Category talk:Connecticut Huskies

RfC on use of "Connecticut" versus "UConn" for University of Connecticut athletic teams
There has been recent discussion on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject College football over whether it is more appropriate to use "Connecticut" or "UConn" in the names of articles and categories related to University of Connecticut athletic teams. Currently, articles are generally named "Connecticut Huskies" and categories are labelled "UConn Huskies". In general the names of articles and categories should be in alignment.

The intent of this RfC is to gain consensus on whether to use "Connecticut" or "UConn" in the names of articles and categories about University of Connecticut athletic teams. –Grondemar 22:24, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

As Grondemar explains, there is an incongruity between the way the articles and categories regarding the Connecticut (UConn) Huskies are phrased. This can be remedied in one of two ways:


 * 1) Move article Connecticut Huskies and the like to UConn Huskies and the like
 * 2) Move category Category:UConn Huskies and the like to Category:Connecticut Huskies and the like

Let me summarize what's been discussed so far at WikiProject College football and elsewhere:


 * Both "Connecticut" and "UConn" are widely used in the titles and bodies of articles in the media
 * The school has logos with both names: ,
 * The football team's uniform had "Connecticut" on it until it was removed in 2009 and now had no name. The men's and women's basketball uniforms used to say "Connecticut", and then for a while the home uniforms said "UConn" while the road uniforms said "Connecticut".  Both home and road may say "UConn" now [need to confirm].
 * The school's main domain name is uconn.edu, but it should be noted that most state universities have a domain name that is an abbreviation of their name: Michigan State is msu.edu, Michigan is umich.edu, Penn State is psu.edu, Wisconsin is wisc.edu, Minnesota is umn.edu, Florida is ufl.edu, etc. Thus, the domain name element here doesn't seem to be very informative for the issue at hand.
 * The website for the Huskies is http://www.uconnhuskies.com/. The main banner grapic on the homepage says: "UConnHuskies.com The Official Website of Connecticut Athletics".
 * In its TV broadcasts, CBS uses UCONN in its gamescore graphics, but it should be noted they use abbreviations for virtually all teams such as SYR for Syracuse. See:
 * When major sports media outlets such as ESPN, Yahoo/Rivals, CBS Sports, Fox Sports/MSN, and Sports Illustrated/CNN make fundamental listings of the school in team homepages and standings, they all (at least those 5 biggies) always use "Connecticut". See:     In contrast, these same 5 outlets all use acronyms in their fundamental listings for LSU, UCLA, UNLV, USC, and TCU.  Those five acronyms are all reflected in current Wikipedia naming conventions.  There is a split in fundamental media outlet usage for Brigham Young/BYU and Southern Methodist/SMU.  Wikipedia convention goes with BYU and SMU.  All five outlets use Massachusetts, while Wikipedia convention is UMass.

