Talk:Clemson–South Carolina rivalry/Archive 2

Proposed move
To settle which comes first, I propose a page move to "The Battle of the Palmetto State", as this seems like a better suited name. The Georgia Tech-UGA rivalry article is named "Clean, Old-Fashioned Hate" after the name given to the rivalry, so I feel moving the page to the name of this rivalry would be appropriate. Yes? No?  Zchris87v  17:57, 16 November 2007 (UTC)


 * The game has rarely, if ever, been referred to as the Battle of the Palmetto State. Instead, the Battle of the Palmetto State should probably redirect to Battle of Rivers' Bridge since it was fought for control of the state.  There is no nickname to the rivalry, so just leave as is. -- Gamecock (talk) 21:07, 16 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I've thought for some time that this article should be moved. A number of other rivalry games, Georgia-Florida, Georgia-GT, etc. use "neutral" names on Wikipedia.  As long as there's a redirect from Clemson-Carolina (how I've always known the game) and Carolina-Clemson, I think it would amicably settle this issue.-- Arwalke (talk) 22:46, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Leave it alone. I live in SC, and nobody refers to this rivalry as the Battle of the Palmetto State. That's even more ridiculous than Clemson-Carolina, which has its own problems because it sounds more like an address than a rivalry... It has always been referred to as the Carolina-Clemson game, whether it's football, basketball, baseball, or whatever. That's just the way it is! People should relax about who is listed first. Carolina is listed first only because it's the older school. Whoever is suggesting other names needs to get a life. 68.154.142.52 (talk) 03:33, 19 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Just noticed that the person suggesting this move is a Clemson person. That figures!  Any change to this article's name will be met with much resistance considering the bias source.  68.154.142.52 (talk) 03:37, 19 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Please refrain from making biased statements. The same "Clemson person" who is proposing this move is THE ONE WHO CREATED THE ARTICLE. I did so out of a need to describe the rivalry and its surrounding information, and it seems a dispute has arisen because of the name. I have only referred to this as the "Carolina-Clemson Rivalry", but I did not take into account that I grew up in Columbia. This may partially be the reason why I never heard of it being referred to otherwise. However, here it is referred to as the "Clemson-Carolina Rivalry" sometimes. I suggested the page move to meet neutral grounds, and though not a real strong basis, it has a "nickname" given to those who may live outside of South Carolina - people that may refer to "Carolina" as UNC or something. In that case, they may know it as "The Battle of the Palmetto State".  Zchris87v  17:52, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Additionally, please refrain from making personal attacks, such as "get a life". These will result in a warning, and repeated attacks will result in being blocked from Wikipedia. Carolina is not listed first because it is the older school, it is listed first because that was the way I remembered it being said in Columbia. Of course they wouldn't call it the "Clemson-Carolina" game in Columbia, it's the heart of Gamecock country! You also must've not seen the edit by the user "Gamecock". Clearly he is a South Carolina fan, so surely his opinion must not count and his edits met with equal resistance? You must consider your own personal bias. I assume you live in or around Columbia, hence why you have not heard of "Clemson-Carolina". I hadn't either, until I came here. Many places in the Upstate do the same. If you were to search for "Clemson Carolina game" and "Carolina Clemson game" on google, "Clemson Carolina game" actually turns up more hits. In fact, one article from dailygamecock.com quotes South Carolina baseball coach Ray Tanner as saying "Clemson-Carolina rivalry". It appears then that the name of this article is not as widely used as I had previously thought. Please consider this before turning down the idea of a page move - it was suggested to reach a more neutral grounds.  Zchris87v  18:05, 20 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Although a Clemson student myself, I have to agree with Chris that "The Battle of the Palmetto State," while less common of a title for the game within South Carolina, is likely the most neutral title and would likely be what a neutral Wikipedia administrator would agree with. I've grown up only hearing "Clemson-Carolina" and see both names used consistently in print and online media as well as when talking with both USC and Clemson fans.  "The Battle of the Palmetto State" is a newer name for the rivalry, but I have seen it referenced frequently in national media (likely to reduce confusion).  The original name may also be a little misleading, as Clemson did at one time consider UNC-Chapel Hill (more commonly known as "Carolina" outside of South Carolina") to be a football rival (albeit, a lesser one).  It is important to remember that this is an international encyclopedia and we must keep that in mind.


 * Engaging in personal attacks is not what we need here, we are editing an encyclopedia and we must all keep in mind our respective biases (which can be done despite our particular allegiance to our respective schools) and the tone should remain civil. I've always felt this article leaned towards a USC bias simply because there are a greater number of USC wikipedia editors out there (just look at the higher quality of the USC wikipedia entry over the Clemson one).  However, I think this is one small issue where it is fairly clear what should be done to maintain a neutral point of view and I believe that it removes bias from the article. Arwalke (talk) 19:55, 20 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Interesting how overly sensitive the Clemson people are in this discussion. Respectfully, I don't believe I ever personally attacked anyone.  I simply pointed out the clear bias of the Clemson people's suggestion to move this article and made a general remark about how someone (not anyone in particular) needed to "get a life." However, for the Clemson people to get all worked up and allege personal attacks seems to validate my original "get a life" comment.  68.154.142.52 (talk) 03:33, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Again, no one is getting "worked up" over anything. And again, you have indirectly told someone (specifically myself and Arwalke both to "get a life"), something that is not just encyclopedic but does not make yourself look all that credible. Someone who can't make a valid point without making suggestions as to what one should do with their life isn't the kind of person to be editing an article. Going to the Clemson Tigers article and adding that Tommy Bowden chose to stay at Clemson is fine. Adding something like "He should have gone to Arkansas" is not. In the same sense, discussing your opinion of a suggested move is fine, but suggesting that I "get a life" is not. And again, how exactly is this biased? I created the article with a CLEAR bias toward Carolina because I had grown up there and hadn't yet heard of it referred to as anything EXCEPT what my parents, both of whom are Carolina alumni, refer to it as the Carolina-Clemson game. Saying it now, it's hard to hear it any other way than "Clemson-Carolina". I've made a(nother) neutral suggestion at the bottom of this page ("Palmetto State Rivalry"). It could be said that because "Carolina" comes first that this article is "clearly biased" that way. And as for how big the rivalry is? The Auburn LSU Rivalry article doesn't even have any talk page edits (not done by bots). You'd think someone would suggest a bias. I say we just link to this article to show how deep the rivlary stems - we even argue about the name.  Zchris87v  18:34, 10 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Noone inside or outside of South Carolina calls this rivalry by the proposed name. People searching for "Carolina" or "Clemson" or both are able to find this article, but changing the name to "the battle of the palmetto state" would not be as easily found in a typical search.  In addition, "the battle" implies only one game, such as the annual football game, but the rivalry goes beyond football or even sports.  See the origin section of this article.  It's quite clear that the rivalry is about a lot more than one annual "battle" and making the proposed move would only serve to water down the historical significance of the overall rivalry.  Whitesquire (talk) 03:23, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Where did "The Battle of the Palmetto State" originate? I have never heard the rivalry called by that terminology. The South Carolina state library offers two books that detail the rivalry: I would think that an article title of "Carolina vs. Clemson, Clemson vs. Carolina" would be more appropriate than "The Battle of the Palmetto State". Gamecock (talk) 22:18, 21 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Hey Zchris87v, just because you started this article doesn't mean that you gave the rivalry its name. It's been called the Carolina-Clemson rivalry longer than you've probably been alive.  It's silly to suggest moving the article under a name that noboby's ever heard of and would never find under typical searches.  I agree with Gamecock, Whitesquire, and the anons who all expressed many good reasons for questioning the proposed move.  The article is fine as is and does not need to be moved. 74.249.12.248 (talk) 22:45, 21 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Hey [please register and stop using an anonymous IP], I started this article because I had only heard it with this name. As stated, this so happens to work well with you since you favor the one that comes first. I have recently heard "Clemson-Carolina" more, and this is of notice. "nobody's ever heard of" suggests something against WP:COMMON, since it may be common sense for you to think it is fine like it is. I would like you to find me some sources to verify yhat no one has heard of The Battle of the Palmetto State. As for the point made by Whitesquire, I agree & hadn't thought of that. It would make it singular and thus suggest only one game is played. Additionally, I think the blood drive may be worth mention, as it's become something somewhat traditional as well. 130.127.78.139 (talk) 01:24, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I wasn't logged in above  Zchris87v  04:50, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
 * And in accordance with the editor with IP 68.154.142.52, your edits should not matter because you attend or attended the University of South Carolina, therefore automatically making you biased. Hey, if I can't state my opinion because it doesn't agree with someone else's, no one should be allowed to. And as for you saying the article is fine like it is, please include that you feel it is fine like it is. If there are people suggesting a page move or rename, then obviously all isn't "fine".  Zchris87v  09:24, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

