Talk:Rose Bowl Game

Could someone fix the MVP table?
The MVP table is all messed up. Vince Young won in 2005 not 2004, Matt Leinart won in 2004 not 2003 ect. It looks like it starts with Donald Dufek who was ommitted as MVP in 1951. William Tate was the MVP in 52 (according to http://www.laalmanac.com/sports/sp01ac.htm) --Eenu 23:58, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

-Nevermind I figured it out --Eenu 00:07, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

The MVP table needs to be changed to record both the offensive and defensive winners (I just saw it on TV and Michael Huff won too). Come on, this is kinda ridiculous. Was this done accidentally or just biased? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.198.187.62 (talk) 05:50, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Page move
I'd like to suggest that we move this to Rose Bowl (game), because in common usage, the game is referred to as the "Rose Bowl", not the "Rose Bowl Game". The "official" name may be "Rose Bowl Game", according to rosebowl.com, but that doesn't mean we should call the article that. James Earl Carter, Jr. redirects to Jimmy Carter, and Samuel Langhorne Clemens redirects to Mark Twain. Furthermore, "Rose Bowl Game" introduces ambiguity, because "Rose" could be treated as an adjective modifying "Bowl Game", which doesn't reflect common usage. A move would also make it consistent with Orange Bowl (game) and Cotton Bowl (game). --Spangineeres (háblame)  18:33, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Sounds like a good idea, I'd support it. --Falcorian | Talk 20:18, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I'd oppose such a move. Parenthensis should be avoided in titles whenever possible. As the proper, official name of the game is "Rose Bowl Game", and as there's already an article about the stadium with the name "Rose Bowl" (so we can't use the common name "Rose Bowl"), the article should be at the proper name. Matt Yeager 00:52, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

I can't find any policy/guideline page suggesting general opposition to parenthesis. Naming conventions (precision) seems to suggest that they are perfectly acceptable. If two things in the vast majority of cases go by the same name, it does not make sense to me to rename one of them to an obscure and rarely used title. Compare 123,000 to 6,830,000. Note also that the official name of the thing covered by the article Rose Bowl (stadium) is actually Rose Bowl Stadium, which incidentally gets 30,000 hits.

Before reading this, I have no recollectoin of ever hearing the game referred to as the "Rose Bowl Game", except with the purpose of disambiguation in a manner like "Rose Bowl, the game"; not unlike that represented by "Rose Bowl (game)". And I've been following the Rose Bowl ever since my university entered the Big Ten. "Rose Bowl" is what the stadium is called, and it's what the game is called. Name two or three ESPN analysts that use "Rose Bowl Game" to describe it in their columns. See, , ,.

I don't disagree that sometimes, the official name should be used over the commonly used name. Penn State redirects to Pennsylvania State University. But the usage is relatively even&mdash;if google searches are any measure, Penn State is only twice as common as Pennsylvania State University, not over 50 times more common.--Spangineeres (háblame)  01:49, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
 * The only thing more I have to say, I think, is just that at least SOME people refer to it as the "Rose Bowl Game"... nobody refers to it as the "Rose Bowl (game)". Since we can't use "Rose Bowl", we might as well use a slightly used name (that actually does exist and actually is used)instead of one invented out of thin air. Right? Matt Yeager 07:56, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

In addition to the reasons cited above, including just "Rose Bowl Game" is less than a tenth as common as just "Rose Bowl", Rose Bowl (game) would also be more consistent with Orange Bowl (game), and more historically accurate, as during most of its history it was just "Rose Bowl". 24.18.215.132 23:15, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Merge
I don't think merge is the correct action (they're exactly the same). It seems we should just delete The Rose Bowl Game presented by Citi and redirect here. --Falcorian (talk) 07:10, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Done. --Spangineer[es] (háblame)  12:50, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

GA Nomination
It is a very well written article, not perfect, but it definitely meets the requirements for a good article. Bornagain4 02:17, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Nice job, but I think it's still underwritten. When I took a look earlier it lacked the 2004 RB (which resulted in a split-national title) and instead spent time on the far less relavent '03 or '05 RBs (while the Cal contoversy was notable at the time, it will be forgotten faster than a split-championship).  In recent history the '02, '04 and '06 were the most relevant due to their championship implications.  Maybe a section should be made on discussing the significant games, sub-divided into "Championship Implications" and "Other significant games" (like the 1943 RB).  A lot of other trivia, like USC going the most times, is a little too integrated.  Try to make it less like an essay, and more like reference material.  I've added a few bits on the 2004, including a photo I took during the '04 game and included in the card stunt article.  I think this is definitely on the way to GA status, but needs a little more "cooking" ;-) --Bobak 15:27, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

I failed it, No references, needs some copyediting and a expansion. Thanks Jaranda wat's sup 04:19, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Heh... "Failed" it? I guess that's what summer is for: making up those classes :-P --Bobak 00:59, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Oh, heaven's sakes, no. I love this article, and I've written a lot of stuff in it, but no, it's not there yet. Matt Yeager ♫ ( Talk? ) 04:24, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

2006 Rose Bowl
Is the 2006 Rose Bowl the only time that two Heisman trophy winners (Reggie Bush and Matt Leinart) have ever lined up on the same team in a college football game? I can't find any other instances of a player who won the Heisman as a junior and then returned for his senior year and a team mate then wining it in the succeeding year, so I assume it must be. Legis 09:13, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
 * That is true. It was the only time in history.  The 2005 Orange Bowl was the first time two Heisman-holding players (Leinart and OU's Jason White) faced each other, and the 2006 RB was the first time two Heisman-holding players were in the same backfield.  The only previous back-to-back Heisman winners were Army's Mr. Inside-Mr. Outside combo of "Doc" Blanchard (won 1945) and Glenn Davis ('46), but they never played together while both possessed the trophy. --Bobak 17:37, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Army did not play in bowl games during this era, which is why Blanchard and Davis never played together as Heisman-holders.Clubiguana 03:23, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

USC to Rose Bowl
By defeating California, USC goes to the Rose Bowl. 67.188.172.165 02:09, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Chariot Races rationale
I added a citation needed for the gap in Rose Bowl Games between 1902 and 1916. Although most works I have read imply that the 1902 blowout was the reason the Tournament ditched football, none explicitly give the reason. I think that saying the blowout temporarily ended football is a hasty assumption.49giantsharks 20:12, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
 * An appropriate citation has been addedClubiguana 03:35, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

University of Arizona sentence
Please discuss the advantages and disadvantages of inclusion the following phrase:
 * The only member of the Pac-10 or the Big Ten to have never appeared in the Rose Bowl is the University of Arizona.