I have argued that the last bullet above is the most salient and informative and suggests we go with "Connecticut Huskies", i.e. remedy this issue with option #2 above. Jweiss11 (talk) 23:27, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Both variants are in common usage and valid. I lean toward "UConn Huskies" based on the fact that the University itself refers to itself and its sports teams as "UConn" on their sports current uniforms, web sites,  and generally in its self-descriptions. I think the closest comparison is UMass Minutemen.  In my experience, I've generally heard the two programs referred to as UMass and UConn.  These variants have a further advantage in that they are somewhat more descriptive than the state name, i.e., the "U" prefix makes clear that the topic is the University of...  Jweiss has done a good job of summarizing the salient points, and he is right that the category and the article names should be consistently either "UConn Huskies" or "Connecticut Huskies."  The only clarification I'd make on Jweiss's summary is that the usage in the major media outlets is not as black-and-white as suggested.  These same outlets use both "UConn" and "Connecticut."  See, e.g., espn, Rivals Yahoo, Sports Illustrated, CBS Sports. Cbl62 (talk) 02:43, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Cbl62, the media usage is exactly as black and white as I've suggested. The first bullet above concedes that "Connecticut" and "UConn" are both widely used in the titles and bodies of articles.  But the last bullet conveys the unanimity among the surveyed major media outlets when they make core, fundamental listings of the Huskies on their websites.  They all use "Connecticut" in the skeletal structures of their websites, structures that are the closest analogs to article and category naming on Wikipedia. If we go with UConn, then 2009 Connecticut Huskies football team gets moved to 2009 UConn Huskies football team, which in turn suggests that UConn should be used in places like Template:2009 Big East football standings.  Why should we put UConn in our standings tables, when every major media outlet puts Connecticut in them? On top of the five media outlets I've described already, definitive, trusted, and widely cited sports databases such as College Football Data Warehouse  and Sports-Reference.com  also use "Connecticut".  So does the Big East Conference on it's website .  So does USA Today  and NBC Sports .  I'm at a loss to find a good example of "UConn" used in this way. Jweiss11 (talk) 06:30, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I disagree and somewhat resent your "I'm right, and you're dead wrong" attitude (both here and elsewhere). As I've said from the start, I don't feel strongly, and this is not a hugely important issue.  But in my opinion (which is not "dead wrong"), it depends on what you mean by "media usage."  If you look at newspaper stories, JohnnyPolo24 on the College Football Project page referenced a google news search that shows "UConn Huskies" is more common than "Connecticut Huskies" in describing the school's sports programs.  The best analogies IMO are UMass Minutemen, Ole Miss Rebels, BYU Cougars, and SMU Mustangs  In all four cases, espn and the others use the long name for purpose of standings, etc.  But in all four of those cases, the media coverage of events involving those schools more frequently uses the common nickname.  The universities in those cases also use the short forms in their uniforms, logos, etc.  AND in all four of those cases, Wikipedia has adopted the common nickname.  UConn is directly comparable to those four cases.  I really don't want to engage in a back-and-forth fight over this, so can we just leave it at that? It shouldn't be an ego-driven issue of who's right and who's wrong on these things. I will not comment further on this.  Cbl62 (talk) 16:25, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Cbl62, we disagree about what which pieces of the evidence are most important for building naming conventions. I've done a pretty good job of specifying what I mean by "media usage" in that I have differentiated between (1) gross usage in articles and new pieces and (2) constant, structural listings on media websites, the latter of which I have argued to be more instructive for the issue at hand.  I agree that UMass is the best analog to UConn among team naming conventions.  So what I'm arguing here for UConn suggests we move UMass to Massachusetts in like kind.  Of interest per UMass, may be the way the team is listed here: Template:2009–10 Atlantic 10 men's basketball standings.  Perhaps, this is the time to review all our college team naming conventions.


 * As for you resentment, it's a reaction to my style. I don't qualify my arguments with "I think" or "IMO" because anything I say that's not a fact is of course what I think or my opinion.  That's true for anyone.  Our disagreement on this issue may stem in large part from the different missions we've assigned ourselves here.  Yours seems to be building out topics that aren't covered well with comprehensive depth and diligent citation.  Mine is more focused on standardization, parallelism, and getting of the rid of the gunk on Wikipedia that compromises great work such as yours.  I respect your thoughts and your work and consider you an extremely valuable member of the Wikipedia community.  We play different positions, but it takes an array of different roles to build a good team.  Anyway, I agree that we've both said our peace on this subject for now and should refrain from further comment at least until a few others have chimed in. Jweiss11 (talk) 19:59, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Drive-by-comment: For: "Connecticut" My analogy is Manchester United football team. Their website is manutd; they are known throughout England as MANU; The abbreviation, MANU is seen in the media; but their official name is Manchester United. Their wiki page is Manchester United F.C. (Born, bred, and happy to be British) --Senra (talk) 15:51, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

For: "Connecticut" My analogy is the Pittsburgh Panthers. Most Pitt alumni and fans never say "Pittsburgh Panthers" but rather "Pitt Panthers", even despite the fact the athletic department tried to market itself as "Pittsburgh" from 1997-2003, but then gave up. Compared to "Connecticut", "Pittsburgh" is even worse for Pitt because the name "Pittsburgh", in a sports context, immediately conjures up the idea of the city's pro-sports teams (e.g. Steelers), often to the dismay of Panther fans. The vast majority of clothing, uniforms, and merchandise sold, especially in an athletic context, says "Pitt", and historically, so do the logos except for the above mentioned extremely controversial (for Pitt fans) seven years. Despite all of that, "Pittsburgh", like "Connecticut", is the more formal and thus more appropriate wording for a Wikipedia article title. Redirects to Connecticut Huskies from UConn Huskies should really solve any problem with people finding it (or having to type in the whole name of the state). Honestly, I think USC, Ole Miss, UMass, BYU, and SMU should all be changed to their formal names as well. They are bad examples. CrazyPaco (talk) 11:06, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

For: "UConn" or "University of Connecticut I've stated this in several places already, but here is the logic:
 * 1)The sports teams are a part of the University, not vice versa. Therefore should be universal naming in any category. Since UConn sports is a subset of UConn proper, they need to be the same.
 * 2) There are other Connecticut teams, such as the Connecticut Sun. Renaming to simply "Connecticut Huskies" may lead to confusion.
 * 3) Further confusion with the other Connecticut schools such as Western Connecticut State University.
 * 4) While both names (Connecticut and UConn) are used interchangably, UConn is by far the more utilized in merchandise, marketing, media, etc.
 * 5) Diminishing University of Connecticut to simply "Connecticut" doesn't work. The University of Connecticut page becomes the Connecticut page which simply makes no sense. As said by Crazypaco, we should maintain the formal names. Markvs88 (talk) 14:08, 11 July 2010 (UTC)


