Talk:Deep South's Oldest Rivalry

Auburn's Rank in the 2006 game
Auburn was ranked #5 for this game. The table is right but the text is wrong.

Oldest vs. longest uninterrupted
The actual Deep South's oldest rivalry is Furman v. Wofford, which began in 1889.

The South Carolina - Clemson series is the longest running rivalry in The South, not Georgia - Auburn, just because they played the earliest game. Georgia - Auburn missed numerous games during WWI and WWII. South Carolina - Clemson has been uninterrupted since 1909, and is the 3rd longest running nationally behind Lafayette - Lehigh and Kansas - Kansas State. This article is very misleading... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.76.6.69 (talk) 02:47, 27 September 2007 (UTC)


 * What exactly is your complaint again? The article title is what the game has long been known as, based on it being the game first played between major college powers in the deep south, i.e.  The Deep South's Oldest Rivalry.  The article also makes it clear that it is the 7th most played rivalry.  You are quite welcome to make the claim (with substantiation) in the South Carolina and Clemson articles that that matchup is the third longest uninterrupted series, but that in no way invalidates either of the factual claims here. FYI, the NCAA record book merely ranks the most played, not the most played uninterrupted. As to the "oldest" title; Clemson certainly couldn't claim such over Auburn or Georgia since Clemson didn't field a team until several years after AU and UGA first played.  That first Clemson team was in fact coached by an Auburn grad that played in the first AU-UGA matchup, Walter Riggs. AU Tiger  » talk 04:17, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:AuburnTigers.png
The image Image:AuburnTigers.png is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check


 * That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
 * That this article is linked to from the image description page.

The following images also have this problem:


 * Image:UGA$!logo.png

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Media copyright questions. --09:47, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Article title
For such a noteworthy rivalry, the nickname "Deep South's Oldest Rivalry" does not appear to be well established. It returns only 9 hits on Google Books, several of which are rip-offs for this article, while others use as a description, not a nickname. Similarly, it returns only 121 results in the Google News archives, and again, many just use the phrase as a description. By contrast "Auburn-Georgia"+football returns nearly 600 hits on Google Books and 4400 in the Google News archives.. "Georgia-Auburn" is also much, much more common than "Deep South's Oldest Rivalry". I plan on moving the page unless someone objects (and presents evidence that this name is proper).--Cúchullain t/ c 20:14, 16 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Cooch, as you know, I don't have a dog in this hunt . . . cough, cough . . . but the phrase "Deep South's oldest rivalry" appears to be a relatively common usage in AP wire service articles going back over twenty years. A Google News Archive search turned up 120 hits, going back to a 1983 wire article in the Montreal Gazette, of all sources: .  Personally, I am all in favor of moving most of these CFB rivalry articles to names like "Auburn–Georgia football rivalry," but some of the goofy names are well established and vehemently held by some fans and editors.  Just look how many times a year we have to revert attempts to move the Florida–Georgia article to "World's Largest Outdoor Cocktail Party," and that name has been officially disavowed by the city, both universities and CBS.  To the extent we can't move these articles, we need to create the most plausible redirects and also include the most straightforward version of the rivalry name in the lede, even as a secondary name.  Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 21:38, 16 December 2011 (UTC)


 * The phrase "Deep South's oldest rivalry" is indeed used. However, it is not always used as a nickname - some sources just describe the Auburn-Georgia rivalry the "Deep South's oldest rivalry" (or sometimes the "South's oldest rivalry") - and at any rate it is significantly less common that either "Auburn-Georgia" or "Georgia-Auburn". A descriptive title like "Auburn-Georgia football rivalry" would be more in line with the ways the game is referred to in the sources. The use of silly, often fairly obscure nicknames in article titles seems to be much more the province of certain Wikipedia editors (who often can't be bothered to do any other work on the articles) than the authors of the sources or fans of the teams.Cúchullain t/ c 21:00, 17 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Go for it. I'll back the move to "Auburn–Georgia football rivalry."  I do suggest that you preserve the redirect, and also include "sometimes referred to as the 'Deep Soutb's Oldest Rivarly'" in the revised article lede.  Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 22:37, 17 December 2011 (UTC)


