Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2011 November 27



Template:LinkedIn

 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was delete Plastikspork ―Œ (talk) 02:00, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
 * LinkedIn

This site is actually not one of those social networks we link to, as LinkedIn only works for registered users. Thus, the template should be deleted and removed from articles, so that people don't get the idea that we actually encourage LinkedIn links.

Note: couldn't add tfd because the template is protected. The Evil IP address (talk) 18:14, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
 * See also External links/Perennial websites. I would be interested to see reasons why "generally no" is specified there instead of "never". — This, that, and the other (talk) 10:52, 28 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete, this is only for advertising. No additional information is on linkedin which cannot be in Wikipedia. mabdul 12:11, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I'd agree with a strengthening of the wording at WP:ELPEREN, which would obviate the need for this template. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 15:20, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Suggestion: Add link to Authority control?  Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:55, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I admittedly knew nothing about the authority control indexes, but from reading the article on them there doesn't seem to be any indication LinkedIn is (or contains) this sort of database. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 10:16, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:ELPEREN. Not helpful for our readers. Robofish (talk) 22:32, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Units in Age of Empires II

 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was delete Plastikspork ―Œ (talk) 01:54, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Units in Age of Empires II

None of the items in the navbox is an article about a unit of the "Age of Empires" game (and, of course, there will never be such articles), but about the real military topics depicted in the game. Cambalachero (talk) 17:34, 19 November 2011 (UTC) 
 * I don't care about the template's existence, but I and others have removed it from various articles per WP:MILPOP. It may be worth converting it to a list and/or adding it only to Age of Empires II: The Age of Kings. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 08:26, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Lord of mercy. Apparently created as an alternative to having junk IPC sections in each of these articles. Another alternative, one which I strongly favour, is not to bother at all. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 10:22, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Listify or subst into AoEII:AoK, and then delete. bd2412  T 19:11, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
 * A list of units in a game is just WP:GAMEGUIDE, and would (hopefully) never be considered an appropriate standalone list. Nor does merging to the main game template improve that template. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 09:48, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ruslik_ Zero 17:16, 27 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete this should NEVER appear on any of the articles this purports to navigate between. If any links should exist, it shold be in a section on units in Age of Empires II, in that article. 70.24.248.23 (talk) 07:29, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete - trivia, not a sensible means of navigation, violates WP:GAMEGUIDE. Robofish (talk) 22:31, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Global Professional Basketball League

 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was delete Plastikspork ―Œ (talk) 01:55, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Global Professional Basketball League

Defunct basketball league whose teams are questionably notable. Jrcla2 (talk) 16:30, 19 November 2011 (UTC) 
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ruslik_ Zero 17:14, 27 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete It seems like these teams never played in this minor league anyway (which was set to launch in 2010 but is now non-existent). The team articles should have been put up for deletion first though. SFB 20:39, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Gold Coast Sevens
<div class="boilerplate vfd tfd-closed" style="background-color: #e3f9df; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px solid #AAAAAA;">
 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was keep Plastikspork <sub style="font-size: 60%">―Œ <sup style="margin-left:-3ex">(talk) 01:56, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Gold Coast Sevens

Typical example for WP:NENAN, there are simply not enough articles to warrant a navbox. Armbrust Talk to me about my edits<sub style="color:#0892D0;">review  12:40, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
 * This event will be held the next years too, so a navbox is useful, just because it just has one event doesn´t mean it´s unnecessary. Kante4 (talk) 15:48, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Forgot to say Keep. Kante4 (talk) 18:21, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep A useful template which will clearly become fully-fledged in a few years. Ideally this wouldn't have been created just yet but it seems wasteful to delete it now. I would prefer to userfy over deletion at the very least. SFB 20:44, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Infobox college rivalry
<div class="boilerplate vfd tfd-closed" style="background-color: #e3f9df; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px solid #AAAAAA;">
 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was Merge. WOSlinker (talk) 08:41, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Infobox college rivalry
 * Infobox college sports rivalry

Propose merging Template:Infobox college rivalry with Template:Infobox college sports rivalry.