 * In response to Markvs88's post above:


 * 1) The category for the University of Connecticut is Category:University of Connecticut.  Are you suggesting that the category for the Huskies be Category:University of Connecticut Huskies?  Because that would go against the basic naming convention that has been put in place to name college sports teams, i.e. [Short Name] [Fight Name] and applied to every school.  We would have the change the naming for virtually every college sport teams, with a few exceptions like Boston College, where the short name is the same as the university's full name.
 * 2) The fact that there are other Connecticut teams should not be a concern.  The University of Connecticut is not the only state school that has professional sports teams using the state name.  In Arizona, we have the Arizona Wildcats and the Arizona Diamondbacks.  In Texas, there are the Texas Longhorns and also the Texas Rangers.  Just because two teams carry the same state or city name doesn't mean they are likely to be confused when their fight name is different.  After all, there are the New York Mets, the New York Yankees, the New York Rangers, the New York Jets, etc.
 * 3) In just about every state, if not all, there are multiple schools using the state name with some variation, be it directional or other.  In Michigan, in addition to the University of Michigan, there's Michigan State University, Western Michigan University, Eastern Michigan University, and Central Michigan University just in Division I.  I don't think the Michigan Wolverines are going to be mistaken for the teams at any of those other schools.
 * 4) While it's true that Connecticut and UConn are both widely used in the media, marketing, merchandising, etc, I'm not sure it's true that UConn is "by far the more utilized".  A Google search on "Uconn Huskies" yields 241,000 results, while a search on "Connecticut Huskies" yields 420,000 results.
 * 5) No one is suggesting a change to the naming of University of Connecticut or Category:University of Connecticut.  Those need to stay as they are.  The name change issue at hand concerns only Category:UConn Huskies, its subcategories, and the articles therein. Jweiss11 (talk) 05:49, 12 July 2010 (UTC)


 * In response to Jweiss11's post above:


 * 1. No, I am suggesting that UConn be kept since UConn redirects to University of Connecticut, *or* Category: University of Connecticut Huskies be the category for sports, which would be a sub of Category: University of Connecticut.
 * 2. Ball of confusion. I have no idea whom the Wildcats nor Longhorns are, and would assume they're part of the University system under your proposal. Heck, are the Dimondbacks the University's baseball team?
 * 3. Exactly. So why add to the confusion? I don't know spit about basketball, and when I hear "Wolverines" I think of Red Dawn. University of Michigan Wolverines would make a lot more sense and be much clearer. This is supposed to be a searchable encyclopedia, I would think that we would make things easier on people looking up information, not harder.
 * 4. Feel free to do a count...[], but just a quick glace tells me the UConn > Connecticut on the official merchandise. I'm pretty sure that University of Connecticut > Connecticut too.
 * 4b. Great. Now try "Connecticut Huskies" - University. 226,000 results.
 * 5. My point is to illustrate why it's not a good idea, as a counterpoint to all this sports shorthand. According to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(categories)#General_naming_conventions point 3: Avoid abbreviations, except where there are no conflicts. Thus I'm fine with keeping UConn. Point 5 is to choose category names that are able to stand alone. Connecticut Huskies fails here, as someone not in the know would not be able to look at it and know what it means vs Connecticut Sun et al. Best, Markvs88 (talk) 15:04, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I would agree with the reasoning for a change of all these article titles to a formal "University of XXX" or "XXX University", etc. I'm not sure it is necessary, or worth fighting a battle over, but I agree with the reasoning. I definitely think your point about Wikipedia naming conventions is valid, and this is why "USC", "SMU", etc, should not be used, as they are not unique abbreviations on their own. This may be "UConn"'s loophole. However, as someone that is slightly outside of the immediate periphery of UConn, but follows them regularly being in the same conference, I'd say "UConn" is used most frequently the closer you are to Storrs (both geographically and associatively), but decreases in use and recognition in proportion to one's distance. "UConn" is in fact a nickname, and is listed as such in the football media guide (page 30), so I certainly don't think it is formal and that is why I wouldn't use it in the title. In any case, it is certainly not ubiquitous like "Penn State" or "UCLA" are, whose shortened forms have transcended nickname status. CrazyPaco (talk) 19:21, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