Usually we do not exclude relevant sourced info Alex Bakharev 05:47, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep - It's factual, sourced, notable (only one of 21 schools) and relevant (in the participation section). AU Tiger » talk 17:17, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep for reasons cited by AUTiger. ~ João Do Rio 20:44, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep Can't say it better than AUTiger, it's relevant information. Keep it. Alexdragon 00:20, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Remove All three of these users are ASU fans...enough said. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.108.205.80 (talk • contribs).
 * Incorrect. I have no affiliation with, loyalty to, or preference for either Arizona or Arizona State. AUTiger, I presume, is an Auburn fan. Alex Bakharev is from Russia and is not affiliated with either school. Alexdragon, so far, is the only ASU fan involved here. And it's probably a safe bet that you are one of Beardownaz9's numerous sockpuppets. ~ João Do Rio 03:15, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
 * When I tagged the unsigned comment, I didn't bother to mention I have no concern with either Arizona or ASU because it should be pretty self-evident (AU and SEC fan). I am college football fan and member of the college football WikiProject, have the Rose Bowl (and pretty much all other bowls) on my watchlist and was just tired of the slow revert war over this issue. AU Tiger  » talk 03:24, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, I am an ASU fan and student. Unlike the person reverting the Rose Bowl sentence, you don't see me constantly posting biased information on my rival school's pages. I added this information to this page (only this page) because I felt it was relevant, I even cited it. So what if I'm an ASU fan? what if AUTiger added it? What would be your argument? ~ Alexdragon 21:19, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
 * ...what ever dude, you are one of the ring leaders in all this vandalism started back in Jan '07. Just go to Sparky's Pigskin forum at Devilsdigest.com.  You'll have to go back to Page 23 titled "Wikipedia Gold".  I'll bet you a million bucks you are user member "___".  The original thread was deleted, which was much worse than the thread on Page 23.  I think you need to be blocked from making edits to Wikipedia.
 * Yeah it's not weird that you go through 23 pages of messages to find some "proof". If you go back and read my posts, all I did was say that the sentence is always being removed, and how to prevent vandalism to ASU's pages. Learn to read pal. You can also check my history by selecting on my "contributions" tab, you'll find no vandalism there. If you want to continue this conversation use my user page, this discussion section wasn't meant for smack talk.~ Alexdragon 19:27, 25 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia isn't the place to fight out college rivalries. I would strongly suggest that you find a way to express the subject matter in a way that doesn't sound like a knock on Arizona.  For example, instead of prose, create a table showing how many appearances and wins each team has.  That communicates the information in a more useful fashion and it isn't singling out one school or another. --BigDT 20:33, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree with BigDT, but I also think the sentence should remain. I wrote a lot of the SEC Championship Game page (including the two parts mentioned next) and it has a similar sentence mentioning the 4 teams that have never played in the SEC Champ game, but it also has a table that breaks down the numbers.  Check it out.  I think it would be a fine compromise if people still object to the sentence. Seancp 22:17, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I think the fact that, out of 21 schools, only one hasn't been there is a solid fact (and one that gets mentioned occasionally in the media when they're looking for odd facts); but I agree that maybe it can be phrased in a way that doesn't exactly accuse the Wildcats, however the sentence didn't seem bad --although it shouldn't be it's own paragraph, it should be worked into a part of another. The sentence shouldn't need to wikilink the conferences. --Bobak 15:12, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Per BigDT's suggestion, I've added tables ranked by appearances; the first, all Big10 and Pac10 schools and the second, every other DIFBS school that's played the Rose. For now, I left the statement, but if everyone is satisfied by the table it can be removed. AU Tiger » talk 02:39, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Navy, Tulane, & SMU?
The table featuring "Other Division I FBS schools by appearance" doesn't include Navy (1 appearance, 0 wins, 1 tie), Tulane (1 appearance, 0 wins, 0 ties) or Southern Methodist (1 appearance, 0 wins, 0 ties). Could someone fix this? The list currently includes only Divison 1 schools who are in BCS conferences (and Notre Dame).
 * Done. AU Tiger » talk 18:42, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:RoseBowlLogo.jpg
Image:RoseBowlLogo.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use. Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page. If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. BetacommandBot (talk) 12:40, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

source for MVPs?
There is no reference listed in the article as being the source of the MVPs - is there actually one that can be used for verification? Unfortunately, the official Rose Bowl site does not list MVPs. I have noticed conflicts with a CBS list, which does not list the defensive MVPs in 2005 and 2006. In turn, that list conflicts with one at MSNBC, which lists a defensive MVP in 2006, but not in 2005. Z1perlster (talk) 16:48, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
 * 2008 Rose Bowl Program, 2008 Rose Bowl. Accessed January 26, 2008. Added in line ref. Group29 (talk) 22:58, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

"the Rose Bowl will host the Big Ten and Pacific-10 conference champions" - not exactly
Neither conference has a championship game, so co-champions are possible. Tiebreakers are used to determine which team goes to the Rose Bowl when two or even three teams share the conference championship. Z1perlster (talk) 16:48, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Agreed, I added the refs to the tiebreaker rules. Group29 (talk) 22:55, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

1940 Rose Bowl
An article for the 1940 Rose Bowl has just been created, but it needs expanding and expert attention. -- JulesN   Talk  05:06, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Done Group29 (talk) 18:08, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Rose Bowl Game
HAPPY NEW YEAR, 2010 ! Let's make Wikipedia great.!. Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 16:00, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the change. Unfortunately, lot of the links are messed up. Ucla90024 (talk) 00:50, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Game pages from 1902-1922 need to be moved...
Shouldn't the games played between 1902 though 1922 be moved from "xxx Rose Bowl" to "xxxx Tournament East-West football game"? Other bowl games with naming rights don't move when the sponsor changes (ie. Mobil Cotton Bowl Classic and SBC Cotton Bowl Classic games still go by "xxxx Cotton Bowl Classic") only when the actual name of the bowl game changes (Capital One Bowl games before 2003 are titled "xxxx Florida Citrus Bowl" or "xxxx Tangerine Bowl"). NThomas (talk) 03:42, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Oppose - I've done a decent amount of research on pre-1923 Rose Bowl game, and they are almost always referred to as "Rose Bowl." --GrapedApe (talk) 04:27, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
 * It was always sponsored by the "Tournament of Roses" organization, which gave rise to the "Rose Bowl" nickname so I think it is quite appropriate they remain. My two cents a few months late --Zfish118 (talk) 01:21, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Rose Parade
I put a quick mention of the Tournament of Roses Parade in lead, as I think this is a reasonably associated with the game itself, and better illustrates what "America's New Year Celebration", encompasses. Its also important to know that there is a major parade the same day to understand why the 1942 game was moved to Duke. --Zfish118 (talk) 01:21, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
 * There is also an entry in "See Also". Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 12:45, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Superbowl {([ not ])}
Superbowl has nothing to do with Rose Bowl. Ucla90024 (talk) 06:39, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Prestigious