These templates serve a nearly identical purpose. There has been lengthy discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject College football, but the issues discussed there are lingering. This discussion will compel resolution of the issue.TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 02:05, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I see that the announcement of my TFD at WT:CFB prompted the conversion of Duke–Michigan basketball rivalry‎, Michigan–Michigan State ice hockey rivalry, Michigan–Michigan State ice hockey rivalry and Cornell–Princeton lacrosse rivalry among others. It seems like some features have been stripped from the old format to the new including the subseries feature. I don't know what exactly is going on with the merger, but hope subseries functionality will be restored.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 05:32, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Support merge per nom.  Levdr1 lostpassword  ( talk ) 07:49, 27 November 2011 (UTC)


 * The former predates the latter, and doesn't have a codebase descended from the execrable US sports infoboxes. If there's going to be a merge (and I would agree that this is in itself obviously the right thing to do) then it should be to Infobox college rivalry. Fortunately both of these templates are still immature enough that the transclusions can easily be manually updated to use the new fields rather than having to introduce "backwards" compatibility in the cleaner codebase. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 08:35, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

I agree that these should be merged, but the destination should be Infobox college sports rivalry for the following reasons:


 * 1) More appropriate and descriptive name
 * 2) Better layout: team names below teams logo instead of stacked in a field
 * 3) More flexible image handling
 * 4) Doesn't lock in ifexist calls in perpetuity
 * 5) Is bereft of the wins field, which is infobox bloat and need to be culled; the year-by-year results of these rivalries should be detailed in the body of the article, e.g. see Michigan–Ohio State football rivalry.

