Talk:Civil War (college football game)
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
Civil War (college football game) is part of WikiProject College football, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to college football on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. |
|
| Stub | This article has been rated as stub-Class on the quality scale. | |
|
Assessment Comments
|
||
 |
This page is part of WikiProject Oregon, a WikiProject dedicated to articles related to the U.S. state of Oregon. To participate: join (or just read up) at the project page, or contribute to the project discussion. |
|
| PSU stuff & Applegate Trail are the current Collaborations of the week. | ||
| Start | This page is rated as Start-Class on the quality scale. | |
| High | This article is rated as High-importance on the importance scale. | |
Contents |
[edit] 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
[edit] 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)
-
[edit] 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)
[edit] 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)
