Talk:Civil Conflict

Rivalry?
Here's an interesting question: Can a game be called a rivalry game if one of the two teams involved denies that? I think I'm leaning towards "no", although I could be convinced otherwise. Beyond the obvious concerns of whether it is factually true to call this a rivalry game, I do think it violates WP:NPOV to call this game a rivalry in the lead if one team disagrees. I plan to rewrite the lead, and possibly part of the article's body, to more neutrally cover this series. I expect that this might be controversial, so I'll wait a day or two before doing that to allow anyone to object and initiate a discussion beforehand. ~ RobTalk 17:49, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Sounds like a good idea. You may try running any changes you think may be controversial by editors here on the talk page before making them on the article, if you think that's necessary. I don't know that it is, but your call. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:07, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I only think that the idea that a rivalry cannot exist unless both teams agree to it would be controversial. If no-one opposes that idea (or at least consensus supports it), then I don't believe any changes I would make would be independently controversial, if that makes sense. ~ RobTalk 18:11, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
 * It's not a "rivalry". It's an annual matchup that one of the two teams (or maybe just its coach) has given a name to for - who knows - promotional or motivational purposes.  I just revised the article to reflect what's actually going on.  I agree that if one school calls it a rivalry but the other denies it (or would be indifferent but for the fabricated attention the match is receiving), it's not a "rivalry".  It's like calling my crush on Angelina Jolie a "romance".  JohnInDC (talk) 14:01, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Traditionally, rivalries are built up over long periods of time. Can you really call a two game series a rivalry?  --Gregchilders 22:35, 4 August 2015 (UTC)  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gregchilders (talk • contribs)
 * Well, you can, but it's like what Lincoln said about a dog and his tail. (Even if Lincoln didn't say it).  JohnInDC (talk) 22:39, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Lol this is literally the dumbest thing I have ever heard
conFLiCT?? That's the dumbest thing ever.

Save for Justin Bieber. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.91.99.69 (talk) 00:23, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
 * As a reminder, Wikipedia is not a discussion forum. Elisfkc (talk) 03:27, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Edsall's effect on rivalry
You told me to "See Talk"...yet there is no discussion of that edit on here. That edit (not originally made by me) is not speculative in any way. As for unsourced...happy to add source indicating Diaco's firing and Edsall's hire. The fact that Diaco has been fired is 100% relevant to this page, and should be mentioned. If you don't think the language about Edsall's intent to continue the rivalry (which by the way, as worded, was, contrary to your assertion, the EXACT opposite of speculation) should be included, fine. But Diaco's firing absolutely needs to be mentioned. An unbiased reader should not be in the dark about this fact. Your insistance on undo'ing this edit is, to be polite, puzzling. Mystic Technocrat (talk) 20:58, 9 January 2017 (UTC)


 * The coach who thought up and advocated for this "rivalry" has left Connecticut, and indeed who knows if the new coach Randy Edsall will continue to employ this particular motivational / marketing tool. However, that question for the time being appears to be one only in the minds of Wikipedia editors, not that of reliable sources.  It's speculative - and unsourced - to ask what may become of the "rivalry" before Edsall assumes his new position and does anything about it, so I've removed language to that effect.


 * On the (probably accurate) assumption that he lets it go by the wayside then the article can be revised to the past tense and to reflect the short life of this imagined event. Of course too if some reliable sources write about the matchup and themselves wonder what might become of it - well, that can be included here with perhaps the very same language that I've just removed.  But until then it's just us speculating, and as such, inappropriate for inclusion.  Comments welcome, thanks.  JohnInDC (talk) 21:03, 9 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Fair enough, per my comments above. Mystic Technocrat (talk) 21:06, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

End date on rivalry
The "rivalry" - first put forth in 2015 - appears to have ended after 2 games, with Diaco's departure at the end of 2016. The 2017 game was played today and so far I haven't seen any reference to this "rivalry" or the trophy in the reporting about it. None for sure in Connecticut's own reporting of the runup to it, see here: http://www.uconnhuskies.com/sports/m-footbl/spec-rel/111017aab.html. The "rivalry" did get a bit of third party coverage when it was first put out there, due mostly to the silliness of the thing to be sure, but reportage nonetheless; but it appears that now, whatever the "rivalry" might've amounted to, it's now again just an annual game. That being the case I would propose (if indeed the thing is dead and buried) to revise the article to reflect the two years of the "rivalry" and to quit adding to what is no longer any kind of a special matchup. Comments welcome. JohnInDC (talk) 02:53, 12 November 2017 (UTC)


 * I agree with not calling it a rivalry. To be consistent with other trophies/rivalries that last a limited time, I think the article should still contain all game results between the teams, and it should be specified which games were "trophy games". We see that when a rivalry is created and all historical results are added. There are also cases where trophies have been retired and future game results are still added. Mjs32193 (talk) 15:47, 12 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Well, my point is that ordinary college games, routine meetings between teams that meet regularly, are not compiled and reported in Wikipedia articles. This matchup was never in fact a rivalry and was only ever distinguished by the failed (& widely ridiculed) effort of one coach to turn it into one.  So now that the matchup is not distinguished by, well, anything, then special coverage of these routine contests should not continue.  It'll be an article about a 2 year period when one coach tried to create a rivalry, and bought a trophy, and the idea never got off the ground, and it all ended when he left.  JohnInDC (talk) 18:06, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

Revising the article to reflect the end of the story
It's pretty clear now that "rivalry" aspect of this annual matchup failed to take hold - Bob Diaco is gone, UCF doesn't acknowledge the rivalry, and no one even knows where the trophy is any more. There is a case to be made for retaining the article to reflect the coverage that it garnered when the idea was first put forth, but I don't think it's appropriate for the article to be written as though it reflects an actual, viable football rivalry. It's just - a game.

