Talk:Army–Notre Dame football rivalry

Orphaned references in Notre Dame – Army rivalry
I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Notre Dame – Army rivalry's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "Sperber": From Michigan – Notre Dame football rivalry:  From Notre Dame Fighting Irish football rivalries:  From Notre Dame – USC rivalry:  From Four Horsemen (American football):  

Reference named "2007 ND Guide History": From Michigan – Notre Dame football rivalry:  From Notre Dame – USC rivalry:  

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT ⚡ 00:38, 27 December 2010 (UTC)


 * The first one is the one from the general rivalries pages; the second one can be either, as they appear to be identical  Pur ple  back pack 89    01:44, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Requested move
<div class="boilerplate" style="background-color: #efe; margin: 2em 0 0 0; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px dotted #aaa;">
 * The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 

No consensus to move. Vegaswikian (talk) 01:13, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Notre Dame–Army football rivalry → Notre Dame–Army rivalry – Just adds a word we don't need. Was at the shorter title until earlier today. Not seeing the precedent that one-sport rivalries have to contain the title of the sport in the title; by the same logic Notre Dame–UCLA rivalry should be moved to Notre Dame–UCLA basketball rivalry  Purpleback  pack  89  ≈≈≈≈  18:14, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose- While I initially intended to support, thinking this seemed to be unnecessary disambiguation, this is just one of a large-scale movement of football-only rivalries, so that they are all at 'football', regardless of whether another rivalry exists. <edit- See> User:Dirtlawyer1's move edit summary 'standard WP:CFB naming conventions for football-only college rivalry articles'. I would note however, that a redirect for 'Army–Notre Dame football rivalry' as a valid reciprocal search string needs to be created and anchored here. Dru of Id (talk) 20:25, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Dru, to say that all football rivalries contain football isn't true. Heck, not all football rivalries contain the word "rivalry".  For example, the article about the Alabama-Auburn game is called the Iron Bowl and the Mississippi-Mississippi State game is called the Egg Bowl.  Therefore, it cannot be said that there is a standard naming convention, nor can I find a consensus at WP:CFB for one.  So that, combined with WP:COMMONNAME which suggest shorter names, would suggest keeping it at the original title  Purpleback  pack  89  ≈≈≈≈  00:21, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I didn't say that, I said that Dirtlawyer1 said that in his edit summary. Xe is moving a lot of them, for the reason I gave. I've looked through WP:CFB pages; I did not find a consensus discussion either, but I've AGF xis statement. Ask xem. Individual games are a separate issue. Dru of Id (talk) 00:35, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm using "game" and "rivalry" synonymously here. Are you saying, "I support it because he said so", essentially?  Because, however unintentionally, it looks like he was wrong about that.  I have dropped a line to his talk page  Purpleback  pack  89  ≈≈≈≈  00:43, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm saying I oppose because the edit summary gave a reason for the move, a lot of moves of this type have been made by them, and while this request is perfectly legitimate, and I'd previewed a support just prior to saving, myself, the other option is/was to discuss the justification with Dirtlawyer1, which you are now doing. As many moves have already been done, I didn't want to see a move war start. Dru of Id (talk) 00:51, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Finally found this linked on his talk page. Dru of Id (talk) 00:53, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
 * That seems to be more about the notability of rivalries than the nomenclature of them. And I think we can all agree that this is notable...regularly renewed for several decades; had national championship implications several times...  Purpleback  pack  89  ≈≈≈≈  04:36, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Gentlemen, I am sorry that I upset someone's apple cart. I initiated the move and assumed that it would be non-controversial. We are in the process of cleaning up the "College football rivalries in the United States" category, of which the Notre Dame–Army rivalry is a member. No, not every member of the category has the word "football" or the word "rivalry" in their titles. A quick examination of the category shows this. Numerous rivalry game articles employ an official rivalry game name, such as the "Red River Rivalry," "Battle of the Palouse," and "Florida vs. Georgia Football Classic," etc. Where an official name exists we will defer to it, and we will create one or more redirects that follows the pattern "(school name)–(school name) football rivalry" for each article. As you know, in the case of the Notre Dame–Army series, there is no official rivalry name and the article could be plausibly called many things, including "Army–Notre Dame rivalry," etc. (We do, afterall, usually employ alphabetical order when there is no specific reason for not doing so.)

We are trying to bring some order and consistency to all of the articles within the category. The "Paul Bunyan's Axe" example cited above is technically not a "college football rivalry" article, but is one of 80 "college football rivalry trophy" articles, which form a separate subcategory of "College football rivalries in the United States." The trophy articles should continue to use the trophy name, as that is the name by which many of these rivalries are most commonly known. We will, however, create one or more redirects on the pattern given above for each trophy article. If you Army–Notre Dame regulars feel strongly about the name, feel free to change it back. But within the next month, the article title will be one of the oddballs within the category, as the name will imply a multi-sport rivalry rather than a football-specific one. Your call. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 00:58, 1 December 2011 (UTC)


 * BTW, Dru, I'm a "he" and would prefer to keep it that way. LOL  Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 01:25, 1 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Oppose move. If a college sports rivalry has its own proper name, e.g Egg Bowl, that's the article name.  If it doesn't have its own special name, convention is to name it "[team name 1]–[team name 2] [sport (if applicable)] rivalry".  This convention parallels similar naming for individial games with no special proper name of their own, e.g. 2006 Michigan vs. Ohio State football game.  Notre Dame–UCLA rivalry as it is currently framed, covers more than one sport.  If it was reframed as just basketball, or if that part of it was broken out into its own article, then, yes, it should be named Notre Dame–UCLA basketball rivalry. Jweiss11 (talk) 02:02, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
 * For the record, I wrote the ND-UCLA rivalry page (and this page, too). Though I have included the football results for reference, I note that it is not a regularly renewed rivalry game in football (that's the lesser school in Los Angeles)  Purpleback  pack  89  ≈≈≈≈  04:36, 1 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment: The flip-flop of Army and Notre Dame in the title shouldn't have occurred in the middle of a move discussion  Purpleback pack  89  ≈≈≈≈  20:39, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Agreed, though the flip is correct per our standard conventions. Powers T 20:41, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose; this is one of those times that precision and consistency trump conciseness. There are too many all-sport rivalries in college athletics for us to assume that the reader knows this one is single-sport. Powers T 20:41, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.