Talk:Kansas–Kansas State football rivalry

Wichita State University
Back when Wichita State University had a football team, they were included in the "Governor's Cup" contest--at least, as I recall. Can anyone confirm?--Paul McDonald 12:57, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

The Forfeit
There's clearly a disagreement on how the result of the forfeited 1980 game should be handled in the article. There are essentially three options: 1) Count it as a win for KU since they won on the field, which would make the series 19-18-1 in favor of KSU,  2) Count it as a win for KSU since KU had to forfeit the game, which would make the series 20-17-1 in favor of KSU, or 3) Don't count it at all since it's in dispute and since both sides claim it as a victory, which would make the series 19-17-1 in favor of KSU.  Personally, I could live with either option 2 or option 3 as long as there is explicit mention that the two schools each count the 1980 game as a win.  I don't think option 1 is approproiate given the forfeit, and I say that as a graduate of KU.  Maybe list it at a KSU win with an asterisk that then refers to the note about the result being in dispute.  Any other thoughts? Jakzhumans 21:01, 3 October 2007 (UTC)


 * You have laid out the options nicely. Unfortunately, the NCAA itself is not consistent in recordkeeping for forfeits and vacated games in the division formerly known as Division I-A.  (I think the NCAA does this because it is petulant about the fact they don't control the bowls, as also demonstrated by changing the name to the awkward Division I-Football Bowl Subdivision.)  Contrariwise, in basketball the NCAA recordbook is clear that schools' records are adjusted for forfeits and vacated games.  I think that indicates that this is the proper thing also to do in the football context; thus the record is 20-17-1 in favor of KSU.  Further, Chris Stassen, who is probably the most well-known and well-respected amateur college football historian, takes this approach, explaining his reasons on his website. Finally, I think your option 3 is proper for a school that vacates a win (like OU in 2005), but option 2 is proper for a school that forfeits a win (like KU in 1980).  (There should be a difference since they are two distinct penalites.)  I am definitely OK with an adding an asterisk that refers to the note, but I believe the record should be stated as 20-17-1 (until Saturday) in favor of KSU. - Kgwo1972 22:03, 3 October 2007 (UTC)


 * That is absolutely fine with me. Now if we can just get the lurkers to stop altering it every time it doesn't favor their personal favorite school. Jakzhumans 02:33, 4 October 2007 (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: page moved. Moving this just two days after someone else relisted it, without properly following the closing instructions was inappropriate, especially by an editor whose recent edit history belies neutrality on the issue. Clearly there is a desire for more guidance from WikiProject College football/Naming conventions. A casual look at Category:College football rivalries in the United States and Category:College football rivalry trophies in the United States shows that the issue of Foo–Bar rivalry vs. trophy names is far from decided. However, lacking further comments and !votes, consensus here does seem to favor the move–barely. Anyone disagreeing with this close is invited to consider requesting a move review. Wbm1058 (talk) 14:54, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

Governor& → Kansas–Kansas State football rivalry – The Jayhawks and Wildcats first played each other in 1902, and have done so every year afterward except for 1910. That's 67 years before the Governor's Cup was created in 1969. --Relisted. --  tariq abjotu  15:02, 27 July 2013 (UTC) 184.96.22.80 (talk) 02:15, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I disagree with the proposal. The Sunflower Showdown is the article that covers the entire history of the KSU-KU rivalry (football and otherwise). This page is specifically about the trophy series, which is more than 40 years old on its own right.  If anything, the change that should be made is to delete the material recently added to this Governor's Cup page about the series prior to 1969. -Kgwo1972 (talk) 19:04, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

My question to you is, why would you split the results of the Governor's Cup era and pre-Governor's Cup era? It makes more sense to combine them than to have a separate page containing the results. 97.118.43.102 (talk) 06:07, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
 * If the accepted convention is shifting to articles that cover an entire rivalry rather than articles on trophies, such as Jeweled Shillelagh − which I see is being proposed to move − and Little Brown Jug (American football) − which I see has already been moved − then there's no reason not to the make the move proposed for this page. Back when this page was created, the convention was to have articles for trophies.  But perhaps that has changed. -Kgwo1972 (talk) 00:49, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Upon looking further, I'm not sure this is the new wiki convention. For example, there's one article for the Carolina–Duke rivalry and a separate article for the football trophy, the Victory Bell (Carolina–Duke).  That's the same arrangement as currently for the Kansas schools: one article on the Sunflower Showdown and another for the Governor's Cup.  Other equivalents are the separate articles for the UCLA–USC rivalry and the Victory Bell (USC–UCLA); and the separate articles for the Indiana–Purdue rivalry and the Old Oaken Bucket.  (Are all of those being changed?)  Another model for not RENAMING AND MOVING (albeit keeping the entire history in this article) is the Paul Bunyan's Axe article, which covers the entire history of the Minnesota-Wisconsin football rivalry, but does so under the name of the current trophy.  That's basically how this page is already constructed.  After thinking it all the way through, I just don't think it makes sense to move articles on rivalries with trophies to generic pages named after the schools.  I think articles on football rivalries with trophies should remain under the title of the trophy.  My 3₵. -Kgwo1972 (talk) 01:12, 15 July 2013 (UTC)