To that end I'd propose taking out the rivalry infobox and the "game results" table and simply tell the story of how this idea was hatched, and then dispatched, along with the coach who provided the inspiration. The actual text wouldn't need to be a whole lot different. Comments welcome. JohnInDC (talk) 22:24, 6 May 2018 (UTC)


 * It still received significant media coverage in 2017, I think we should wait and see how it's covered in 2018. Either way a lot of people now refer to this game as the ConFLiCT, whether it's trolling or not, the name has stuck. Mjs32193 (talk) 19:55, 7 May 2018 (UTC)
 * It's getting coverage as a non-rivalry, not a rivalry. I don't propose deleting the article, but rather revising it to reflect what the sources seem to say - namely, that this was a silly trumped-up publicity (or motivational) stunt.  We here shouldn't be buying into stale hype by a departed coach, and characterizing this annual game as something that is isn't.  JohnInDC (talk) 11:53, 8 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Agree that the article has WP:GNG mockery coverage of the "rivalry" and the coverage is not about an actual rivalry (nor is it claimed in the lede). While I choose not be bold at this time, I do think removal of the rivalry cats, any "rivalry" inbound links, and movement of the links within the team navbox from "Bowls & rivalries" to "Culture & lore" (seems like 'lore') is appropriate. Would not object to another editor doing all of the above if they see it that way as well.  UW Dawgs (talk) 23:27, 20 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Agreed. I've often cited this in AfD discussions as one of the few cases (perhaps the only case) where a "rivalry" that only receives coverage in reliable sources for being anything but actually passes GNG. I stand by that, but we need to treat it how reliable sources do - as a bad imitation of a rivalry rather than an actual one. Smartyllama (talk) 23:57, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Current consensus is notable, but not rivalry. UW Dawgs (talk) 22:13, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Made good faith edits on same. Scoped the game results section to the era and similarly tweaked the infobox, but retained Template:Infobox sports rivalry in order to render team names, links, and logos for visual context. UW Dawgs (talk) 20:16, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I am okay with ending it but we need a consensus on what year to end it. The trophy was brought out from 2014-16 and later added 2013. I would also argue that 2017 through 2019 should be kept as well due to the large amount of media coverage this game saw due to the "rivalry", when both teams were in the AAC, even this past year.Mjs32193 (talk) 23:31, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

Game results section and content
There is consensus that former UConn coach Bob Diaco's antics are notable, but this does not constitute a rivarly. As the article is visually formatted like every CFB rivalry article, there is ongoing confusion for casual readers and editors. I recently removed game results unrelated to the Diaco era to reduce confusion and was reverted (fine).

There are multiple options to resolve, including:
 * 1) Leave Game results section and Infobox as-is, and add new game results in perpetuity
 * 2) Limit Game results and Infobox to 2015-2016 (trophy creation-Diaco leaving UConn), or 2014-2016 (Diaco's full tenure at UConn)
 * 3) Remove games from the Infobox and the Game results section, continue to include Diaco era game results via prose

Expunging the 2013, 2014, and 2017-present (ongoing) seasons seems resonable, as those years either predate Diaco's invention, or are beyond Diaco's tenure and align with the UConn AD's demur in 2017. I previously implemented 2, but lean towards 3. UW Dawgs (talk) 17:27, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I think it's quite clear as is that this is a self-declared "rivalry" on Diaco's part and don't really see what the problem is. That being said, I lean towards #2 but wouldn't really have a problem with #1 either. Trophy game articles (and this certainly was a trophy game even if it's not a true rivalry) generally show results from before or after the trophy was awarded - the Ramnapping Trophy article shows results of URI-UConn games in 2009 and 2018, for instance, as well as results from before the trophy was established. That being said, those are actual notable as rivalries and not simply as trophy games, which is why I lean towards #2 over #1. Smartyllama (talk) 18:18, 5 July 2020 (UTC)


 * I would agree with removing 2017-present. However, the trophy included the games for 2013 and 2014 on it, so I would vote to keep those years included as well as 2015 and 2016 when the trophy was brought out at the games. If this article is about the trophy and not a rivalry, it should include all games that were listed on the trophy, as well as 2016 when it was last brought out. Mjs32193 (talk) 14:22, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
 * To support my position here is a link saying Diaco added the 2013 game to the trophy . I also found a link that may support keeping all years that they were in the AAC together. It did received a lot of media covered up to and including last year, but for 2017-2019 i'm okay either way with keeping or removing. Mjs32193 (talk) 14:34, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Nice find on the backdating of the 2013 game score onto the trophy. Now I think we're aligned on 2013-2016 being appropriate for the article. Let's see if there are any additional comments. UW Dawgs (talk) 18:24, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Done per above. UW Dawgs (talk) 18:33, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Well, apparently UCF had another trophy made. I would say based on this at the very least the 2021 game needs to be included. We can reassess for future games but if UCF has put another trophy out there specifically I think it's pretty clear that at the very least this game needs to be added. FLJuJitsu 17:01, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

Location
I was on campus for part of the time this was going on. Rumor has it the trophy is at the bottom of Lake Claire. I'll work on cleaning this up a bit. FLJuJitsu 13:37, 01 September 2021 (UTC)