It looks like no one has mentioned this, but for what it's worth, ESPN2 used the phrase "Palmetto State Battle" verbally and in their graphics during the game this past saturday. Dunkelweizen (talk) 13:20, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Move. Most all rivalries have names associated with them. TV networks like to have a name to call the game, it adds flavor. If we don't being calling it something specific, then the networks will. Battle for the Palmetto State is fine. It's also better than calling it the Battle for the Hardee's Trophy - Jober14 (talk) 21:35, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

I am an unbiased third party here more interested in history than choosing sides. Both sides have legitimate concerns. However, when you pull yourself out of it, you can see that The Battle of the Palmetto State. It is indeed called this, and it is actually a more official title since it was ordered by law that both teams play each other every year. I think using using only Carolina to describe The University of South Carolina is confusing, as there are many teams using this name such as the Tarheels, Panthers, Hurricanes. . . In fact Clemson and USC are not even in the same conference. Clemson is however in North Carolina's (who brandish Carolina as a nickname). The Battle of The Palmetto State has almost a prestiged ring to it, and should be the name of the title, as The Palmetto State's 2 token teams are battling! Sandlap123 (talk) 15:49, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Carolina vs. South Carolina, redux
The debate has started again over whether to use "South Carolina" or "Carolina" to refer to the University of South Carolina on the page. Starting a new talk section on this to open up discussion and prevent future edit warring. Please post your thoughts here.--LesPhilky (talk) 13:57, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I know it's been debated before, but it seems several people are wanting to build a consensus for changing "Carolina" to "South Carolina" for clarification. I understand this has become a heated discussion (although I'm not exactly sure why it's a heated discussion), so would we be better off calling in a third party who is not affiliated with the topic to make a suggestion?--LesPhilky (talk) 15:27, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
 * If anyone looks at Garnet and Blacks Contributions, you will see that he hes going to every single article on the Gamecocks and removing South from every South Carolina. Why you would even chance the confusion with Carolina Panthers, Carolina Hurricanes, (North) Carolina Tarheels is confusing to me. This pages are for information, and will most likely be read by people outside the state of South Carolina. This may be a nickname to the university in South Carolina, but you have to realize that the world does not know The University of South Carolina as simply "Carolina". For the sake of clarity, please use the whole name. this is not the place for fighting over which football team is the REAL Carolina. If that be the case. The Carolina Panthers are the REAL Carolina, as they represent both Carolinas. The Gamecocks are South Carolina. It is apparant that you are pushing your opinion and agenda in these articles. If you wish to argue over who the REAL Carolina is, join a message board on the issue. Do not use Wikipedia to push your biased views. Maybe there should be an article on "The Real Carolina" for a place where Garnet & Black can spend all his time. If your going to use a shorter name to prevent reader fatigue, use USC, as Carolina can be considered UNC because they are in the same conference as Clemson, where USC is not. Yes USC may mean Southern Cali to some, but they aren't even in the same conferenc, region etc. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sandlap123 (talk • contribs) 15:55, 18 November 2013 (UTC)   — Preceding unsigned comment added by LesPhilky (talk • contribs)
 * I'm not convinced that "several people" are involved in this most recent spate of tendentious edits, and I'm seriously considering filing a sock puppet report including most of the brand-new usernames (Gamecockpride123 and Sandlap123? Pretty suspicious.) and IPs that have been participating in this article and on others. We'll see if that becomes necessary. Funny how this type of behavior picks up every year in the weeks leading up to the Carolina-Clemson game. GarnetAndBlack (talk) 16:48, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Unless the state or teams are renamed, there's no reason to remove the 'South' with distinguishes between North Carolina and South Carolina. 2AwwsomeTell me where I screwed up. See where I screwed up 16:56, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
 * In an article that has absolutely nothing to do with the state of North Carolina or any sports team from that state, there is no reason to include the 'South', especially when it is commonly absent from the description of this rivalry. GarnetAndBlack (talk) 17:03, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Here's my question on it: What's the aversion to using "South Carolina," especially since this is the official proper name of the school and distinguishes the school from anyone else? Why would there be such a movement to keep this off anything relating to the University of South Carolina to the point of edit warring? I look at it similar to when restaurants call some BBQ "Carolina BBQ". That's absurd as there are so many different types of BBQ that originate out of both SC and NC. Furthermore, since South Carolina is the name of the school, this would appear to be a factual and good-faith edit, therefore it doesn't warrant a revert or deletion.--LesPhilky (talk) 17:26, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Here's my question on it: Why do you care when and where a common nickname for the University of South Carolina is used in articles that deal with the school, and clearly don't concern any other schools which might lend confusion? There's no "aversion" to using 'South' in these articles, there's just no good reason why it has to be used every single time the school is mentioned within the articles. Just like USC should be similarly acceptable to refer to the school in an abbreviated fashion. GarnetAndBlack (talk) 17:48, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Whether or not I care is irrelevant (and I don't). I'm pointing out what seems to be the logical course of action to use the proper name of the school. I'm also pointing out that it doesn't seem anyone should have a problem with doing so or engage in edit warring. The edits are factual and made in good faith. They add clarity to the article. Isn't that what Wikipedia is about?--LesPhilky (talk) 17:51, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Except for the part where they don't add clarity, they just add word count, because no one reading an article about the University of South Carolina, or the South Carolina Gamecocks, etc. is going to need clarity when they encounter the word "Carolina" in that article. You'd have to be pretty dense to stop and think, "Now are they talking about North Carolina here?" Sorry, but that line of reasoning doesn't wash. Additionally, these edits aren't being made in good faith, because "South" is being added in front of "Carolina" even in instances where it clearly doesn't belong, such as in the names of buildings on USC's campus. Someone who was truly making these edits to be "factual" would take the time not to simply spam it in every instance they could find throughout an article. That's the definition of disruptive behavior. GarnetAndBlack (talk) 17:59, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Then with your knowledge of the University of South Carolina, I'm sure you could make the changes where they belong. It appears a consensus is being built to change it to "South Carolina," along with the name of the rivalry, including input from an impartial editor. Should we call in another Wikipedia third party for more assistance? We can't make assumptions about what other readers will perceive. However, we do know that they will make no mistake about whom the article refers to if it states "South Carolina" instead of just "Carolina".--LesPhilky (talk) 18:11, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
 * It appears as though no such thing is occurring. It appears as though one vandal is using multiple usernames and IPs to push an unnecessary series of edits across multiple articles, and you're siding with a disruptive editor. No surprise given your feelings toward USC. I think we'll wait until the outcome of the SPI before we decide that there is some sudden wave of public opinion pushing for this consensus you seem so anxious to claim exists. Additionally, there will be no change to the name of this article until there is a change to the Carolina–Duke rivalry article, as there is no reason for a double standard such as this to exist on Wikipedia, but strangely I don't see you over on that Talk page pushing for a new consensus to establish "clarity" there. GarnetAndBlack (talk) 18:20, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Petty attacks against me won't get you anywhere (just like before). I'm not siding with any editor. What I'm seeing are, at the least, two disruptive editors (you being one of them) who are engaging in edit warring. I've started this discussion to see if we could put an end to that and bring about some productivity. Now, 2Awwsome appears to be an impartial and level-headed editor. He agrees with the change. I'm going call in a third party for an opinion as well. I'm not sure why you think changing your school's name to its actual, proper name is some type of attack by Clemson fans, but we'll see how an outside person feels about it. In the meantime, I would strongly encourage you disengage from the behavior that got you banned before. I feel the next time around, it won't be temporary.--LesPhilky (talk) 18:50, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
 * You'd be wise to heed your own advice, pal. Reverting an obvious sock puppeteer who is disrupting multiple articles isn't edit warring, and that's exactly what the end result of all this drama will be. And I can't help but note you've got no answer for the Carolina–Duke rivalry conundrum. That's a sticky one, isn't it? Call in all the third-parties you like, but unless a standard is upheld in an equitable fashion, it won't be accepted by me, or I'd imagine any other fair-minded editor on Wikipedia. GarnetAndBlack (talk) 19:03, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm perfectly fine with a change being made to Carolina–Duke rivalry as well. But let's handle one thing at a time and resolve this dispute.--LesPhilky (talk) 19:07, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Additionally, you just accused Sandlap123 of vandalism. I think that's a stretch to say he's vandalizing a page by changing the name of South Carolina to, well, "South Carolina". That isn't going to produce a constructive discussion, and honestly, he could accuse you of the same thing by changing everything to "Carolina". This is the type of interaction with other editors that the admins have warned you about. Let's instead have a productive discussion.--LesPhilky (talk) 17:39, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
 * That very well may be the case, but if it's not, then it warrants a discussion. The user 2Awwsome appears to be a seasoned editor at a quick glance. I personally do not care which one is chosen but it seems like a discussion is in order to prevent the edit warring on both ends.--LesPhilky (talk) 17:00, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
 * He's not accusing me of sockpuppetry,he's accusing 2 others of it. 2AwwsomeTell me where I screwed up. See where I screwed up 17:27, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Nope, 2Awwsome is not included in my suspicions, which were just confirmed when Gamecockpride123 showed up minutes after Sandlap123 in a Talk page to provide support. I just filed the sock puppet report on this obvious case. I suspect admins will have dealt with this annoying child relatively soon. GarnetAndBlack (talk) 17:48, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
 * You also falsely accused me of sockpuppetry months ago, so you may want to make sure you have it right.--LesPhilky (talk) 17:53, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Oh, I've got it right. Don't worry your little head about how I file reports, you just keep blindly supporting editors who are clearly disruptive to this project, as long as their behavior supports your opinions. GarnetAndBlack (talk) 18:22, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Being a cadet at Clemson, we call both UNC and USC Carolina. It is confusing sometimes seeing as UNC is in our conference and are more so rivals when it comes to rankings and conference play. USC is more of a traditional and publicized rival, but doesn't affect us in conference. In ROTC we constantly compete with UNC, but never USC. For what its worth.
 * But calling them both 'Carolina' is confusing for others. 2AwwsomeTell me where I screwed up. See where I screwed up 17:41, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Thats my point. I think of both teams when I hear Carolina. I would clarify. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ClemsonC4 (talk • contribs) 17:43, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry? If what were doing is against the rules, ill throw it out there in the open right now. We have all the south carolinians in the office in here putting in their input. All from different sides of the house, and one neutral to both teams. If thats against the rules, then please tell us how we can all put our two cents in without it being aginst the rules. Thankyou. We didnt know making good faith edits for actual name clarity would make anyone mad. And from what I see, others, far away from our office agree. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gamecockpride123 (talk • contribs) 18:22, 18 November 2013‎ (UTC)
 * Prove it. If what you're saying is true, then you're guilty of WP:MEAT, but somehow I seriously doubt it. I'm betting we're dealing with nothing but another bored Clemson fan, because we get this type of nonsense every year around this time. Nice try though. GarnetAndBlack (talk) 18:28, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Okay, by reading it, we will just stick to our individual computers and make sure we dont use the same one. Theres alot of guys in here with some good input. No one is trying to make a war with you Garnet and Black. It makes no sense to only refer to South Carolina as Carolina. Thats what got everyone in here talking to see if it was confusing. But for the record, it looks like you get what YOU want because of a technicality. Its called an ad hominem. An Ad Hominem is a general category of fallacies in which a claim or argument is rejected on the basis of some irrelevant fact about the author of or one of the users on the opposite end of an argument. Sorry we, different people in the same office, broke a rule that will probably allow you to get your way, Garnet and Black. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gamecockpride123 (talk • contribs) 18:42, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Yeah, using the same computer isn't likely to strengthen your story. There is no way for you to prove what you're saying, and even if there were, why isn't your office full of people who are so concerned about confusion on Wikipedia also over on Carolina–Duke rivalry crusading for sense to prevail there as well? I think we all know the answer to that question. GarnetAndBlack (talk) 18:50, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