For Connecticut based on Jweiss11's findings of unanimity among major sports outlets as to how they each list the team. I would encourage editors to also refer to them as "UConn" in the lead and explain the alternative name. —Ute in DC (talk) 16:15, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Connecticut - this is how it is usually listed; UConn is an informal name, and, in general, what Jweiss has said. john k (talk) 04:33, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

For Connecticut, based on arguments already made by Jweiss, CrazyPaco, and Senra. JohnnyPolo24 (talk) 10:46, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Open question to all the For Connecticut voters: Can someone please explain to me how Connecticut Huskies (et al) possibly meets http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(categories)#General_naming_conventions point 3: Avoid abbreviations, except where there are no conflicts & point 5 "to choose category names that are able to stand alone"? Markvs88 (talk) 14:42, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Markvs88, regarding point 3, "UConn" is certainly an abbreviation. "Connecticut" in and of itself is not.  "Connecticut" as a representation of the "University of Connecticut" is an abbreviation, but that sort of brief representation is in keeping with an established Wikipedia naming convention applied to teams across college sports.  In fact, those sorts of abbreviations are used all over Wikipedia.  For example, the nation of Poland is officially the "Republic of Poland", but its article is Poland and its category is Category:Poland.  The spirit of the bullet you cite is an admonishment not to use abbreviations that break down specific words.  That bullet is not warning again brief, whole-word representations of a lengthier phrase, especially when those briefer representations are more common.  As for point 5, "Connecticut Huskies" uniquely and unambiguously defines the sports teams at the University of Connecticut.   There is no other usage of "Connecticut Huskies" on Wikipedia referring to anything other than the sports teams at the University of Connecticut.  Neither "Connecticut" nor "Huskies" could stand alone in this sense, but "Connecticut Huskies" is sufficient. Jweiss11 (talk) 16:58, 14 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Jweiss11, Connecticut is the name of the state. University of Connecticut is the name of the University. UConn is an abbreviation that cannot cause conflict, as there cannot be more than one University of Connecticut. However, use of just "Connecticut" does! The difference in your example being, of course, that Poland and the Republic of Poland both refer to the same thing, while Connecticut here is being proposed to refer to the name of one group of sports teams (or more broadly) the university as opposed to an entire state. Ergo, there is conflict. The "Connecticut Huskies" name does not convey being a part of the University of Connecticut any more than the Connecticut Sun would, unless one already knew that the Husky is the UConn mascot. Ergo, using "Connecticut" alone does not pass point 5! I again reiterate that I'm fine with leaving it UConn Huskies or going to University of Connecticut Huskies, but not Connecticut Huskies. Markvs88 (talk) 17:32, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
 * "Poland" could easily mean things other than the modern Republic of Poland. See: Kingdom of Poland.  Regarding the Connecticut Sun argument, I've already explained why that is not an issue unique to Connecticut, i.e. if "Connecticut Huskies" doesn't convey being part of the University of Connecticut, then neither does "Michigan Wolverines" convey being a part of the University of Michigan.  What you are arguing there is a complete re-do of the naming convention for college sports teams, which is fine if you want to take that up.  But if you do, the argument needs to be non-Connecticut specific and made elsewhere, like at WikiProject College football or WikiProject College basketball.  Jweiss11 (talk) 17:47, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Um, no. There have been four Kingdoms of Poland, three Republics and a Communist state. However, these have all been governments of Poland. Your proposal is more akin to trying to rename University of Warsaw as Warsaw. A University is not a State or City unto itself, even in Storrs! (A little joke there.) You've not yet explained it in a satisfactory manner to me: how would someone not already aware of the UConn mascot know Connecticut Huskies from Connecticut Sun or any other article pertaining to the state? Exactly! Why would one think that because this is a problem with Connecticut that it isn't a problem with the other schools that are improperly referred to by their state's name? This "naming convention" is indeed a problem, and one I would been keener to take up if I cared at all about college sports. However, I do care about UConn and Connecticut, so there we are. Best, Markvs88 (talk) 19:24, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia convention trumps individual or institutional preference. UConn is definitely a nickname (as shown above) and does not fit current convention, which admittedly is being bent on some other articles mentioned above. I agree, however, that there could be a general naming convention discussion among all college sports Wikiprojects. An aside: UConn could cause confusion with Ucon, U-Con and Yukon. I would have to believe most people in the world think of Yukon before UConn when they hear it said. Are the Yukon Huskies some sort of dog sled team? ;-) CrazyPaco (talk) 21:26, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Crazypaco, that's just it -- the convention is in doubt. (Though I don't care if it stays UConn since there is no other UConn out there, I only do not want it as Connecticut Huskies). Thank you! As for your aside: Yes, I have been