 * Why people question about it? It is the "Granddaddy of them all", about to celebrate its 100 years. It has the highest TV ratings of all bowl games and largest crowd. Ucla90024 (talk) 16:41, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Does anyone really consider it nearly as prestigious as the BCS National Championship Game? I don't see why a bowl that precludes any conference other than the Pac-12 and Big 10 could be seen as more prestigious than the game between the best and second best teams. Neither of the best two conferences are even allowed to play in the Rose Bowl. 74.192.58.212 (talk) 01:14, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
 * There are "100" reasons. Ucla90024 (talk) 02:45, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I guess I'll never understand people. To me, a 100 year old rivalry game is still just a rivalry game. I'll never understand how age brings prestige to something like this. 74.192.58.212 (talk) 15:18, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Requested move
<div class="boilerplate" style="background-color: #efe; margin: 2em 0 0 0; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px dotted #aaa;">
 * The following discussion is an archived discussion of 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: no consensus. --  tariq abjotu  04:31, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

Rose Bowl Game → Rose Bowl game – Fix over-capitalization. As noted in previous discussion, the game is not named this. It's a descriptive title, not a proper name. Sources agree. See book evidence: book n-grams; and specific phrases likely to excluding title usage:, , , , ; per MOS:CAPS lead, this means we don't capitalize it in WP. Dicklyon (talk) 04:56, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Any game in the Rose Bowl, the stadium, is a Rose Bowl game. It was start calling "Rose Bowl Game", the Jan. 1 game, when people confused with the Rose Bowl stadium with the "Rose Bowl" game when both were referred to as the "Rose Bowl". UCLA football games playing in the Rose Bowl are not the Rose Bowl Game, but Rose Bowl games. On top of that is the BCS games played as "Rose Bowl Game" before they were played on a different date. Rose Bowl Game is a unique game played on New Year's Day. It is Tournament of Roses' registered trade mark. Ucla90024 (talk) 05:49, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I find no evidence for that theory (that "Any game in the Rose Bowl, the stadium, is a Rose Bowl game.") in sources. The only games in the Rose Bowl called "Rose Bowl games" are those that are part of the Tournament of Roses.  Almost all books use lowercase.  None of them are using the term "Rose Bowl game" for arbitrary games played in the Rose Bowl.  See book n-grams.  Dicklyon (talk) 06:27, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Celebrating the Rose Bowl Game. Ucla90024 (talk) 21:59, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
 * ??? that's primarily about the annual Rose Bowl game and the Rose Bowl stadium, isn't it? And it doesn't use lowercase anyway, so would hardly support your point, if you have one.  Dicklyon (talk) 23:14, 18 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Oppose most sources I find treat the game as a proper noun, and thus I have no problem with the capital G. Canuck 89 (chat with me) 07:07, August 10, 2013 (UTC)
 * "Most sources I find" being what? I'm not seeing it.  Did you look at the book n-grams?  Book search?  Or just web snippets, which are mostly caps due to being titles and headings?  Dicklyon (talk) 16:37, 10 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment - The current situation, IMO, seems internally inconsistent as "Rose Bowl Stadium" and "Rose Bowl Game" both appear to be the official names and proper nouns for the two main topics, but we have one article at the all-caps proper noun and one with a parenthetical disambiguator. Both topics are simply called "Rose Bowl" in common usage. Support move of either (a) Rose Bowl (stadium) to Rose Bowl Stadium or (b) Rose Bowl Game to Rose Bowl (game). Inasmuch as Rose Bowl already goes to a dab page, this shouldn't present any issue to users. Woodshed (talk) 10:20, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Support move to Rose Bowl (game), per WP:COMMONNAME and sources. Dohn joe (talk) 20:38, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Slight oppose as proposed. If I'm not mistaken, I originally moved this article to this page years ago as natural disambiguation. (In related news, I have been at WP way too long not just because I remember making this move many years ago, but also because by this point the word disambiguation flies off my fingers way too easily, as I've written it too many times... disambiguation disambiguation disambiguation... I feel like if I hid in a cave in Siberia for the next fourteen years and someone gouged out my eyes and brought me to a keyboard, I could type disambiguation in less than two seconds and nail it 80% of the time. disambiguation.) Okay, rambling aside and with respect to Dohn joe, I'd only accept Dicklyon's suggestion just because natural disambiguation (there it is again!) is so much better. Strong oppose (or at least a normal oppose) to Rose Bowl (game). As to the actual proposed move, I think it's hard to find RS's that refer to the game as either "Rose Bowl Game" or "Rose Bowl game" because ESPN and the New York Times don't have to be disambiguous in their articles. People can tell within an article, or a broadcast, or whatever, whether the stadium of Pasadena or the game played therein is being referred to. So we'll find very few references to either. Therefore my slight preference is to follow the official name. Red <b style="color:#460121;">Slash</b> 01:12, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
 * "Very few"? Here are over 300 books with previews that you can check; most use lowercase in the text.  Dicklyon (talk) 02:32, 17 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Oppose The name of the annual event is the Rose Bowl Game. It's a proper name for a specific event. See, for example, the home page and facebook page of the Tournament of Roses which sponsors the game. Sports writers often omit the word "game" and tjust talk about the Rose Bowl, but sports writers are famous for abbreviating and shortening. Anyhow, if we decide its name isn't Rose Bowl Game, the alternative would be "Rose Bowl (game)", not "Rose Bowl game"; that lower-case version should be the name of an article about any and all games of any type that are played in the Rose Bowl, rather than the specific game played on New Years Day. As for the stadium itself, I always thought the name of the venue was just Rose Bowl (that's what it says on the venue itself ), but I see that its home page now adds the word stadium, as in Rose Bowl Stadium, most of the time. Either Rose Bowl Stadium or Rose Bowl (stadium) would be a suitable name. --MelanieN (talk) 04:59, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose The logos I've seen call it the Rose Bowl Game. The "Rose Bowl" is the stadium  p  b  p  01:34, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Sure, it's capitalized in logos. But in text it's lowercase.  Did you look at the book evidence?  Dicklyon (talk) 02:27, 17 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Support: WP avoids unnecessary capitalisation, it says. I agree with Dicklyon (and the sources). Tony   (talk)  03:41, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment: Just wanted to say that User:Dicklyon's n-gram link is very persuasive that "Rose Bowl Game" is not the WP:COMMONNAME of this event, regardless of its official-ness (which, contrary to the nom, is correct; it's even trademarked).
 * However: His argument for lower case 'g' is unpersuasive to me -- all it shows is that "Rose Bowl game" is a phrase that has some amount of usage, but there's no claim of common-ness being made for this capitalization. I can find over 10,000 GBooks hits for "September 11 tragedy" or "boxer Muhammad Ali", but nobody would argue these for article titles for those topics.
 * While a GBooks search for "rose bowl game" shows approx 7,000 results, a search for "Rose Bowl" shows almost 200,000. It seems obvious to me that "Rose Bowl" is both the common name of this event and of the stadium. The crux of the issue here is that, when just the phrase "Rose Bowl" is being used (as it often is in sources), we don't know whether it's referring to the game or the stadium. Even WP's article traffic statistics show a dead heat in reader interest between the two. I understand that WP:NATURAL suggests we should avoid parenthetical disambiguation when possible, in this case I believe it makes the most sense. Woodshed (talk) 22:39, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Woodshed, you are correct that the n-gram link only shows the commonness of the phrases, not what it's used for. But as I already pointed out, you only have to follow the books link and search through a bunch of books to convince yourself that "Rose Bowl game" is seldom is ever used to refer to anything other than the annual bowl game (can you find a single example to the contrary?).  So we should use this common phrase as the natural unambiguous term for that annual game, and Rose Bowl stadium for the other.  Dicklyon (talk) 17:49, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
 * As to the trademark you are right that in 1974 they filed for trademark protection on "THE ROSE BOWL GAME" for "ENTERTAINMENT AND EDUCATIONAL SERVICES-NAMELY, ORGANIZING, PROMOTING AND STAGING AN ANNUAL INTERSECTIONAL FOOTBALL GAME AND RELATED EVENTS". But the topic here is the more about the bowl game itself, which long predates the trademark status.  Dicklyon (talk) 17:57, 18 August 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.