It seems that you are very interested with North Carolina and Duke. And the reason why it is confusing here is because South Carolina is in a different conference than Clemson, Duke, and UNC. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gamecockpride123 (talk • contribs) 19:02, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
 * That makes zero sense, but that's not surprising coming from someone who thinks vandalizing Wikipedia articles is a valuable use of their free time. GarnetAndBlack (talk) 19:05, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

It makes sense because Clemson plays both teams every season.Gamecockpride123 (talk) 19:08, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Not in football, they don't. The only Carolina the Tigers see on the gridiron each year is their in-state rival. Have you even read the first sentence of this article? Go do that, and then come back here and explain how any reasonably intelligent person would have any confusion whatsoever about the identity of "Carolina" when they see it in the rest of the article. GarnetAndBlack (talk) 19:12, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Clemson and UNC are both in the ACC. Plus this goes past this article for you. You change every article that has to do with Gamecocks to say only Carolina. You delete all Souths from South Carolina everywhere. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gamecockpride123 (talk • contribs) 19:41, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
 * And yet none of that changes the fact that you are violating the sockpuppet/meatpuppet guidelines of this project. Your perceived issues with another person's edits do not grant you the right to take any action you see fit to push your POV. Adding "South" in front of every instance where the word "Carolina" appears is not constructive, especially when it is factually incorrect, as it has been on more than one occasion. But I'm guessing when the SPI I filed is resolved, we won't have to worry about this type of disruptive behavior for awhile. GarnetAndBlack (talk) 19:48, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Regardless of sock-puppetry, the matter still remains a valid issue to discuss. Adding "South Carolina" to places where it fits appropriately would not be considered a POV edit since the name of the school is the University of South Carolina. I agree the change needs to be made with discretion. Would you object to you and I making the changes appropriately? If so, could you please state why?--LesPhilky (talk) 19:52, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

