Durham should actually point to Duke University rather than this article. "Bronx Bombers" redirects to New York Yankees and even "Carowhina" redirects to University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. So, if anyone knows how to change a redirect - your assistance would be appreciated. Thanks Dubc0724 13:53, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Done. I don't really care about this one way or the other, but if anyone feels strongly agains this change, let me know. Remember 18:04, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
Thanks - it makes more sense that way, and is consistent with other sports nickname redirects... Dubc0724 18:16, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
UNJ-D should just go away entirely, as should Carowhina (which did). As a matter of fact, the "nicknames" part of this article should go away entirely, since it adds nothing but disparagement to both sides rather than helping illuminate a great rivalry. Thoughts? DukeEGR93 23:39, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
If one nickname is going to be in the article then both will be in the article. TY. Duke53 | Talk 23:51, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
Well, sure, which is why I propose that none remain. DukeEGR93 23:55, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
Good Luck with that! Duke53 | Talk 00:03, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
The inclusion of the nicknames is a light-hearted illustration of the intensity of the rivalry, from both sides. We shouldn't ignore them just because a couple of people don't like 'em. As an aside, evidently the Carowhina and UNJD redirects have both been deleted, which is fair enough I guess. Dubc0724 12:36, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
Request sent to WP:MEDCAB for mediation regarding propriety of disparaging nicknames on an encyclopedia. DukeEGR93 14:01, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
Why is this such a big deal, seriously? What ever happened to a good light-hearted college rivalry? And a sense of humor? Dubc0724 14:03, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
These names can and do cause real contempt and sometimes injury, and to my mind, are not valid points for an encyclopedia for those (among other) reasons. Why are they so important to you? What is encyclopedic about them? And if they are encyclopedic, will you plan on creating links to and pages for the names used on both sides of the rivalry, since that would be the only NPOV way to do it? DukeEGR93 22:05, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
Regarding NPOV: I'd be more than happy to include nicknames from both sides. That's been my position from the start, and I even added the anti-UNC nicknames to the UNC-Duke Rivalry article in order to maintain balance.
If someone can write and source an article on the significance of "Carowhina", I don't have a problem with it. The problem might be that "Dook" (and to a lesser extent "University of New Jersey at Durham") are more prevalent than "Carowhina", "Tar Holes" or whatever other anti-UNC nicknames there are. For what it's worth, UNJD was deemed not notable enough for a stand-alone article, so I imagine the same would happen to Carowhina, but I could certainly be wrong. Dubc0724 12:23, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
UNJD fails your "Google" test on that (being more prevalent). I think given both UNJD and Carowhina were both speedy deleted the last time they were brought up, that should at least be an indication of the mainspace article relevance. The current redirect at Dook that you chose to reapply despite mediation proceedings starting is a mainspace redirect and thus my opinion based on precedent is that it should go too, but I won't 3R. Having a list on this page is decidedly the least objectionable, so long as those do not become links to mean-spireted, POV, attack pages as they did before. DukeEGR93 13:47, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
"Having a list on this page is decidedly the least objectionable, so long as those do not become links to mean-spireted, POV, attack pages as they did before." I disagree with your characterization of it as being mean-spirted, POV, or an attack. It's documenting something that is real and that has been significant. A couple of editors want to deny that it exists, but somehow that is not them pushing their POV?
Because I seem to be the only person standing in the way, I will simply delete every mention of any of any UNC or Duke nickname. This whole silly proceeding has gotten completely out of hand, and I'm tired of arguing. Dubc0724 14:20, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Coaches

In the coaches section we have a photo of Dean Smith and a photo of Mike K. Should we not replace Smith's photo with Roy Williams to let the reader see the current coaches. I understand Dean's importance at Carolina, but the absence of a Roy Williams photo strikes me as odd. Thoughts? Dubc0724 16:18, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

I am fine with that. I added the two pictures because I thought they were the best known coaches, but adding the two current coaches makes more sense. There is only one problem. There is no Roy Williams picture in the public domain (that I could find). If you can find one, please add it (and add it to the Roy Williams (coach) page too). Remember 16:24, 31 October 2006 (UTC)