Can Infobox the two column layout of Infobox college sports rivalry? If so, the codebase could be cleaned up very easily. Jweiss11 (talk) 09:20, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Bottom line: If we don't agree on the fields to be included in the merged template, then this TfD is premature, and it needs to go back to the CFB/CBB talk pages to determine which fields to include and what measure of flexibility to build into it. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 23:08, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Those changes are easy enough to make to the older template, and it can be moved to the longer title once the merge is completed. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 09:46, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
 * The age of the templates is negligible. They are both new.  Infobox college sports rivalry is clearly superior on the font end and meets the requirements of what we need this infobox to look like on the articles.  It has the proper fields and layout.  That ought to be more important than back-end bureaucracy. Jweiss11 (talk) 10:19, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
 * The output differences are negligible. The code differences are the difference between a unmaintainable bit of legacy copy-paste mess and a readable, modern piece of contemporary code. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 20:30, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
 * The output differences are not negligible. Can Infobox support the layout of Infobox college sports rivalry, specifically, the two column header? Jweiss11 (talk) 21:01, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
 * The two-column 'header' (sic; one row of two  table cells) is a misuse of table markup. The two names should be in a single   table cell, centred, and using list markup with  .  Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 23:47, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
 * My edits to merge the table cells concerned and make the team names an "hlist" styled list have been reverted by Jweiss11; we're discussing the matter on his talk page Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:10, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I see a lot of debate, but no one is mentioning subseries functionality. See Michigan–Michigan State ice hockey rivalry now vs. before its recent conversion.  Also, consider converting Paul Bunyan Trophy to this template without subseries functionality.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 12:55, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Query. What is the "subseries" function to which TonyTheTiger has referred twice?  Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 21:04, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Take a look here for an example. Jweiss11 (talk) 21:10, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
 * (ec)Basically, it is the ability to include records in the infobox for part of a series. At the suggested example you can see the Joe Louis Arena series. Although Michigan and Michigan State play 4 times per year in hockey, once per year they play at Joe Louis Arena. This game is sometimes the most highly attended hockey game of the college hockey season. Another subseries examples can be seen at the Paul Bunyan Trophy where there are two records 1.) all MICH-MSU games 2.) the subseries of trophy games. Other subseries possibilities could be one for games at Michigan and another for games at MSU. I have also seen subseries for last 10 games.  The template probably should accomodate up to 3 or 4 subseries. It may be common to include records for both teams' home games as subseries. Plus accomodating one or two more would be good.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 21:34, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Merge&mdash;with CAVEAT. Personally, I don't give a rat's little hairy ass and little pink tail as to which "code base" we use as the basis for the merged template.  Frankly, I don't know enough about the coding to comment.  From my perspective, however, one of the points of this exercise in creating this new infobox is to LIMIT the options available in the infobox because we have experienced far too much free-lancing and crufting with these rivalry infoboxes in the past.  Some of the old wikitable infoboxes stretched the length of the article page because some editors felt the need to include a redundant list of the years of each team's wins, as well as all sorts of other minor details and trivia about the rivalry.  This apparently is what the "subseries" issue is all about: one editor wants another option, the other editor wants a more limited menu of options.  Personally, I want to emphasize core data at the expense of added trivia, but if we can't agree on which options to include in the merged template, then this TfD discussion is premature and we need to send it back to the WP:CFB and WP:CBB talk pages for further discussion of which options to include.  TfD is not the appropriate place to be arguing about which field options to include, and this should have been resolved within the CFB and CBB wikiprojects before this TfD discussion was started.  Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 21:32, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
 * At Paul Bunyan Trophy, I don't think one record or the other is any more correct and think both should be in the infobox. There are probably many other situations like this.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 21:37, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree with DL on the sub-series field. I think it bodes to open up a can a words and dilute the conciseness of the infobox.  The infobox should present the record of the rivalry as the subject has been framed by the naming of its article.  Paul Bunyan Trophy is by definition about the "Paul Bunyan Trophy", i.e. the Michigan-Michigan State series since 1953.  The body of the article can detail the records of any notable larger series and subsets of the series. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jweiss11 (talk • contribs) 21:49
 * This is a pretty unusual opinion for infoboxes. The general policy is to make them flexible enough to accommodate all current needs. I don't really think it benefits the reader to bury the overall record in the series. If you don't make infoboxes flexible then we end up getting request for multiple variant infoboxes. Pretending not to know that being to rigid will create infobox crufting for each nuanced one needed sounds like a bunch of inexperienced editors trying to force a round peg into a square whole. We know based on articles that exist that there is editor demand for nuanced infoboxes that accomodate various subseries. If we come to a decision to create a limited basic one, then we will end up with a half dozen specialized infoboxes rather than one good flexible one.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 22:47, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