I have sent this to the dispute resolution noticeboard. Please view and make your comments.--LesPhilky (talk) 19:50, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
 * It's cute that you've included suspected sockpuppets in your resolution request. However, I think I'll wait prudently until the result of that investigation is established before I make any comments on DRN. Then again, I'm not the one who is trying to claim as many users as possible on my side of things. But as a Clemson fan whose head football coach went on an inflammatory rant about this very subject a couple years back, you don't really care about this issue, right? That's why you're trying to rush to get some sort of judgement, because you're 100% neutral and only worried about "clarity". That's why you've never posted a single word about the exact same issue at Carolina–Duke rivalry. But you'll get to that just as soon as you get your POV pushed here, correct? GarnetAndBlack (talk) 20:01, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
 * You'll notice on my request that I agreed the sock-puppet case seems suspicious. However, since I can't prove it one way or another, I'm listing those involved. I'm sure it will be cleared up by the appropriate people. I didn't think Wikipedia decisions were made on a majority-rules basis anyway, so I doubt it matters how many names I list. There are still three people involved in this discussion who aren't using sock puppets, so it's still a valid debate topic. What I foresee happening is that if we get this cleared up to change the name to "South Carolina," then we can proceed in altering the Carolina–Duke rivalry (although you'll notice they seem to use "North Carolina" on that page more frequently than "South Carolina" is used here). But I would like you to clear two things up for me: 1. Please explain how calling the University of South Carolina by "South Carolina" is a POV. 2. You mention the incident with Dabo Swinney. Is your insistence that it remain "Carolina" in response to what he said?--LesPhilky (talk) 20:11, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Surprising non-response, but that's okay. Since the crux of your argument is that changes must also be made to the Carolina–Duke rivalry, shall we begin? I can make the necessary changes to that page. Let's have you make the changes to this one so we don't have any errors. Sound good?--LesPhilky (talk) 16:45, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I think I'll let you start that process at Carolina–Duke rivalry, and wait to see how that effort is received before I start making wholesale changes to this article. If things there move in the direction you attempt to take them without resistance, then I'll be happy to proceed with similar changes to this article. How does that sound? GarnetAndBlack (talk) 05:31, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
 * We can do that, but upon C.Fred's suggestion, it may be wiser to simply alter the titles of the two pages. We want clarity for all users of Wikipedia, and while the pages may be obvious to people involved in both rivalries, it may not be so for other users. The national media primarily refers to it as the South Carolina-Clemson rivalry. How about we just alter the titles of the two pages and move on? That will probably be a simpler solution.--LesPhilky (talk) 12:52, 20 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Within the body of the article, after the initial definition that we're talking about the University of South Carolina, I think it is sufficient to use Carolina. Readers of this article will generally be clear about what is being referred to; if for some reason it's not clear within a sentence or paragraph, some alternate form (South Carolina, Gamecocks, etc.) can be used. (By contrast, if the article were about Clemson's sports results, a coach with ties to both North and South Carolina, or a player who went from the Gamecocks or Tarheels to the NFL's Panthers, then Carolina would be ambiguous and should be avoided.)
 * The only issue I see with this article is the title. However, if established common usage is the Carolina-Clemson rivalry, then that's what we should use. If, however, that's not a commonly used name, then we would need to expand the title to the Clemson-South Carolina rivalry. —C.Fred (talk) 17:01, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I think this might be the smart course of action. Both names are used, but in news sources it is more commonly referred to as Clemson-South Carolina rivalry. We would probably need to change the Carolina–Duke rivalry title as well. After that in both articles, any mention of "Carolina" would be assumed.--LesPhilky (talk) 17:27, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
 * C.Fred is making a lot of sense here. It's a pleasant change, and I fully agree with him that "South" should be used anywhere there might be confusion with UNC or a professional team that only uses "Carolina" as a identifier. There is mention of the Carolina-Clemson rivalry within the Carolina–Duke rivalry article, so of course in that context "South" was added to the mention of this rivalry, as there would be confusion otherwise. I haven't seen anyone trying to remove that mention of "South Carolina", because it serves an actual purpose there. Including "South" in front of every mention of "Carolina" in this article and others that deal primarily with USC does nothing but add extraneous verbiage. There is no issue with the title to this article, as there are numerous books about the rivalry that refer to it in this manner, it is often described in the media as such, and even the makers of a 2003 documentary on the subject didn't seem to think there would be confusion generated by titling their movie, Bragging Rites: The Carolina-Clemson Rivalry. GarnetAndBlack (talk) 05:31, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Which gets to the point of WP:COMMONNAME: "Wikipedia prefers the name that is most commonly used (as determined by its prevalence in reliable English-language sources) as such names will be the most recognizable and the most natural." In the case of Georgia–Georgia Tech, the rivalry has a name: Clean, Old-Fashioned Hate. Up until a few years ago, the Florida–Georgia football rivalry article was titled World's Largest Outdoor Cocktail Party; with an active move by the schools and media away from the proper name, we changed a descriptive name based on the two schools' common names in alphabetical order. So, it goes to what the sources call it: if Carolina–Clemson Rivalry is used as the proper title of the rivalry across the majority of sources, let's call it by its proper name. —C.Fred (talk) 20:04, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
 * It's not. That may be what it's commonly referred to within South Carolina, but not by the national media and sources outside the state. The official name is The Battle of the Palmetto State, which is probably a more appropriate name. However, national sports media sources refer to it as South Carolina-Clemson rivalry.--LesPhilky (talk) 22:12, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
 * You keep making this claim, but you've offered absolutely zero proof that "most" national sports media sources refer to this rivalry as South Carolina-Clemson versus Carolina-Clemson. The fact is that Clemson and North Carolina are rivals in no sport, even though they have been in the same conference since 1953. UNC owns Clemson in basketball, and the reverse is true in football. If you asked fans of either fanbase if they considered the other a rival, I seriously doubt you'd find many who would say yes. This is the reason why Carolina-Clemson can be used around the country to describe the in-state rivalry without confusion. This is the reason why documentary filmmakers didn't feel it necessary to include "South" in the title of their movie. This is the reason why typing "Carolina-Clemson" into Google returns 42,200,000 search results and typing "South Carolina-Clemson" into Google returns 32,500,000 results. Sorry, but we're going to need more than your opinion to make a title change here. Or once again, you can push this idea over on the Carolina-Duke talk page, and if you can gain consensus on having that article's title changed to North Carolina-Duke rivalry, then I'll be more inclined to accept that you're not just doing it here for your own personal reasons.GarnetAndBlack (talk) 05:31, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
 * The documentary makers you cite are from South Carolina and are South Carolina Gamecock fans. I personally know one of them. Are Google search number results valid sources for Wikipedia articles? Did you consider that when you search "Carolina-Clemson," that you will return all instances of "Carolina-Clemson," "South Carolina-Clemson," and "North Carolina-Clemson" whereas typing "South Carolina-Clemson" will only return those results?
 * What if we start with ESPN? ESPN, the foremost sports television network in the country, refers to South Carolina as just that. They use "S.CAR" as their abbreviation during games. They refer to both North Carolina and South Carolina by their full names. I don't need to post links as you can look up any ESPN web page to verify this. How about Sports Illustrated? They also list both schools by their full names. Again, peruse their web pages to see. Are you arguing that most national sports media refer to South Carolina by Carolina and not the same with North Carolina? I would be eager to see that evidence.
 * Help me understand your points, and correct me if I'm wrong. 1. You insist South Carolina be referred to as "Carolina," and you individually refuse to allow anyone to change it unless we go over to the Carolina-Duke page and make changes there first. 2. South Carolina should only be referred to as "Carolina," but it should not be called the University of Carolina. 3. Major sports media and fans outside of South Carolina with no affiliation to either school refer to the school as Carolina (aside from ESPN and SI, of course). Could you provide proof seeing as I've already provided two major sports media outlets? 4. You believe I am pushing an agenda or POV by calling the Univ. of South Carolina by "South Carolina". Please explain how this is so. Do you believe C.Fred and 2Awwsome are doing the same?--LesPhilky (talk) 06:36, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I would also like to add NBC, CBS, and ABC to the mix of national media outlets that refer to the Gamecocks as "South Carolina". Again, you can peruse their many web pages on the Gamecocks through Google to see how they address the school.--LesPhilky (talk) 06:36, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm finished discussing this until you've attempted to push this same agenda in an article where your clear bias isn't at issue. I've suggested over and over that you could show good faith by pursuing this crusade at another rivalry article that is as much a "problem" as this one, by your logic, but you have yet to make the first move toward doing this, and instead just keep posting the same tedious arguments here. I wonder why this is? You started this discussion with "Carolina vs. South Carolina" and when it looked like consensus wasn't going in the direction you liked on that subject, you've moved the goalposts toward changing the name of this article, a topic which has already been discussed here in the past. Also, ESPN, SI and the four TV networks do not constitute "most" of the national sports media, and during games announcers on these networks often refer to USC as Carolina, the same as they do when broadcasting contests with UNC. The documentary makers are not Gamecock fans, and again I doubt you've got any more proof for that assertion than anything else you've tried to claim in your desperate crusade to have the name of an article on Wikipedia changed when there has been no demonstrated reason that it needs to be. Finally, your "University of Carolina" argument is absurd on its face, and I'm quite sure you realize that. You're really reaching at this point. GarnetAndBlack (talk) 08:19, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Why does one article have to be changed before another one can be? You asked for examples of major national sports media, and I provided the biggest ones. I have asked you for evidence to the contrary and you haven't provided it to support your claims. Again, I welcome your evidence. The University of Carolina point is a valid one. If I'm not mistaken, you refuse to allow your school to be called "South Carolina," but seem okay when it is called the University of South Carolina. Why? You don't have to believe me about the documentary makers. It doesn't matter to me. But I used to work with one of them and he and I have friendly banter about the rivalry on Facebook because he is a Gamecock fan. He's a great filmmaker, too, and I have a lot of respect for him. However, he and his partner are local, which explains why they use "Carolina". But you can ignore all that if you would like and simply answer this one question: there is a substantial push by multiple editors to have the name changed to "South Carolina". You have not provided any evidence that supports the school is commonly referred to as "Carolina" throughout the country. If we proceed with the change, are you going to revert it and refuse to allow the change?--LesPhilky (talk) 16:43, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
 * We're not talking about changing the name of this page. It is about whether removal of "South" from South Carolina in various places is correct. 2AwwsomeTell me where I screwed up. See where I screwed up 20:14, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Right, although I don't see anything wrong with just a title change. However, one of the points GarnetAndBlack claims over removal of "South" from South Carolina is that it is pushing a POV, which is a pretty specious claim. By that logic, we should refer to the school as the University of Carolina.--LesPhilky (talk) 22:12, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
 * It is no more pushing POV than referring to referring to Bill Clinton as Clinton on subsequent mentions is pushing a POV because it ignores the existence of Hillary. On first mention, we should specify whether UNC or USC is being discussed in the article, but if there's no confusion, we can just call it Carolina throughout the rest of the article.
 * If it's really that confusing, then on every mention of either Carolina, we need to use the full names of the University of South Carolina and the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, lest it be unclear that we're not referring to the state of South Carolina or to another university within the UNC system, such as the University of North Carolina at Pembroke. —C.Fred (talk) 16:35, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
 * And I think it's fine to do this, but in order to, I think we need to change the name of the article to it's proper title, which is The Battle of the Palmetto State.--LesPhilky (talk) 21:06, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Read about this debate on a internet forum and decided to sign up for wikipedia to give my opinion. Lifelong resident of the southeastern US, and I've never heard this rivalry refered to as anything other than Carolina-Clemson, or sometimes Clemson-Carolina. No one who follows college sports thinks of North Carolina when they read or hear those two terms. As far as just Carolina is concerned, well I guess that depends on what part of the South you are in. In NC, I'm quite certain that when people say Carolina, they are talking about UNC, just like when people in SC say Carolina they are talking about USC. I lived in Florida for the better part of a decade, and in Georgia for more than a decade, and most of the people I ran into in those places tended to split the usage among the two biggest college sports. That is to say that during college football season, if you heard people talking about Carolina, they were usually refering to the Gamecocks, but if it was basketball season and you heard a group talking about Carolina, typically they were discussing the Tarheels. Just one man's experiences, take them for what they're worth. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SaturdayintheSouth (talk • contribs) 20:27, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your contribution to the discussion. Could you provide some sources to support your arguments to help us with this? I'm also curious as to what forum this discussion had spilled over to.--LesPhilky (talk) 20:58, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I'd like to also add that while you refer to how the rivalry is known in the Southeast, keep in mind that Wikipedia serves a much broader audience throughout the world. On a national media scale, the school is referred to as South Carolina.--LesPhilky (talk) 21:12, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
 * The Road Warriors are a relatively new team to SC (2010) and Clemson-South Carolina have been using the name longer and more widespread. I don't know if that makes a difference in your point, but there's the info for what it's worth.--LesPhilky (talk) 18:30, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Carolina Panthers Venue, 1995, (USC-Clemson)
Hey guys, what do yall think about adding a section about the 1995 Carolina Panther venue. Carolina wanted to play at Williams Brice, but USC said no. So they played at Clemson instead. Here is the excerpt from another wikipedia article on Carolina's history.
 * "The home games during the season were played at Clemson University, as the Panthers stadium in Charlotte was still under construction. This made the Panthers the only sports team in one of the Big Four leagues ever based out of South Carolina, even if only for one year. The Panthers originally wanted to play their first season in Williams-Brice Stadium in Columbia, South Carolina, which was closer and more accessible to Charlotte, but the University of South Carolina turned them down."