asked before if I went to school in Alaska or Canada when I've said UConn in other states. However, all those spellings are different. OTOH, that also fuels why we should go with University of Connecticut Huskies. :-) Markvs88 (talk) 22:02, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Actually, it isn't in doubt. It has existed for years. It has has been undermined in a few of articles, but that doesn't make "UConn Huskies" more appropriate than "Connecticut Huskies" according to the current convection. "UConn" is a nickname, more confused than "Connecticut" by your own admission, and shouldn't be used. It doesn't matter what you "want". If you want to go with University of xxx, you need to start a college sports wikiproject-wide discussion that is not Connecticut specific. CrazyPaco (talk) 08:16, 16 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Markvs88, If you read the leads of Poland and all those earlier versions of Poland, they all define the subject at hand as a state or country. I would never suggest renaming University of Warsaw to Warsaw.  But let's imagine that the NCAA expanded overseas and the University of Warsaw joined with its teams named the "Pierogis".  With the current naming convention in place, we'd name their teams the Warsaw Pierogis, not the University of Warsaw Pierogis.  With the Connecticut Sun argument you are really expecting too much information to be conveyed in an article/category name.  We have to assume the a user can click though on an article and learn a little bit about the subject if they know nothing.  With what you are arguing, New York Jets and New York Yankees would not be sufficiently distinguishable.  On the basis of their names alone, how is the user to know what sports the Jets and Yankees play, and whether they represent the State of New York, New York City, or some university like New York University?  Finally, in your last two sentences directly above, you've illustrated a problem way bigger than any problem with the college sports naming conventions: Wikipedia users putting personal and local concerns and biases ahead of global efforts to instill consistency and parallelism. Jweiss11 (talk) 20:12, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Yet that's exactly what the suggestion is: a renaming. In this most recent example, you are ambiguating a food from a city in Poland with a (fictional, of course) sporting club! I'm expecting the information conveyed to be useful, yes. That's what encyclopedias are for, and why point #5 exists. And I would agree that in principle their names should read "New York Jets (NFL Franchise)" or something like that. However, this New York example also illustrates my point well: it's a (real city/state + teamname) vs. (a university taking over the name of a city/state + teamname). That's the real source of contention. Markvs88 (talk) 21:27, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Summary
 * UConn - 2
 * Connecticut - 5 --Senra (talk) 18:16, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Actually, there were three who weighed in on the UConn side. The discussion started at the College Football page, and JonRidinger supported the UConn version in this diff.  Not as much input as I would have hoped, but there appears to be a clear majority favoring Connecticut, and I agree that the article and category should match.  So the category should probably be switched to Connecticut. Cbl62 (talk) 19:05, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Acutally, "University of Connecticut" also has 1. I'll go along with the majority, but I still maintain that this decision is a poor one that ambiguates the subject matter and is against Wikipedia standards. Best, Markvs88 (talk) 20:04, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
 * From reading all the points above I agree that "Connecticut" should be used in the titles for both the articles and categories related to the Connecticut Huskies. As consensus seemed to have formed I will file a request at CfD to have the categories renamed.  Thanks to everyone who commented! –Grondemar 16:02, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
 * CfD is now open here. –Grondemar 16:39, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Selinker, when major outlets say Connecticut in the structural listings i've argued are most salient, it is always followed by Huskies. With all due respect, read the fucking links. Jweiss11 (talk) 08:34, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm late to this party, because I just saw the CfD. I would argue for "UConn Huskies." The statement above that the big five outlets use "Connecticut" is misleading. By my read, they use Connecticut when it does not precede the word Huskies. But when it does precede the word Huskies, the word UConn is far more frequently used, especially when referring to either of its decorated basketball teams. In this manner it exactly mirrors the UMass categories. If consensus is built around Connecticut, then so be it. But I think it's the wrong consensus.--Mike Selinker (talk) 04:27, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Jweiss. This sort of comment only serves to antagonize and provoke.  There's no reason for this type of response. Cbl62 (talk) 14:37, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
 * All I can say is, that is not my experience. I can list lots of links that show one position (e.g., this), and I can find lots of others that show the opposite (e.g., this). I'm just saying that in watching and reading lots of sports stories, I hear "UConn Huskies" quite a bit more often than "Connecticut Huskies," at least where the two basketball programs are concerned. I don't think either option is wrong, but "UConn Huskies" is the one I prefer, just like I prefer UMass Minutemen. And I base that solely on what I think is more common, not any deeper analysis than that.--Mike Selinker (talk) 23:45, 18 July 2010 (UTC)