"Predecessor leagues"
The article had mentioned that Oregon State and California had only played in the Rose Bowl as members of "predecessors leagues" to the Pac-12. Aside from the obvious grammatical error, this was an incorrect statement. California has not played in the Rose Bowl since they were a PCC member, but OSU played in the 1965 game as a member of the AAWU. The AAWU is not a "predecessor league to the Pac-12;" it is the Pac-12. By the logic used to make the earlier claim, every team except for Oregon and Stanford would have only played as a predecessor member; all other teams played as members of the Pac-10. The only differences between the AAWU and the Pac-12 are the name and the membership; that is not the case for the PCC and the Pac-12. Nwebster84 (talk) 04:03, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Requested move 31 December 2014
<div class="boilerplate" style="background-color: #efe; margin: 2em 0 0 0; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px dotted #aaa;">
 * The following is a closed 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. No consensus for the proposal, nor any apparent consensus for the alternate suggestion made a few times (Rose Bowl (game)). Number  5  7  13:20, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Rose Bowl Game → Rose Bowl game – Per WP:NCCAPS and MOS:CAPS, we shouldn't capitalize unless sources suggest it's a proper name. But sources do not: see book n-gram stats, where "game" is overwhelmingly lowercased. Dicklyon (talk) 02:36, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose. A comment made in the unsuccessful request last year that 'all games played in the Rose Bowl are "Rose Bowl games"' seems pertinent. I would, however, Support a move to Rose Bowl. -- Calidum  02:54, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
 * That wasn't really very pertinent, as no example of such a reference was ever found. And I would oppose adding ambiguity by removing game.  Dicklyon (talk) 03:01, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
 * @Calidum: I doubt this is the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC to warrant to move to the generic Rose Bowl. —Bagumba (talk) 03:35, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Actually, the article traffic for Rose Bowl Game is around 300-500/day during non-football season, and gets into the 1000's as the season progresses (Aug-Jan), while Rose Bowl stadium and the other disambiguated titles get at most 50/day each. There is some merit to this. Striking my comment above.—Bagumba (talk) 01:12, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose I'll discount the Google stats in the nomination, as terms sometimes have multiple meanings. In this case, Rose Bowl Game, played annually on New Year's Day, is one of many games played during the year at the Rose Bowl stadium. The UCLA Bruins play their home games at the same stadium, but none of those are the specific New Year's game referred to by "Rose Bowl Game". See this OregonLive.com page too see the same article referring to a generic "Rose Bowl game" as well as the specific "Rose Bowl Game". The website for the Rose Parade refers to to it as the "Rose Bowl Game". The Rose Bowl stadium's website also refers to the Jan 1 game as "Rose Bowl Game".. The website for the College Football Playoff, which includes this game, also uses "Rose Bowl Game".—Bagumba (talk) 03:32, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Your claim that "the Jan. 1 Rose Bowl game between the University of Oregon and Florida State University" is not the game that is the topic of this article is just wrong. But please do keep looking for examples of this rare phenomenon that might skew the stats a little.   Dicklyon (talk) 03:50, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
 * "Rose Bowl game" is the "generic" form I was referring to. The "Jan. 1" qualifier added to "Rose Bowl game" makes it the same as the "Rose Bowl Game". Again there are lots of other games at the Rose Bowl that are not on Jan 1.—Bagumba (talk) 04:57, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Here, have a look at some books, and you'll agree.  Dicklyon (talk) 04:17, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I think we agree that the search is not case-sensitive. I see "Rose Bowl Game" hits there as well. In any event, per WP:GOOGLETEST, it's not advised to blindly look at raw hit numbers.—Bagumba (talk) 04:57, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, we agree that search is not case sensitive, and shows the mix of cases in books. Since caps are not consistent in better sources (books!), MOS:CAPS says we use lowercase.  Dicklyon (talk) 05:49, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Can you provide the specific section or excerpt from MOS:CAPS that you are referring to? Thanks.—Bagumba (talk) 06:18, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose as nominated, given Bagumba's sources. I do see some evidence that Rose Bowl (game), per Dicklyon's sources, may be a proper title though. Jweiss11 (talk) 04:44, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Also, please note a related move request that I have initiated at Talk:Rose Bowl stadium. Jweiss11 (talk) 04:47, 31 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Oppose Sources are not conclusive that "game" is overwhelmingly used over the proper "Game". Even the logo uses "Rose Bowl Game" on top of the game's own website as others have pointed out. The usage in other sources is mixed, so it would seem reasonable to yield to the primary sources and leave it at "Rose Bowl Game". --JonRidinger (talk) 04:47, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Actually, sources are extremely conclusive about that. Dicklyon (talk) 06:02, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
 * That link tells me very little since it uses microscopic percentages. "Extremely conclusive" is hardly without question. It also doesn't address the actual logo or consistency used by the Tournament of Roses itself. I'd support "Rose Bowl (game)" since the common name is "Rose Bowl" or "Rose Bowl Game". But no, it's not a case of the primary source is the only source that uses "Rose Bowl Game" and every other secondary source uses "Rose Bowl game". I could understand if we were talking about moving it from "Tournament of Roses Game", but we're not. --JonRidinger (talk) 06:34, 31 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment - This is a classic example where the various article naming guidelines conflict and produce an incorrect result. Here's the problem in a nutshell: the stadium is called the "Rose Bowl," and the annual college football bowl game played in stadium is also called the "Rose Bowl."  The actual name of the stadium is not the "Rose Bowl stadium" (or "Rose Bowl Stadium"), it's just the "Rose Bowl."  Likewise, the actual name of the annual bowl game is not the "Rose Bowl game" (or "Rose Bowl Game"), it's just the "Rose Bowl."  Given that the actual proper name of the annual game is the "Rose Bowl," the logical way to disambiguate the game would be with a parenthetical, i.e., "Rose Bowl (game)," which makes it perfectly clear (a) what the proper name actually is, and (b) the word "game" is not part of that proper name.  Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 05:03, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Actually, both the stadium and the game are most commonly referred to as the "Rose Bowl"; they're also commonly referred to as the "Rose Bowl stadium" and the "Rose Bowl game", respectively. And titling guidelines encourage natural over parenthetical disambiguation; so why not go with that?  Dicklyon (talk) 06:02, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Simple: parenthetical disambiguations are used when the so-called natural disambiguation implies an improper or unusual usage. Moreover, as I pointed out in the related move request discussion, the word "bowl" is a synonym for "stadium"; calling something the "Rose Bowl stadium" is a bit like calling something the "stadium stadium."  It's not only unnatural, it's redundant.  Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 06:16, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Actually the full, official proper name name as trademarked and used in the logo is "Rose Bowl Game". See the above discussions about the title of this article for the evidence. In practice, though, the common name omits the word "Game", in line with other major (and minor) college football bowl games (like the Sugar Bowl, Orange Bowl, Peach Bowl, etc). However, that's ambiguous with the namesake stadium, which is actually called the "Rose Bowl" (with no additional words; the undiscussed move there is incorrect). So the game could either be at "Rose Bowl (game)", using the common name with a parenthetical to disambiguate, or at "Rose Bowl Game" using the full, official name as a form of natural disambiguation. The later is preferable according to disambiguation guidelines and established best practices, which is why it is at this title currently, and why I unambiguously oppose this mistaken nomination. (For an exceedingly relevant comparison, though commonly called the "Cotton Bowl" by fans and media, the Dallas-area bowl game, which used to be held in a stadium of the same common name is at the title Cotton Bowl Classic, using it's full proper name as a form of natural disambiguation.)