Would adding this small piece of history in the two teams rivalry be of any use? Thought it was interesting! Thanks! 8panther2pride8 (talk) 16:25, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Had zero impact on the rivalry, and is clearly a tactic by a sockpuppeteer to try to get some mention of the Carolina Panthers in this article so that you can make your argument that the Gamecocks can not be referred to as "Carolina" anywhere in the article because it might cause confusion with the NFL team. You think you are being clever in your creation and use of multiple accounts, but I assure you that your motives are quite transparent and your methods are obvious. You've been added to an ongoing SPI, along with another sock you've exposed today. GarnetAndBlack (talk) 20:53, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Okay, so I will take that as a no? Just thought it was cool that the Carolina Panthers, a new franchise that represents the states would have a venue discrepancy between USC and Clemson. Shows the deep impact of the rivalry. My question was . . . was there any impact on the rivalry? You have answered it boss! Did I do this talk thing right? I wasn't sure if I was supposed to go through you or another admin before adding to talk or making edits. I noticed you're the same dude who reverted the edit I made on Steve Spurrier. And I thought I was doing a good job. Ohhh well. Is there an admin over every group of articles like you Garnett and Black? I just don't want to do wrong. 8panther2pride8 (talk) 00:26, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
 * It's interesting but trivial. Now, if the Panthers had been targeting Williams Brice and Clemson made a sweetened offer to lure them away, it might be relevant to the rivalry. If Clemson fans had gone all Cameron Crazies and made signs taunting USC about losing the Panthers, now it's really getting into the realm of the rivalry. However, the article is not a repository for every bit of trivia that ties the two schools and football together. —C.Fred (talk) 00:36, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Thats what I figured, just wanted to throw it out there and see what the editing veterans thought. Thanks C. Fred for replying and being respectful. It's a breath of fresh air to hear logic in a civil way. Especially after being attacked and spit on by Garnett and Black, who isn't even an ADMIN. Respectfully, 8panther2pride8 (talk) 01:43, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't recall there being any animosity or impact between the two teams when the Panthers came to Clemson. In my opinion, it's really not relevant. And that's what GarnetAndBlack does, but probably not for much longer.--LesPhilky (talk) 02:05, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
 * You keep on dreaming, Les. And keep on supporting the disruption of Wikipedia by sockpuppeting miscreants, as long as it is a means to your own ends, of course. GarnetAndBlack (talk) 02:15, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Don't really see how I've supported any sockpuppetry efforts or disruption. In fact, I recall being the one who started this discussion so the edit warring would end. And it did.--LesPhilky (talk) 02:20, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
 * It ended when I filed an SPI on the user and socks that started it in the first place. Strange that those accounts haven't been active since, but now we've suddenly got a couple new ones who are making the same edits across the same articles. Keep telling yourself that you're Mr. Objectivity in all this. The truth is obvious to anyone who bothers to look. GarnetAndBlack (talk) 02:29, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Okay. Congratulations on your findings.--LesPhilky (talk) 02:51, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Highest ranked matchup
Proposal to remove 1987 game from notable games. It's listed as a notable game because it is the highest ranked match-up between the two teams. However, this Saturday will mark the new highest ranked match-up. Propose that we keep it for one year as "Last Meeting" based upon previous consensus and then leave it permanently as the new "Highest Ranked Match-up" unless a higher one occurs in the future.--LesPhilky (talk) 06:55, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Fine, as long as we agree on a Clemson victory to remove with it. Per previous consensus, this section is to contain an equal number of entries for Carolina and Clemson wins, with the exception of the "Last Meeting". GarnetAndBlack (talk) 07:11, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Or you could just add a different significant SC win. Keep in mind that if SC wins Saturday, it won't be necessary as this entry will remain in the list after next year.--LesPhilky (talk) 12:41, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Removed 1987 game in light of tonight's win. Added tonight's win to list; however, it will remain past this year since it is the highest ranked matchup between the two teams.--LesPhilky (talk) 05:41, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

Requested move

 * The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: Move to Clemson–South Carolina rivalry. There's a rough consensus that a move is desirable, as there may be confusion in the current descriptive title. It does seem clear that "South Carolina" is in common use for the Gamecocks and will not be confusing. Additionally, of the two suggested titles, this one had more specific support. Cúchullain t/ c 21:50, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Carolina–Clemson rivalry → Clemson–South Carolina rivalry – In the context of collegiate athletics, "Carolina" alone usually refers to UNC; indeed "Carolina" is already used for UNC in other titles, such as Carolina–Duke rivalry and other members of. Per WP:CRITERIA, we should be consistent with these titles. There isn't a specific rivalry between UNC and Clemson, but a person could easily make such a mistake given that they're in the same conference. In South Carolina, I'm sure they use this terminology, but Wikipedia is a global encyclopedia. --BDD (talk) 21:34, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Wow. I hadn't even seen the above discussion, but my request and rationale stand. --BDD (talk) 21:35, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
 * What if we changed the name to The Battle of the Palmetto State? That's the official name recognized by both schools.--LesPhilky (talk) 01:15, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Do you have a source for that? —C.Fred (talk) 15:30, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I retract that as I can't find where the schools recognize it, but it is called "The Battle for the Palmetto State for the Hardee's Trophy," which is the trophy given to the winner of the game. I feel like this is a better compromise name.--LesPhilky (talk) 17:37, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
 * That might be a good compromise if the sources support it. --BDD (talk) 17:22, 22 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Strong support a move as per WP:PRECISE, and both proposals sound fine to me. Red Slash 04:00, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Strong oppose as no one has yet demonstrated that Carolina "usually refers" to UNC-CH with any sourced references; indeed there has been nothing to support this notion but opinion and anecdotes. Also, even if this could be proven to be the case in the context of American college athletics, as has been pointed out, Wikipedia is a global encyclopedia, and there is certainly no indication that people around the world view this in the same context. To suggest otherwise would be totally disingenuous. If this article must include "South" in the title to accommodate a global audience, then every similar article that references UNC athletics must include "North" in the title as well, especially per WP:PRECISE. There is absolutely no defense for a double standard to exist if worldwide clarity and lack of confusion is truly the goal here. Also, I'd point out that Wikipedia already has a system in place for people who might search for articles by typing in something other than the exact title, and that is WP:REDIRECT. This article already has a "South Carolina-Clemson rivalry" redirect pointing at it, and that should suffice for anyone searching using that terminology. Finally, titling this article "Clemson-South Carolina rivalry" could engender more confusion among an international audience unfamiliar with US collegiate athletics and geography, as the name of the town where one of the schools is located is Clemson, South Carolina. Is the town having a rivalry all by itself? GarnetAndBlack (talk) 06:44, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm not opposed to adding "North" in the relevant articles. I think "Carolina–Duke rivalry" is very recognizable, and a UNC–Clemson rivalry is plausible, unlike a USC–Duke one. But I don't think there would be any harm in clarifying both North and South. That comes back to the consistency argument. --BDD (talk) 17:33, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Agree here. I would also support adding "North" to articles applying to Univ. of North Carolina.--LesPhilky (talk) 17:42, 22 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Oppose both context and the article itself make it clear that the rivalry is between South Carolina and Clemson, not North Carolina and Clemson. Ncjon (talk) 11:29, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Weak support. First, I disagree with the assertion that Carolina refers primarily to UNC-CH. While the Tarheels may have more rivals or more widely-known rivalries than the Gamecocks, that doesn't give them a better claim to the name. The key with naming an article is for the title to be clear and well-understood. Now, in the case of the Tarheels and Blue Devils, the volume of media coverage referring to it as the Carolina–Duke rivalry is enough to support that term for the article name.
 * For the case of the Gamecocks and Tigers, the same logic prevails. If the preponderance of media (yes, ESPN would be a major barometer, but other sources should be looked at) call this the Carolina–Clemson rivalry, then that's a perfectly valid name. However, per the discussion above, I haven't seen demonstration that it is used that frequently. Likewise, if the dominant term for it were the Battle of the Palmetto State, that would be a good title, based on it being the common name.
 * If we don't have an official name or clearly common name, then the title of the article needs to be descriptive of the teams involved—and that's where just calling the Gamecocks Carolina is problematic. Now we have the situation of ambiguity, so we need to be specific that it's South Carolina. Further, when using the team-descriptive-name, the teams are listed in alphabetical order (q.v. Florida–Georgia football rivalry); that's why Clemson flips to first in that listing.
 * Of course, everything I just said hinges on the lack of demonstration of a common name. If sources were located that show a common name, I'd re-evaluate my position. —C.Fred (talk) 15:44, 22 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Strong support a move for the reasons I've stated above pretty explicitly. However, I would also propose calling North Carolina it's full name. Arguing over which one uses "Carolina" the most is a bit of a moot issue. National sports media refers to both of them as North Carolina and South Carolina, and I think clarifying both with this distinction is both fair and avoids confusion.--LesPhilky (talk) 17:41, 22 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Oppose per WP:UCN (use common names, i.e. "USC" or "Carolina"). In the context of a rivalry, it's not ambiguous.   —  AjaxSmack   04:39, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Strong support as per WP:PRECISE.--JacksonD21 (talk) 03:03, 24 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Strong support a move Dare I make one point without G&B attacking my credentials? Needs to be said so i'll go for it. During the South Carolina - Clemson game last night, it was referred to as South Carolina - Clemson or Clemson - South Carolina 100% of the time. And don't say its because a National Broadcasting station doesn't use nicknames, because Missouri was called Mizzou a handful of times and UNC was called Carolina. Not trying to argue who owns what nickname, I repeat, not trying to show what team owns what nickname. That is a non-issue. Please don't make that the issue either G&B. Just showing that not once was it called anything but South Carolina - Clemson. Gamecockpride123 (talk) 16:16, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