 * I'm late to this, but this article's title should not have been changed. "Deep South's Oldest Rivalry" is the most common name used by fans of the teams. It has also been used by the schools official websites.1 I don't know how to change it back, but I suggest returning it back to its old title.--Southronite (talk) 03:43, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
 * If it really were common, one would expect more than 9 results on Google Books. Also, as I said above, it appears that the phrase "Deep South's oldest rivalry" is used, it's much less commonly used as a nickname for the game.Cúchullain t/ c 20:36, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Frankly, it has been used by the media for decades. I plan to move this page back to "Deep South's Oldest Rivalry."--Southronite (talk) 23:01, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm struggling with the link to the google news archives but the newpapers and dates are shown in the ref info.--Southronite (talk) 23:53, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Frankly, your move is very unproductive, as it's clear it was controversial, and you did not respond to a single one of my points. You should not have done that without a move request. I'm going to start one now to settle this silly issue.Cúchullain t/ c 19:29, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I could understand moving this article to Auburn-Georgia Rivalry if Deep South's Oldest Rivalry was an obscure name or controversial like the World's Largest Outdoor Cocktail Party. This name has been used for decades by the universities and the media. There are rivalries with much more obscure names than this with titles on wikipedia, such as The West Texas Championship, Battle of the Techs, and The Revivalry. The Google Books number is irrelevent when the name has been used by the press and schools for decades. --Southronite (talk) 19:49, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia article titles follow the subject's common name as established by reliable sources. As I've shown, "Deep South's Oldest Rivalry" is not the most common name for this rivalry. And it's very bad form to move an article without consensus knowing the move is challenged. I will start a move request shortly.Cúchullain t/ c 20:00, 21 July 2012 (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: Not moved Mike Cline (talk) 16:23, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Deep South& → Auburn–Georgia football rivalry – I initially moved the article to this title following discussion above, but it has now been moved back unilaterally. The rationale's the same: while it is used, the name "Deep South's Oldest Rivaly" is just not well established. It currently returns only 23 hits on Google books, a lot of which are Wikipedia ripoffs, and only 144 hits in the Google News archives. In both cases, many or most of the relevant hits just use it as a description, not a nickname (ie, just describing Auburn-Georgia as "the Deep South's oldest rivalry"). In contrast, by far the most common way of referring to this rivalry is some variation of "Auburn-Georgia", "Georgia-Auburn", "Auburn-Georgia game", etc. "Auburn-Georgia"+football returns 5,040 hits in Gnews archives and 582 in Gbooks; "Georgia-Auburn" football returns 3,050 in Gnews archives and 261 in Gbooks. In accordance with WP:NAMINGCRITERIA, the descriptive title "Auburn–Georgia football rivalry" is more in line with how the game is referred to in reliable sources, consistent with related articles in Category:College football rivalries in the United States, more precise, and more recognizable to readers.Cúchullain t/ c 20:08, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose. "Deep South's Oldest Rivalry" is the most common name used by the press and fans of the teams. It has also been used by the schools official websites.1   I agree a this issue should be decided. There should be a debate in college football Wikipedia community. However I strongly disagree that "Deep South's Oldest Rivalry" is not the common name for this rivalry. No one calls it the Auburn-Georgia, Georgia-Auburn game. There are rivalries with much more obscure names than this with titles on Wikipedia, such as The West Texas Championship, Battle of the Techs, and The Revivalry. The Google Books number is irrelevent when the name has been used by the press and schools for decades. Nearly every rivalry nickname will not show up as much as the name of the two teams.--Southronite (talk) 20:11, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
 * To add to that, here is Auburn official football media guide refering to the game as the Deep South's Oldest Rivalry. Scroll down to page 106-107.--Southronite (talk) 04:29, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Southronite, what is your evidence that "Deep South's Oldest Rivalry" is the most common way of referring to the subject? The search engine results I provided would suggest it's not, by a long shot. In particular, please respond to my comment that many sources that do include the phrase use it as a description for the rivalry, as opposed to a nickname for it.Cúchullain t/ c 14:12, 22 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Oppose as this is the common name for the game in the media. The Google searches are deceptive because of the frequent juxtaposition of the terms as posed in your search strings. It's also a "neutral" name which places neither team's name first, as with the Red River Rivalry or the Rivalry in Dixie. - Dravecky (talk) 00:27, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose move. Dravecky is exactly correct.  The Google hit figures provided above are irrelevant. Jweiss11 (talk) 10:27, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Exactly how is it the "common name for the game in the media"? There are thousands of easily available sources on this rivalry that don't even mention it. As for Google, "Auburn-Georgia game" by itself returns 2,640 hits in Google News Archives; "Georgia-Auburn game" returns 3,590. Additionally, a good part of sources that describe Auburn-Georgia as "the Deep South's oldest rivalry" don't even use it as a proper name (and consequently don't capitalize it).--Cúchullain t/ c 12:33, 23 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Oppose move per above arguments. Rreagan007 (talk) 00:17, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose The above rationale is flawed as it includes in the count phrasing which would be included in virtually every description of a game that mentions the two teams and mentions plus those that don't. By definition, it will be a higher number. By the same logic you could argue that the article should be named "quarterback" because the phrase is more common in articles that mention "Auburn" or "Georgia". Buffs (talk) 03:43, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
 * You must have missed the above. "As for Google, "Auburn-Georgia game" by itself returns 2,640 hits in Google News Archives; "Georgia-Auburn game" returns 3,590" The nickname is demonstrably not the common way of discussing this game.--Cúchullain t/ c  14:16, 24 July 2012 (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.

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 one external links on Deep South's Oldest Rivalry. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150110033532/http://www.montgomeryadvertiser.com/article/20131121/SPORTS0402/311210023/Auburn-notebook-Prayer-Jordan-Hare-play-from-Malzahn-s-past?nclick_check=1 to http://www.montgomeryadvertiser.com/article/20131121/SPORTS0402/311210023/Auburn-notebook-Prayer-Jordan-Hare-play-from-Malzahn-s-past?nclick_check=1
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131203051257/http://www.wrbl.com/story/24028739/a-look-inside-the-prayer-at-jordan-hare to http://www.wrbl.com/story/24028739/a-look-inside-the-prayer-at-jordan-hare

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 02:21, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Deep South's Oldest Rivalry. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111016061317/http://www.georgiadogs.com/sports/m-footbl/spec-rel/2011-football-media-guide.html to http://www.georgiadogs.com/sports/m-footbl/spec-rel/2011-football-media-guide.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 22:58, 7 September 2017 (UTC)