 * Here's the part that you seem to miss about the use of the term "Rose Bowl game";, Dick. It's not a name when it is used in that form. It's a disambiguator, just like our parentheticals. Same deal with "Rose Bowl stadium". Same deal as the dispute I had with you at Sun Bowl Stadium a few months ago (that should either keep the word stadium capitalized as part of the proper noun or lowercase and in parenthesis as a disambiguator; the current name is not acceptable). Those usages may seem natural in running prose, but they do not fit with our naming conventions. This nomination (and the other related move) are both incorrect in their facts and in their application of Wikipedia guidelines. oknazevad (talk) 06:28, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I am not missing that. I agree with you that it's a natural disambiguator, not a name.  This is encouraged in our naming conventions.  Dicklyon (talk) 06:53, 31 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Canvas concern I'm not a stickler for posting a notice at every remotely related page, but this posting by the nominator at WT:MOS at 04:25, 31 December 2014 (UTC) is not neutral per WP:CANVAS, not to mention a complete lack of WP:AGF. I kindly ask Dicklyon to explain or politely redact. Thanks.—Bagumba (talk) 06:37, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
 * That's a personal attack, not canvassing. -- Calidum  06:40, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I was using you two to illustrate the lengths to which people will go to avoid decapitalizing the things that are dear to them, even when clear evidence shows that better sources (books) do not capitalize. I found it particularly humorous that the two of you dredged up that old argument that didn't go anywhere last time, trying to explain the common occurrence of "Rose Bowl game" in books by the excuse that it might be referring to some other game played in the Rose Bowl, even though nobody has been able to find even a single instance of that hallucination.  Go figure.  Dicklyon (talk) 06:44, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
 * That's one way to look at it. Or it could be "humorous" the "lengths" you are taking to not listen to others by going WP:WABBITSEASON here. Happy New Year to you anyways.—Bagumba (talk) 07:31, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
 * And a happy New Year's (eve) to you, too. Dicklyon (talk) 07:33, 31 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Oppose — per Bagumba & oknazevad.  Corkythehornetfan   (Talk)  06:53, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Support: if we are not going to use "Rose Bowl"; It is the Rose Bowl consistently in references. It is the more commonly recognized name that is not a sponsorship name. A week second would be Rose Bowl game and an even far weaker Rose Bowl (game). It is the "Rose Bowl", as with the other five like articles that are notable with out any additional naming or disambiguation. The opening lead actually states "Rose Bowl game".
 * This is why there needs to be acceptable Wikipedia policies and guidelines. I really don't care what a "local" consensus decides, like the Super Bowl it is recognizable.
 * Sponsors change constantly but "if" editors wish to produce a valid encyclopedia, that is not just a joke, then some consistency needs to be followed. Every single one of you football junkies (even closing administrators) know that without sponsors there would be no beloved "Rose Bowl". Why not just chunk all the rules and name the "game" the official name provided by naming rights? Because Wikipedia avoids WP:SPAMBAIT in articles and Titles.
 * Consistency is the reason: Next year it might have to change, like the TaxSlayer Bowl instead of the Gator Bowl (2011), and we would need to change the name with the sponsor. Then the certainly dated title might have to change to the "Yandex, GoDaddy (They have the GoDaddy Bowl), Twitter, Zynga, Google, or Skype Sugar Bowl. These would be advertising names.
 * We do have common acceptable policies and guidelines and consistent naming for a reason. If Rolex was not self-identifying we would need to use "Rolex watch" but not "Rolex Watch". If the company manufactured several items we would use Rolex (watch) in a title. That is consistency and why we have "Capital One" Orange Bowl, the  "Goodyear" Cotton Bowl Classic (could be Cotton Bowl), the "Allstate" Sugar Bowl, the "Chick-fil" Peach Bowl, and the "Vizio" Fiesta Bowl. Why in the world would we want to take one of six and make it different? What does it serve?
 * The six College Football Playoff games are one thing. Others are only somewhat consistent like The Citrus Bowl (game) ("Buffalo Wild Wings Citrus Bowl"), played at the Orlando Citrus Bowl Stadium, was the, Tangerine Bowl, the " Florida Citrus Bowl", and the "Capital One Bowl". Other examples are Sun Bowl (Hyundai Sun Bowl), Liberty Bowl (Auto Zone), Independence Bowl (I really like "Duck Commander Independence Bowl)", Holiday Bowl (National University), TicketCity Cactus Bowl, The old Sunshine Classic (Russell Athletic Bowl) being named every name under the sun. The GoDaddy Bowl may need a future article "List of Mobile Alabama Bowl game names". The New Orleans Bowl, the Hall of Fame Bowl is now the Outback Bowl, and there are many others. Changes are usually because of advertisers. Should Wikipedia follow the money, I mean advertisers? I guess we would have to ask the Wikipedia Foundation.
 * Reasoning: I have presented legitimate concerns. I am sure other editors can appreciate this and I feel consideration should be given to the validity of these and not just a "vote". With that in mind it should be the Rose Bowl game if we are not going to be consistent with Rose Bowl. If editors want to have a legitimate "fight" over something then pick the Rose Bowl stadium and argue for the official or logo name.
 * To any "Rose Bowl Game" naming fans. You should be fighting tooth and toenail to preserve "Rose Bowl" as the established name, so it will not end up being something like the Kotex Rose Bowl or Depend Rose Bowl, "or" you should seek some of the millions they spend on advertising for your support. Would it be more important at that point to argue over "Kotex Bowl" (Depend Bowl), "Kotex Rose Bowl Game" (Depend Rose Bowl Game), or "Kotex Rose Bowl game" (Depend Bowl game)? Just saying, if it make sense it makes sense. The can of worms here is that the other five are on a potential naming chopping block also. I don't think it would be improper to list this on the other five directly related articles because Kotex or Depend might sponsor them one day. Does ANYONE think "Rose Bowl" would ever be confused with a "bowl for roses" even to non-football fans?
 * Conclusion: I think it would be a good thing if the closing administrator considered that Wikipedia runs on consensus and that Decision-making involves an effort to incorporate all editors' legitimate concerns, while respecting Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Another thing to consider is "...by evaluating their arguments, assigning due weight accordingly...". With all of this is mind the name should be Rose Bowl, that follows all five characteristics of a good article (policy by-the-way), and it is B class right? Not knowing the closing admins full options Rose Bowl game with the added unnecessary disambiguation would be the lessor evil. Current "titles" list it as "Rose Bowl Game because of sponsorship. Wikipedia does not receive any funding (I don't think and could be wrong) so we should not succumb to advertising for them? What about an unofficial project to return the name to Rose Bowl. The RM template states Please base arguments on article title policy and I have done that. Thank you, Otr500 (talk) 23:38, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
 * It is my impression that your first choice is a move to "Rose Bowl" and not "Rose Bowl game" as per the original nomination. If so, may I suggest your "Support" above be changed to something clearer like "Support move to 'Rose Bowl', alternatively Support move to 'Rose Bowl Game'" (Note: I'm italicizing my example instead of bolding to avoid confusion with an actual !vote by me here.) Or simply make a new single bullet item with your !vote after your explanation. Thanks—Bagumba (talk) 01:01, 1 January 2015 (UTC)