Alternative: Rename to Battle of the Palmetto State
Carolina–Clemson rivalry → Battle of the Palmetto State – Following LesPhilky's suggestion above, I explored the possibility of a compromise, and I've found Battle of the Palmetto State to be appealing, especially per WP:COMMONNAME. beats out, , , and. We wouldn't want to go with an alternative just to avoid the above issues, but since it's backed by policy, this may be the best option available to us. This isn't necessarily an either/or question either. You can support or oppose each proposal separately, and the closer will assess which option, if any, has consensus to move. --BDD (talk) 17:45, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Oppose both per WP:COMMONNAME. The article makes it clear that it is South Carolina, and most sources call it the 'Carolina-Clemson rivalry'. 2AwwsomeTell me where I screwed up. See where I screwed up 17:47, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Disagree that most sources list it as "Carolina-Clemson". Many local sources do, but on a national scale, it is listed as "South Carolina". No evidence has been posted to the contrary.--LesPhilky (talk) 18:13, 22 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Strong support. I support both but would support this move more.--LesPhilky (talk) 18:13, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment. Changing the search to does not substantially reduce the number of results; however, there were front-page results before the change about a hockey rivalry between the South Carolina Stingrays and Greenville Road Warriors. —C.Fred (talk) 18:21, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
 * The Road Warriors are a relatively new team to SC (2010) and Clemson-South Carolina have been using the name longer and more widespread. I don't know if that makes a difference in your point, but there's the info for what it's worth.--LesPhilky (talk) 18:31, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Support a rename to "Clemson-South Carolina" due to North Carolina being in the same conference as Clemson. ONR (talk) 00:42, 2 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Oppose Battle of the Palmetto State per WP:UCN. Furthermore, the term does not cover the entire history of the rivalry.  —  AjaxSmack   04:39, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Logos
I know this has been discussed before, but I'm still trying to understand why we can't use the Clemson paw logo and the South Carolina Block C logo for this page. These logos are used on their respective Wikipedia sports pages and other schools' rivalry pages feature the logos. If I'm not mistaken, both schools allow the logos to be used for these purposes. How come the logos can be used elsewhere but not on this page?--LesPhilky (talk) 13:48, 5 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Other schools' rivalry pages use logos that are free for re-use. (Off the top of my head, there's a text logo for the University of Florida.) WP:NFCC says not to use logos on the rivalry page; it's deemed not to be identification of the involved deems but decoration of the article. The schools do not "allow the logos to be used for these purposes"; for Wikipedia purposes, the logos are either free (and can be used anywhere, for any purposes) or are non-free (and must meet NFCC to be used on Wikipedia). Now, if there were a logo specifically for the rivalry, like Florida–Georgia has, then we could use that under NFCC. —C.Fred (talk) 16:32, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
 * So how come the Clemson paw and SC Block C are used on other pages? Does this mean Auburn, Alabama, GT, UGA, UNC, and Duke logos are free to use since they are on the rivalry pages? I recall reading on Clemson's website that the paw is allowable for informational articles such as Wikipedia (I do not know South Carolina's policy).--LesPhilky (talk) 16:56, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

South Carolina's national championships
Currently, the article lists South Carolina as having eight national titles. Four of these are for equestrian. However, equestrian is not an NCAA-sponsored sport. The other national titles listed for Clemson and SC are sports that are governed by the NCAA. As the link notes, a sport must have 40 or more schools participating to be NCAA-sponsored. South Carolina and other schools won National Collegiate Equestrian Association (NCEA) championships. South Carolina's athletic department specifies that its team is a member of the NCEA. The NCEA website also mentions that their mission is to "advance the sport of Equestrian from Emerging to Championship status(emphasis mine) with the NCAA by promoting the benefits of Equestrian to universities, riders, prospective student-athletes, parents, horse industry professionals and sponsors while developing the rules and competition format."

So, the proposal: Either remove the four equestrian national championships since the article pertains to the sports rivalry in NCAA sports, or list them separately and specify the discrepancy between the NCAA sports and the NCEA titles.

I understand one response would be that the NCAA doesn't technically award national titles in football, therefore pertaining to Clemson's 1981 title, but in fact it does recognize national champions (even co-champs) through the third-party organizations. Football is considered an "NCAA championship" sport while equestrian is not. Equestrian is in fact not listed under the available sports on the NCAA website.--LesPhilky (talk) 21:21, 10 December 2013 (UTC)


 * The figures are those claimed by both schools. My suggestion? Leave the figures as-is and add a note to both figures: "National championships are as claimed by both schools. Four of South Carolina's titles were awarded by the NCAA; the other four are NCEA titles in equestrian, a sport not sponsored by the NCAA. Three of Clemson's titles were awarded by the NCAA; the fourth is a football title as determined by polling services." —C.Fred (talk) 21:30, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Sounds like a good idea. I'll wait for other input before making a change.--LesPhilky (talk) 21:40, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I agree with C.Fred. Billcasey905 (talk) 14:40, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I've boldly added a note. —C.Fred (talk) 16:28, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
 * LMAO while SMH. This article details the number of equestrian national championships, and that's why it's used as a reference. Note that there are 3 consecutive national titles in hunt seat and 2 overall national titles. I'll make the relevant changes to the article. GarnetAndBlack (talk) 18:44, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Maybe drop the SC AD a note to remind them to update their webpage that lists titles.--LesPhilky (talk) 19:09, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
 * If it will make you feel better, I might just give them a call this week and point out the discrepancy. If they fix it, all the credit will belong to you. Pretty cool, huh? High FIVE! GarnetAndBlack (talk) 19:17, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
 * That would be great so there isn't further confusion. No need to give me credit.--LesPhilky (talk) 19:34, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Lay out
Can anyone normalize the layout of this entry? Thanks,Super48paul (talk) 19:09, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Rivalry Comparison
Hey guys, new user on Wikipedia. (Yes, I'm a Gamecock fan, but that won't cloud my judgment or make me impartial) Anyways, my first edit is a contextual comparison of the USC-CU rivalry to other in-state rivalries. I think it really shows readers the essence and bitterness often associated with this particular in-state rivalry. I used two states that are close by and I used a heated ACC rivalry and a heated SEC rivalry as comparison, so that readers from both sides (seeing that Clemson and South Carolina are in different conferences)can fully grasp and understand the matchup. I also included sources. Does this work? ImCocky!! (talk) 22:00, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Welcome aboard. I made a few minor edits to your addition for links and grammar.--LesPhilky (talk) 07:31, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Title to content continuity
Dont have much interest in this page but the duke UNC page mentioned this article. I noticed the title clemson-south carolina was different in several spots and said carolina Clemson. It was also different on UNC duke page. Les you instructed me to look at the talk page which i did, and im going to have to agree with my carolina counterpart to the south, garnett and black, on this one when he said the title and references to the title in the article should be the same. Carolina can be left because its a nickname like usc. But i think creating some continuity would be nice.take it or leave it. Just a thought. also, unc duke article says the usc clemson rivalry is biggest over baseball. im thinking that should say football. yall agree? CarolinaBlue252 (talk) 20:47, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
 * The reason I mentioned checking out the talk page is that this was discussed at length about a month ago and upon a vote, the admins made the change to keep it consistent with Clemson-South Carolina.--LesPhilky (talk) 21:05, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Right, I changed instances of carolina-clemson to clemson-south carolina to keep it consistent and you changed it back to carolina clemson. aren't we arguing the same point then? — Preceding unsigned comment added by CarolinaBlue252 (talk • contribs) 21:42, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
 * My apologies, I must have misread.--LesPhilky (talk) 23:12, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
 * No worries, glad im not going crazy. So in yours and Garnett and blacks opinion, is this rivalry bigger in baseball or football? Or about the same? looks like football from the looks of this article. trying to clear a tid bit of info up on UNC duke page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CarolinaBlue252 (talk • contribs) 23:20, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
 * It's much, much bigger in football, but I would argue that we have the biggest rivalry in college baseball.--LesPhilky (talk) 14:09, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Okay that makes alot of sense. thanks les. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CarolinaBlue252 (talk • contribs) 19:47, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