 * The convention is indeed shifting towards Foo–Bar rivalry instead of trophy names; since the above comment, Paul Bunyan's Axe was merged with Slab of Bacon into Minnesota–Wisconsin football rivalry. Not sure how I feel about this move, however. --BDD (talk) 17:57, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Yeah. I really think it's better for football rivalry articles to be under the name of the current trophy (as I said before).  That being said, if they're all being changed, there's no particular argument for keeping this one as an outlier. -Kgwo1972 (talk) 18:14, 22 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Support move. There are two questions here: (1) should there be a separate articles for the football rivalry and the overall rivalry, and (2) should the football article use the trophy name? To (1), I think so, there is enough material for a separate article on the football series (though it should be about the whole series). To (2), as with many other articles, the descriptive name is more natural and recognizable to readers and is more in line with how the sources refer to the subject. Sources like this barely mention the trophy. It also avoids the parentheses.--Cúchullain t/ c  23:21, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose I see no conflict in including pre-Governor's Cup material; that would only makes sense from a content history perspective. Beyond the fact that Governor's cup appears to be the common usage.--Labattblueboy (talk) 21:56, 27 July 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.

Move discussion in progress
There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Arkansas–LSU football rivalry which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 17:30, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

Big 12 logo is acceptable
Logos are often exempted from WP:NFC, for a variety of reasons, detailed here. Additionally, logos shouldn't just be unilaterally removed because one user doesn't think WP:Logos matters, or whatever his rationale. Lithistman (talk) 18:06, 16 June 2014 (UTC)


 * File:Big 12 Conference logo.svg was removed for multiple violations of WP:NFC. See WP:NFCC#1,3,8 & 10. and WP:NFC File:Big 12 Conference logo.svg is only allowed to be used in Big 12 Conference. Werieth (talk) 18:07, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
 * copied from my talkpage response If you actually look at WP:LOGO you will note that their use must conform to the guidelines for non-free content. Usage of non-free logos on rivalry articles isnt allowed unless the rivalry has its own logo. Werieth (talk) 18:09, 16 June 2014 (UTC)


 * I forgot about the NFC thing, and tell you the truth, I wasn't even thinking when I inserted the logo. I am agreeing with Werieth, the Big 12 logo should not be there.  Corkythehornetfan  Talk 18:18, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Corkythehornetfan Im not blaming you at all, NFC can slip anyone's mind. However Lithistman's behavior in response to me addressing the issue was uncalled for. Werieth (talk) 18:21, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
 * (edit conflict)Your templating of an established user was uncalled for. Doing so causes offense, where simply starting a discussion would not. And I still contend that this image is completely acceptable, given WP:NFCI#8, as an "Iconic and historical [image] which [is] not subject of commentary [itself] but significantly aids in illustrating [a] historical [event] may be used if [it] meet[s] all aspects of the non-free content criteria, particularly no free alternatives, respect for commercial opportunity, and contextual significance."
 * And I'm quite serious about you needing to learn not to template established users. It's very offensive, particularly when there's an actual discussion to be had. Lithistman (talk) 18:31, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
 * You want to know what is more offensive than having someone leave a generic message? Someone violating WP:NFCC. But you know what? I'm an adult and get over it. There isn't a discussion needed, except for telling you to stop violating WP:NFCC which is a policy where your DTTR is just an essay. NFCC#8 is just one element, and the historical logo cause applies to the article about the entity of a logo. IE old version of a logo may be acceptable in Big 12 Conference but have less than a snowball's chance in hell of meeting the requirements in this article. Werieth (talk) 18:45, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
 * It's telling that you refuse to admit that it was your templating of an established user that got this whole thing off on the wrong foot. It is NOT "more offensive" to have a disagreement on policy than it is to be rude to a fellow editor, whatever you might think. As far as the policy goes, you're clearly a "hard-liner" with regards to all images, even logos like this one that are in no way impinging on the commercial opportunities of the company the logo represents. Your position, however, is not the ONLY position, nor even necessarily the RIGHT position. With all that said, I have no interest in dealing with an editor that refuses to admit that his/her rudeness at the start is likely to have played at least some role in unpleasant tenor this discussion has taken. Good luck to you in your editing. Lithistman (talk) 18:54, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I know you're not blaming me, it just made me feel better if I said that I wasn't thinking anything of it because I know I've done this many times in the past.  Corkythehornetfan  Talk 18:26, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Kansas Project importance of this article
The importance of this article RELATIVE to all over Kansas related articles doesn't merit a High-importance value. See http://tools.wmflabs.org/enwp10/cgi-bin/list2.fcgi?run=yes&projecta=Kansas&importance=High-Class for other High-importance articles. It's not what you think the value or quality of your favorite article deserves by itself, but instead its value compared to almost 8000 other Kansas articles. • Sbmeirow  •  Talk  • 19:29, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
 * True. I wasn't considering the fact that Sunflower Showdown is already listed as an article of high importance for the Wikiproject. As the editor who initially objected to the change, I will be self-reverting shortly. My apologies. LHMask me a question 19:43, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Logo, 2 October 2014
I changed the Big 12 logo from here to here. The logo is the new version they released in July 2014, and the one I used is the "shortened" version of the File:Big 12 Conference logo.png. Just thought I'd let others know.  Corkythehornetfan  (Talk)  19:56, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks for taking care of that, Corky. LHMask me a question 20:09, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
 * No problem!  Corkythehornetfan  (Talk)  20:16, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

The Forfeit(Again)
It seems the forfeit has been an issue the entire time this article has been around. I added a note for the forfeit in the game table, but someone reverted the score back.

This is fine, but the issue is this displays that the series is 65-50-5 and the series is currently 64-51-5. I'd love suggestions on how to properly display the results. BlueEyedBuzzard (talk) 13:10, 4 December 2022 (UTC)