 * To my mind the obvious answer is use parenthetical disambiguation... so I !vote to MOVE TO: Rose Bowl (game). WP:COMMONNAME would indicate we should simply use Rose Bowl, but we do need to disambiguate to account for the stadium... (which should be at: Rose Bowl (stadium) if it isn't). Simple solution that passes all policies and guidelines. Blueboar (talk) 03:36, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
 * The stadium will be back to parenthetical disambiguation shortly. I moved it recently to Rose Bowl stadium, natural disambiguation, thinking that would be better for both, but nobody agreed.  Oh, well.  Dicklyon (talk) 03:40, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Support move to Rose Bowl (game)UCO2009bluejay (talk) 05:29, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Strong oppose other moves besides the one proposed. WP:NATURAL demands that we avoid using parentheses unless we can't avoid it. I have no take on the proposed title--I've fought it long enough, and the sources are impressive. Red <b style="color:#460121;">Slash</b> 07:42, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I disagree that Rose Bowl game would be the most most natural title. According to our WP:Article titles policy, Naturalness is defined as:
 * "The title is one that readers are likely to look or search for and that editors would naturally use to link to the article from other articles. Such titles usually convey what the subject is actually called in English." (bolding added for emphasis)
 * Now, it you look at "what links here" for this article, only one or two use the current title (or the proposed one)... an overwhelming number of other articles linking to this one simply use "Rose Bowl". Thus, it seems that the most natural title would simply be "Rose Bowl".
 * Unfortunately, we can't use that simple, unadorned name (due to the need to disambiguate the game from the stadium). So, in order to balance the two goals of naturalness and disambiguation, we look to see if there is a way to preserve the most natural name while at the same time achieving disambiguation.  I think adding a parenthetical does this best.  I see this as being no different than using parentheticals to disambiguate John Smith (botanist) from John Smith (dentist).
 * Fortunately, we can follow what WP:NATURAL says; did you read point 1 there? And point 2?  Sources show very clearly that Rose Bowl game is common and natural, even though it has become more common to drop "game".  Dicklyon (talk) 15:50, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I think this will give much more accurate n-gram comparison of usage. The only distinction between the two is that one includes the word "game"... It shows that "Rose Bowl game" has always been a distinct minority. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Blueboar (talk • contribs)