Garnett and Black, my carolina southern brother! (sorry i think its cool we both have unc and usc's colors as our names) why did you revert my edit? I thought we were on the same page. you said the title and content should be the same, thats why you ensured the article had carolina clemson throughout it. i noticed the title was changed, so wouldnt that be the same logic? i got it from you. am i missing something here? I notice that there is a war between you and les going on and i dont care about that, do you think im siding with him? or is there another miscommunication going on like before? hop on here and talk to me before we start edit warring bro. thanks man! You got me crying Carolina!!!! haha look forward to hearing from you man. CarolinaBlue252 (talk) 20:05, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Garnett and Black, please discuss your opinions here in talk instead of just reverting. I'm still confused as to why you revert edits back to carolina Clemson, when you yourself said article and title should be the same? I literally quoted you on that. But it was carolina clemson back then before admins changed it. i hope this is not some prejudice you have towards using clemsons name first. It would be slightly immature. If that be the case, then maybe try and change the article title to south carolina-clemson rivalry??? — Preceding unsigned comment added by CarolinaBlue252 (talk • contribs) 21:05, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Never mind Garnett and Black, i don't know why I care anyways. Keep it however it is. I really just wanted to know about baseball. No point in starting a war. Y'all take care. CarolinaBlue252 (talk) 21:12, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I feel i should apologize for calling you immature Garnett and Black. it wasnt very gentlemen like. And as a Carolina Blue bow tie wearing southern man, I should keep it classier. Esse Quam Videri gents! — Preceding unsigned comment added by CarolinaBlue252 (talk • contribs) 21:29, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I have, sort of, sat this one out with other, more important, things going on in life - but it is disappointing to see you two ganging-up on G&B over the article title. I monitored it from afar, thinking everyone would come to their senses - that being, not the least of which, "Clemson-South Carolina" simply doesn't work, (unless you are referring to the small town in Pickens County of Clemson, South Carolina.  Historically it has been referred to as the Carolina-Clemson rivalry and that is how it shall be referred to in this article.  Or, if y'all would prefer, it has been referred to as The University of South Carolina versus Clemson College since the late 19th Century.  (It was changed to Carolina-Clemson beginning in 1960 I believe, but that's vetteable. (sic)  We may have some discussion on the issue, that's fine, but it is going-back to what it has always been (for so many reasons), Carolina-Clemson. Scrooster (talk) 21:48, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
 * With all due respect, this was discussed at length, voted on to form a consensus, and changed by an impartial administrator to reflect the results of the vote. On what authority do you have to override that? Just because G&B was in the minority doesn't mean he was getting ganged up on. As you mentioned, you sat that discussion out and the issue was voted on and passed. There were multiple opportunities to weigh in on the two-week long discussion. As the admin stated, "Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section." We can reopen the discussion, but mandating that it will be changed won't work.--LesPhilky (talk) 22:40, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
 * You seem to be operating under the erroneous assumption that consensus on Wikipedia is arrived at by voting. I can assure you that this is not the case, and a quick read of WP:CNN and WP:DEM should cure you of this belief. The name change/move of this article was arbitrarily conducted without clear consensus, and I can assure you that the matter is not closed. There was obvious sockpuppeting/edit warring taking place in the lead up to this decision, and this is only one of the problems I have in this case. I will most likely move the article back to its more common name under the policy of WP:BRD and allow people like Scrooster to be allowed to have a say in a discussion that might lead to an actual consensus that isn't hijacked by disruptive editors and doesn't represent a double standard in an encyclopedic project that allows an article to exist with the title Carolina-Duke rivalry even though there has been no more evidence offered in that case that the name represents the standard when referring to the subject outside of a region of the United States. There is absolutely no defense for such a double standard to exist here. Neither school owns the word "Carolina", and if it is accurate enough to refer to one in the title of an article, then it is accurate enough to refer to the other. GarnetAndBlack (talk) 07:02, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
 * There appeared to be one case of sockpuppetry, yes, but there were several others who weighed in who were not. And as for the edit warring, you also contributed to that. We finally got results when we moved it here and involved admins.--LesPhilky (talk) 15:34, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Since there's been an RM before, a unilateral move isn't an option. The options for moving the article are either move review, where you'd need to establish that the close was out of line with policy and the WP:RMCI (and over 2 months is a bit late for that) or a new RM.--Cúchullain t/ c 14:05, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Prepare to have this challenged to its fullest. That LesPhilky chose to push this while I was indisposed over the holidays is consistent with his past practices - I'd be disappointed but, in truth, I should have known he would never let this go and accept the historical reality of the rivalry's title, the common regional and historical phraseology accepted for decades set by alphabetical and foundational precedents.  Regardless, the rivalry's title, Carolina-Clemson, is historical fact and so it will be proven, regardless of biased UNC/Clemson editor input ... it doesn't change historical fact in this case.  I'll be traveling to Columbia, in short order, and doing the research, once again, through their microfiched archives of formerly printed material, to establish the timeline and commonly accepted title of the rivalry.  Once I accomplish this, once I narrow the articles down to specifics in various Public Record, I'll come back and finance links to necessary online sources in order to cite the obvious in this case and we'll put this to rest once and for all. LesPhilky already knows where this is going - but that he insists on taking this there is ridiculous and adolescent, to the point of it being sublime almost.  He's having a problem stomaching the five consecutive losses so this is how low he sinks - wasting all of our time pushing this nonsense? All I can do is lulz at the moment.  It will be corrected, I assure you. This is not over in the least. I've never seen such absolute childishness perpetrated within a relatively innocuous article such as this before.  This is an attempt to rewrite history, to completely change historical perspective, and it shall not stand. Wiki does not presume to rewrite established history, or even to set historical standard, in order to please an overly obsessive editor's petty, childish, needs Cúchullain. Oh, and yes, while we're at it, The University of South Carolina is THE Flagship university of the State of South Carolina, LesPhilky. It existed eighty-eight years before your beloved Clemson was even chartered and it shall not play second fiddle, under any circumstances, to yours, or anyone else's attempts to set new title precedents here in the 21st Century.  It is what it is and it is what it always shall be - and that I will prove, once and for all, and then we're going to take special steps to make sure we never have to go through this time wasting nonsense ever again. Scrooster (talk) 19:24, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Wow... that's, um, interesting. I thought you and I were on the level, but I guess you harbor some resentment towards me that I was unaware of. How was I supposed to know you were predisposed over the holidays? What holidays occurred on, Nov. 21-24, or Dec. 1 and 2? Are you really accusing me of trying to push a change based on your personal schedule that you somehow think I'm clairvoyant to? I invite you to look back at how this started. It began with an edit war between GarnetAndBlack and some sock puppeteer. I brought it in here for discussion and invited the other parties involved to participate. Then I asked for third party assistance per Wikipedia's policies. Everything that occurred went down by the book. It is no one's fault but your own that you did not participate. I welcome your research in this matter, but I request that you provide sources that are not relegated to just the Univ. of South Carolina. No one in the previous discussion could provide one single source outside of the state of South Carolina that called it "Carolina-Clemson rivalry". I requested it on numerous occasions but no one could do it. I could list several media sources that referred to Univ. of SC as "South Carolina". As mentioned in the previous, Wikipedia is designed to provide an accurate encyclopedic work for the entire world. Keep in mind that I'm still waiting for you or G&B to lay out why you have such an aversion to referring to the Univ. of SC as "South Carolina," or how that pushes some agenda/bias to call it that.
 * That being said, I would like to note that in this diatribe, you have admitted that your intentions are fueled by biased editing. When you state, "the University of South Carolina is THE Flagship university of the State of South Carolina, LesPhilky. It existed eighty-eight years before your beloved Clemson was even chartered and it shall not play second fiddle, under any circumstances...", you announce that your intentions in this matter are to paint one school in a more positive light than another rather than for the sake of accuracy. I ask Cúchullain, if you don't mind, to please take note of this declaration of biased intent.
 * Finally, I ask that you, Scrooster, please refrain from personal attacks directed at me as they are unwarranted, unprovoked, and counterproductive to this discussion.--LesPhilky (talk) 20:49, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the policy clarifications. I suppose that settles that.--LesPhilky (talk) 15:24, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