 * Oppose - Without rehashing every argument set forth above, I oppose the proposed move. I would support a move to either of the following alternative article titles:
 * 1. "Rose Bowl," as the demonstrated primary use of the term; or
 * 2. "Rose Bowl (game)," which makes perfectly clear the WP:COMMONNAME of the annual football bowl game is "Rose Bowl," not "Rose Bowl Game" or "Rose Bowl game."

Neither alternative would conflict with the article title about the stadium of the same name; that article is clearly going to be restored to its original disambiguated title: "Rose Bowl (stadium)". As it should be. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 16:32, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I have not yet figured out the logic that drives the "society for parenthetical disambiguation". What is the need to call cattle; (cattle), sheep; (sheep) a stadium; (stadium). Britannica has had a drive to use unnatural parenthetical disambiguation on just about everything so is this the deal? Do we have Britannica driven editors? Wikipedia likely reaches far more people than Britannica and they use it even for the Super Bowl (American football). Really!! Why try to make Wikipedia a mirror of Britannica? If a country has access to the internet I will wager the people in that country know what the Super Bowl is. I have no doubt that the name is famous enough that it does not need parenthetical disambiguation in areas covered by the English Wikipedia. The same is true with the 6 championship bowls. Come on people; This is Wikipedia and not Wiki-Britannica. Not one single "pro-disambiguator" can offer a REAL reason why we should toss around unnecessary parenthetical disambiguation, as an alternate to natural disambiguation. Go look up Britannica articles that are renown, notable, and recognizable without any disambiguation. The can of worms here is a drive to have parenthesis on every single article. I would think that would piss most of you off, except any that work for Britannica or some other like encyclopedia, and would be resisted. All the hype about the encyclopedia anyone can edit is beginning to be a joke. This is the end result: Create a disambiguation that no average person will consider then redirect it to a disambiguation page, so that a person can then have to choose from a list, to pick the article that was not ambiguous to begin with. The other side is that all these articles that are searched for will be a redirect. There is no sense in this. Rose Bowl is recognizable on it's own. There is no need for a parenthetical disambiguation to it of Rose Bowl stadium because this can be taken care of at the top of the article. Being Wikipedia I like solutions that are not like everyone else. What do I know though, Britannica-Wiki might grow on us.

Here are some examples and what is wrong with them?
 * These can be used on cases where there may be confusion and allows for article titles like "Rose Bowl" to be structured the same as other articles like Peach Bowl, Orange Bowl, Cotton Bowl, etc...
 * It is the bottom of the 4th and the game has already decided. If I wasn't so full of assumed faith I would wonder about that. Otr500 (talk) 21:33, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Perhaps the popularity of using parenthetical disambiguation is due to the fact that it simply makes sense to lots and lots of people. No need to invent conspiracy theories about "Britannica driven editors."   Blueboar (talk) 00:08, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
 * With all due respect, Otr500, I think you overlooked my comment above. I think the game article should be moved to "Rose Bowl" as the predominant use of the term.  The stadium article should be moved to "Rose Bowl (stadium)."  Why the parenthetical disambiguation, you ask?  Simple: "bowl" is a synonym for "stadium"; "Rose Bowl stadium" is not natural -- it's inelegantly redundant.  Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 04:16, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
 * What do you think might be the most common word following "Rose Bowl" in books? The answer might surprise you.  By a wide margin... Dicklyon (talk) 04:24, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Something has to be the most common word following "Rose Bowl". That doesn't mean that word should part of the proper name.  If anything, this fact supports Dirtlawyer1's just suggestion above that this article should be moved to "Rose Bowl", as the predominant use of the term. Jweiss11 (talk) 04:36, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Nobody is suggesting that game is part of the proper name; quite the contrary! Dicklyon (talk) 05:54, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
 * And then there's this little nugget from Blueboar above: . Interesting, but Google stats are clearly not the end of the discussion by any means -- when a small change in phrasing renders completely different results, that tells me the statistical results are not particularly robust.  Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 04:38, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
 * The stats are pretty robust. Your link shows that game is commonly omitted; nobody disputes that.  Dicklyon (talk) 05:54, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I can give hundreds of examples of famous names that on Britannica have parenthetical disambiguation. Examples like "Super Bowl (American Football)" or even "Super Bowl XLVI (football), that Wikipedia has long decided needs no disambiguation as well as all the related Super Bowl games (look them up), even the "Grand Canyon (canyon, Arizona, United States)" is there.
 * Then I see a "push" on Wikipedia to disambiguate titles that need no disambiguation, and I wonder why. Other editors that may not know this- need to know. Maybe they will ask the question why? Is there an invention of conspiracy theories? Want me to list some examples that "might" lead some to wonder? That is not really on point but: Why was it more important to mention that than a reply concerning the examples of an obvious provided solution to disambiguation? Are they not viable as they appear to work all over Wikipedia?
 * As far as "Rose Bowl stadium" not being natural, PLEASE!! You have got to be kidding me. I live in the United States, and even though I am from the south there is no way we can speak the word "Rose Bowl stadium" and use parenthesis. That, is the difference in natural and unnatural, and why the term is called parenthetical disambiguation as apposed to "natural". Not one single person here, or anywhere else, will read "Rose Bowl stadium" in a sentence and consider for a second why stadium is missing the parenthesis because it does not exist outside titles. Editors, of the larger community on Wikipedia, has been challenging and changing the use of "Britannica parenthesis" (my new word) because it is NOT natural in article titles that simply do not need it. Rose Bowl does not need disambiguation and the stadium, that would be the physical place the game is played, does not need to be added in parenthesis.
 * A circular argument that we MUST use parenthetical disambiguation on stadium (not capitalized because it is not part of the proper name) to avoid ambiguity but WAIT, now we MUST do the same with Rose Bowl because it too now is ambiguous, does not make sense. We are creating ambiguity so we can disambiguate. By-the-way "lots and lots of people" is not that many considering that more are showing community-wide support against parenthetical disambiguation. When it is absolutely necessary use it and when not then leave it out.
 * I can give hundreds of examples of famous names that on Britannica have parenthetical disambiguation. Examples like "Super Bowl (American Football)" or even "Super Bowl XLVI (football), that Wikipedia has long decided needs no disambiguation as well as all the related Super Bowl games (look them up), even the "Grand Canyon (canyon, Arizona, United States)" is there.
 * Then I see a "push" on Wikipedia to disambiguate titles that need no disambiguation, and I wonder why. Other editors that may not know this- need to know. Maybe they will ask the question why? Is there an invention of conspiracy theories? Want me to list some examples that "might" lead some to wonder? That is not really on point but: Why was it more important to mention that than a reply concerning the examples of an obvious provided solution to disambiguation? Are they not viable as they appear to work all over Wikipedia?
 * As far as "Rose Bowl stadium" not being natural, PLEASE!! You have got to be kidding me. I live in the United States, and even though I am from the south there is no way we can speak the word "Rose Bowl stadium" and use parenthesis. That, is the difference in natural and unnatural, and why the term is called parenthetical disambiguation as apposed to "natural". Not one single person here, or anywhere else, will read "Rose Bowl stadium" in a sentence and consider for a second why stadium is missing the parenthesis because it does not exist outside titles. Editors, of the larger community on Wikipedia, has been challenging and changing the use of "Britannica parenthesis" (my new word) because it is NOT natural in article titles that simply do not need it. Rose Bowl does not need disambiguation and the stadium, that would be the physical place the game is played, does not need to be added in parenthesis.
 * A circular argument that we MUST use parenthetical disambiguation on stadium (not capitalized because it is not part of the proper name) to avoid ambiguity but WAIT, now we MUST do the same with Rose Bowl because it too now is ambiguous, does not make sense. We are creating ambiguity so we can disambiguate. By-the-way "lots and lots of people" is not that many considering that more are showing community-wide support against parenthetical disambiguation. When it is absolutely necessary use it and when not then leave it out.


 * The move request is concerning the capitalization of "Game" versus game, the slippery slope alternative of "Rose Bowl". I could not be an admin because I would have to decide that local noes not trump community-wide decisions and and that a move request must follow policy. That actually has been chosen in many articles that some editors here has been involved in.
 * IF we can't (at this time) have the far more common Rose Bowl (as agreed upon by Dirtlawyer1, Dicklyon, and Calidum, as well as a more broad community choice) as it should be, then I support "Rose Bowl game". The actual "advertisers" chosen name is "Rose Bowl Game", and I resist this because they don't pay Wikipedia to use what they have picked, that will change when a new sponsor "buys in". Either is preferable over parenthesis and if this is closed other than "Rose Bowl" I will be a most ardent supporter of Kotex Bowl Game if they "buy in". If you think this is a joke please see TaxSlayer Bowl above and some of the other name changes (Outback Bowl, Foster Farms Bowl) to the advertisers choice. I will then even support Blueboar's parenthesis "Kotex Bowl (stadium)" just for amusement. Maybe we can just spend our time changing titles back and forth per the advertisers. Are we still all having fun? Otr500 (talk) 10:17, 2 January 2015 (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.

Dead links
There are references that are dead links in this article that needs to be addressed. Otr500 (talk) 14:01, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

Assessment comment
Substituted at 04:54, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians, I have just modified 4 external links on Rose Bowl Game. 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: When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090907115147/http://www.rosebowlstadium.com/RoseBowl_history.htm to http://www.rosebowlstadium.com/RoseBowl_history.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080522115924/http://www.sports-venue.info/NCAAF/Bowls/T_Rose_Bowl_Timeline.html to http://www.sports-venue.info/NCAAF/Bowls/T_Rose_Bowl_Timeline.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071020041445/http://www.tournamentofroses.com/history/gamescores.asp to http://www.tournamentofroses.com/history/gamescores.asp
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080306033551/http://www.bowlprograms.com/rosebowl/?pg=182 to http://www.bowlprograms.com/rosebowl/?pg=182

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 23:07, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

2020 Rose Bowl or 2020 "Rose Bowl" re sponsorship
There is 3-day newish licensing debate on whether the 2020 game will be branded as a "Rose Bowl" or not. For example, wjla.com and others say, "Hancock said it had not yet been determined if the game played in Arlington will still be called the Rose Bowl. The name is part of licensing agreement and is co-owned by the Pasadena Tournament of Roses and the City of Pasadena."

The existing citations which predate this issue, stated (perhaps inaccurately) it is a Rose Bowl/Grandaddy/etc. To a causal fan, there is already awareness that the "2020 event" is being relocated to Arlington. The above edit has removed those facts while not addressing the new licensing concern. I don't object to any inclusion of any context re the current license question, but disagree with the removal of the "move to Arlington" content in some form. And regardless of branding, this "2020 event" (CFP) is moving to Arlington and belong in the Infobox in some manner -possibly augmented with a key or footnote.

Agreed this is happening in real time, apologies on temporal issues or related misstatement of fact. Thoughts? UW Dawgs (talk) 20:01, 22 December 2020 (UTC)


 * , hi – it took me a couple minutes to realize you're referring to the Rose Bowl Game article, as I initially was looking elsewhere. At this time, I am supportive of keeping the noted information in Rose Bowl Game, highlighting that the game (a game) has been moved to Arlington. I think we're all in agreement that if it will or won't be called "Rose Bowl" hasn't been decided yet. I agree with what I believe you are saying above; currently, the only name anyone knows the game as is "Rose Bowl", and that's where users (or editors) will go looking for info. Officials in Pasadena are, per this report, meeting today (December 22) to discuss, so I'm not expecting we'll have to wait too much longer for official guidance. As soon as we see clear guidance one way or the other, we can make appropriate edits. Thanks. Dmoore5556 (talk) 23:24, 22 December 2020 (UTC)


 * RE- Agree with Dmoore5556. Listing Arlington as a "previous location" is premature since we have clear sources and text in the article that the name may not be following the CFP, so the game in Arlington may not even be the Rose Bowl Game. I'd much prefer we wait for the formal announcement that the name itself is also going before we add it as a "previous location" since we do have definitive sources stating that the name didn't automatically go with the movement of the CFP game. If this were just about any other bowl game, I don't think it would be an issue. On a related issue, perhaps the "previous locations" parameter should be renamed to "other locations". First, it seems odd to list a "previous location" with a future date (along the lines of when editors add a future year and "...–future" in the tenant list), plus Durham and (if they allow the name to go) Arlington will both be cases of temporary relocations as opposed to instances like the Liberty Bowl or Fiesta Bowl that actually moved to a different city. Yes, this is in real time, so we don't need to jump the gun when we know it hasn't been decided. --JonRidinger (talk) 02:01, 25 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Fair point that listing Arlington in the "previous location" area is a bit premature, and also (with a 2021 date) a misnomer. I believe we can remove the "future" entries from the infobox for now, as the article lead provides readers with guidance (and references to additional info). I'm going to remove the future "previous" entries; if other editors object, let's try to reach consensus here. If the game does move as "Rose Bowl" to Arlington, I'd be a favor of us adding some manner of "temporary location" field to the infobox... we could have used the same for New Mexico Bowl this year. Such an infobox addition should be discussed at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject College football, and I'll open a discussion on that shortly. Thanks. Dmoore5556 (talk) 02:12, 25 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Latest from this report: "Pasadena’s City Council met in closed session last week to discuss the issue, and had yet to report any action pending an agreement on the terms with the Tournament association. Parties weren’t commenting on those terms, but it appeared Monday that an announcement would be coming in the next two days." Dmoore5556 (talk) 06:20, 29 December 2020 (UTC)


 * > "Unprecedented is truly an understatement. That is why the City of Pasadena has agreed to allow the Tournament of Roses to relocate the official Rose Bowl Game in 2021."


 * https://www.cityofpasadena.net/city-manager/news-releases/statement-from-city-of-pasadena-regarding-2021-rose-bowl-game/


 * PKAMB (talk) 20:03, 30 December 2020 (UTC)


 * , thanks for the link to the cityofpasadena.net site. Dmoore5556 (talk) 03:15, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

2022 Rose Bowl sponsorship
Capital One sponsor was just for the 2021 Rose Bowl game. No new sponsor has been selected. See that they have gone back to their standard logo. Socalphoto (talk) 17:20, 29 July 2021 (UTC)