North Carolina Tar Heels
Hey guys just a friendly comment in passing to frequent editors of this article. You may want to refrain from calling South Carolina simply Carolina. I see your using it to shorten South Carolina, and I understand who your talking about. But its hard not to think of the Tarheels everytime you say Carolina. I feel it subtracts from the article. Especially since Clemson is in the Carolina Tarheel's conference. I get it, saying the teams full name everytime is a lot of typing, but I would recommend using USC instead of Carolina. I'm sure USC fans in SC refer to the team as Carolina, but once you exit the state, Carolina refers to the Heels. I don't think it's that big of a deal because the article title clearly states Clemson-South Carolina article and it really doesn't bother me as I'm an Auburn fan, but, I did find myself thinking about the first Carolina everytime you mentioned their name. Just something to think about. WAR EAGLE! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.182.224.220 (talk) 17:57, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the constructive input, Tarheel fan, but next time be proud enough to admit your affiliation when you post OPINION like this on Wikipedia. You'll get more respect if you're honest. GarnetAndBlack (talk) 19:39, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Ohhhhh how I hate having this conversation . . . Yes, when said alone, Carolina does usually mean the Tar Heels on a national level. Yes, they were here first (and we were USC before Socal. . .). I've heard all the reasons. But what people FAIL TO REALIZE is that South CAROLINA contains CAROLINA too! I don't think anyone is trying to take away North Carolina's beloved nickname. But when Gamecock fans, and a lot of South Carolinians for that matter, say Carolina, we are just abbreviating the team's name. No one is breaking any laws here! Furthermore, you said it correctly when you said the article title clearly states Clemson-SOUTH Carolina. I hate hearing this CAROLINA USC mixup crap. I personally make it very clear when I tell people what school I went to. I went to THE UNIVERSITY OF SOUTH CAROLINA. If I hear, oh your a Tar Heel! or oh your a Trojan! one more time . . . . If you think changing all the instances of stating Carolina by itself to USC will help, then by all means try it. But I can tell you right now, someone else will come along and say "hey you guys know USC is Southern California right?" Geez I'm tired of hearing this, and I'm tired of everyone trying to take our names away. We already have been legally stripped of USC! Just waiting for the day UNC takes Carolina too! UNC is NOT the only Carolina. Their can be more than one team from a region. How would you explain the Carolina Panthers, Carolina Hurricanes, Carolina Railhawks, Carolina Mudcats ????? No one is telling them they can't use CAROLINA because "The Carolina Tar Heels were established first." Bottom line, who cares what the content of the article refers to the Gamecocks as, because the ARTICLE TITLE SAYS THE TEAMS NAME (SOUTH CAROLINA) TO ALLEVIATE CONFUSION. Your argument would hold merit if it only used Clemson-Carolina (which I have heard some people in SC say), but guess what, it doesn't. And I personally don't want to read "The University of South Carolina Gamecocks. . ." every single sentence. But thank-you for your input. And sorry guys for the rant, I know I'm new, but I travel a lot for my job and its on a weekly basis that someone tries to give me hell because the Gamecocks plaster CAROLINA all over their uniforms to "try and steal some Chapel Hill glory" No were not, its just shortened, it would be hard to fit South in front of it I imagine. Some people even go as far to say oh The University of South Carolina, that means Clemson right? Nooooo, Clemson means Clemson. I wish we could drop all the name problems and focus on good content. ImCocky!! (talk) 04:42, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
 * What we had established earlier is that it's fine to refer to South Carolina as "Carolina" or "USC" in some instances of the article, but that main title and rivalry reference should remain "Clemson-South Carolina rivalry" for clarity. After that, it can be used interchangeably. Like you, I think this issue has already been put to bed and it's time to focus on important content.--LesPhilky (talk) 06:27, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Well those are the team's names so it makes sense. South Carolina's name is just that, South Carolina. I for one am proud as hell to be SOUTH Carolina. However, a handful of people in Columbia do call it plain Carolina. And the cocks do write Carolina on all their gear now. I do wish they would include the South on it. Have a little more pride in our state. But my point here is not to discuss my Opinions, and these are opinions. USC is called Carolina some in South Carolina so that's all that matters. Facts, not opinions. Anyways, I look forward to developing this page and making it more factual and official. Get away from the whole "your team steals other teams names nonsense. Who cares. Seriously. With all the discussion we had about nicknames, we could have done some good research for the article. Okay I'm officially done with this "Carolina Tar Heel Conundrum." Its stressing me out. ImCocky!! (talk) 03:28, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
 * And North Carolina's name is just that, NORTH Carolina. I've heard just as many announcers of sports broadcasts refer to USC as Carolina during games as I've heard UNC referred to as Carolina when their games are televised. There is another edition of the UNC-Duke basketball rivalry coming this week, and not a single graphic used on ESPN to promote the game has called it "Carolina-Duke", they consistently use "North Carolina-Duke". I'm getting more than a little suspect that someone who claims to be such a fan of USC is making comment after comment about how nationally well known UNC is as "Carolina" and how USC just needs to embrace the "South" and let go of any claim to using a common nickname for the school. With all the sockpuppeting that was taking place around the time that this tiresome issue was dredged up again, surely you can see why someone might look askance at a new user who can't seem to talk about anything but this subject? Seriously, thus far the majority of the edits you've made on Wikipedia are on this Talk page, dealing with this issue. You keep making mention of improving articles, how about devoting a little effort toward that end so that you don't get lumped in with the various accounts/IPs being used by a disruptive single-purpose editor? GarnetAndBlack (talk) 08:30, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
 * He has not done anything to warrant any insinuation of sock puppetry. Please encourage rather than discourage new editors.--LesPhilky (talk) 14:42, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Garnett and Black, you are completely right, I am so tired of the whole one school owns Carolina stuff. I bet you it will calm down after basketball season and after UNC Duke games are over. But everything I said about USC goes for UNC. Two states that have Carolina in them are both able to say "Carolina". That's why this article will use Carolina USC and South Carolina interchangeably. And like I said before, In South Carolina, you do hear the rivalry called Carolina- Clemson or Clemson Carolina. I'm on your side Garnett and Black, relax. I just can't stand the whole whose the Real Carolina debate. We both are. Having a double standard for nicknames is without reason. Much like the USC SoCal debate a while back. I just wish Tar Heels and people who hate SCAR would stop saying one team owns Carolina. See what I'm saying?ImCocky!! (talk) 13:10, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
 * HOLY CRAP I just saw all the name change and Carolina this and that crap above. WOW!! It looks like the majority of the pages history is bickering about the word Carolina. Les, Garnett . . . you guys are better men than me. I cant stand that stuff. A MESSAGE TO ALL FUTURE NAME COMPLAINERS . . . . . WE ARE SOUTH CAROLINA. THEY ARE CLEMSON. SOUTH CAROLINA and CLEMSON. Yes, UNC is popularly known as Carolina. Every one here has been made fully aware over and over and over again. The USC-CU rivalry has a lot to offer and is a great read and provides good entertainment. Pick a side and enjoy the games. Or put your efforts into improving the article. Geez. Okay, I'm really done now. ImCocky!! (talk) 03:38, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Don't let it discourage you from editing. We could use some level-headed input on this page.--LesPhilky (talk) 14:40, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Garnet and black typically uses "South Carolina" and "Carolina" and "Gamecocks" where it fits him; he seems to want to be the editor of this article, and so far, has been left to do it. To be unbiased, he should use "South Carolina" as it is the full name, and do so in alphabetical order when listed near Clemson. But he won't, as anyone tell after reading the obvious bias in this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.1.46.131 (talk) 18:48, 10 September 2014 (UTC)