 * This is exactly the sort of added trivia to which I am adamantly opposed to adding to the major infobox on these rivalry articles. We do not need breakouts of the series win-loss record based on home and away games, pre- and post-conferences alignments, new vs. old stadium, johnny-come-lately "trophy series," whether the quarterback was lefthanded, etc.  If these facts are relatively important to the history of a particular rivalry series, you can create a wiki table and embed it in the main body text, separate and apart from the main infobox.  I might also add that if these added series record factoids are not important enough to include in the main body text with a sourced footnote, then they sure as heck aren't important enough to include in a separate wiki table, let alone the article's main upper righthand corner infobox.  The main article infoboxes need to be kept clean and cruft free: series name, teams, first game, last game, series win-loss record, longest winning streak, and that's it.
 * I have another discussion opened up at WP:CFB about rivalry articles from conference to conference and the current feedback is let every conference create whatever type of rivalry article they want. We don't want to try to make them all the same. So if we are saying that we are going to allow all kinds of articles, then we should have a very general template. You just contradicted your accomplice with the johnny-come-lately "trophy series" comment.  Most rivalry games preexist Trophies, AFAIK.  E.g. Michigan and Michigan State have played football games since 1898 and every year since 1910, but Michigan State joined the Big Ten in 1950 and the johnny-come-lately trophy started in 1953. Nonetheless the Paul Bunyan Trophy is where the Michigan - Michigan State football rivalry article is located. If you don't want johnny-come-lately trophy records which record do you want in the johnny-come-lately Paul Bunyan Trophy article?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 23:36, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Tony, the current feedback per the rivalry navbox discussion is not to create "whatever type of rivalry article". What I said was, "Generally speaking we should have parallelism between the conferences as much as possible when it comes to standard structures like navboxes. If you look as the other classes of conference navboxes (by team, coach, mascot, fight song, etc) you'll see pretty strict parallelism. But the rivalries may be a special case here because the articles themselves lack parallelism, i.e. some are multi-sport while others are single-sport."  The simply fact is right now we have an uneasy mix of single and multi-sport articles.  Perhaps those multi-sport articles should be broken up by sport.  Perhaps they should be retained, but have break-out sub-articles for each sport.  Perhaps, the solution may be different from case to case.  I'm not sure what the answer is yet.  Navbox structure has to follow from the articles we have and/or the articles we are sure we want.  There is still a lot of uncertainty there.  We don't even have good notability guidelines for rilvaries.  What I do know is that the college sports rivalry articles are a bit of collective scrap heap right now.  We've got a lot of inconsistency and messiness in that area.  Nailing down this infobox and keeping it as lean and mean as possible will help to straighten things up and get us on the path to better management of this content. Jweiss11 (talk) 08:52, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
 * You are actually missing a point in the current state of navbox articles. I interpret your argument as we can not standardize navboxes because some conferences do rivalry articles for each sport and some conferences do multi-sport rivalry articles. This is not the whole truth. If you look at the two of the three broader templates (ACC & IVY) you will see that those templates include single sport articles across various sports as well as multisport articles (i.e., all types of rivalry articles on one template).  The Big 12 only has football and multi-sport.  Those facts would not preclude consideration of broadening all templates to include all types of rivalry articles, which is what I think might be the right way to go.  You are saying we can't discuss parallelism because some conferences have multisport articles.  However, if you want to consider including all rivalry articles on templates, that is not a problem.  I.E., to add Michigan–Michigan State ice hockey rivalry, Braggin' Rights, Duke–Michigan basketball rivalry, etc. to templates would not require changing articles.  It would just require clasifying the football only templates more broadly. Have you given thought to that?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 14:36, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Merge no need for two templates. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 23:47, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Merge, use "Infobox college sports rivalry" as the destination name, and retain sub-series functionality. (I don't care about how the final template is coded, so long as it works.) They serve the same purpose, so they should be merged. "Infobox college sports rivalry" is a better description, so that name should be used. The sub-series functionality should be retained, because although each rivalry should be a single article, it's often necessary to present sub-series when the trophy changes or there is a long gap in competition. Consider, for example, the football rivalry between Bowling Green and Toledo (currently at Peace Pipe (college football), though it should probably be moved): the rivalry ran from 1919 through 1935 with no trophy, resumed from 1948-1969 as the Peace Pipe, continued with no trophy from 1970-1979, resumed as the Peace Pipe from 1980-2010, and officially became the "Battle for I-75" starting in 2011. It's obviously all one rivalry, and should be all in a single article, but it only makes sense to separate the sub-series. Another example is Governor's Cup (Kentucky), where it makes sense to list both the overall series (dating to 1912) and the modern series (dating to 1994). cmadler (talk) 15:10, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment. Cmadler, if you and Tony will support merging the handful of separate rivalry articles and their stand-alone trophy articles, I will withdraw my objection to including the "subseries" function in the merged template.  There really are surprisingly few separate rivalry and rivalry trophy articles for the same rivalry series.  More often than not, the rivalry trophy articles are simply the main rivalry article, complete with series history, notable games and game results, but listed under the trophy name.  As you suggested above, the duplication is a little bit goofy, and often splits the series into illogical segments based on evolving nicknames and new trophies.  Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 19:11, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Please enumerate the rivalries at issue.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 19:41, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Tony, I think this is all of them:


 * 1. Crab Bowl Classic – Crab Bowl Trophy
 * 2. Holy War – Frank Leahy Memorial Bowl
 * 3. Iowa–Iowa State rivalry – Cy-Hawk Trophy
 * 4. Iron Bowl – James E. Foy, V-ODK Sportsmanship Trophy
 * 4. Kansas–Kansas State rivalry – Governor's Cup, Sunflower Showdown, Kansas – Kansas State basketball all-time results, Kansas–Kansas State football all-time results
 * 6. Red River Shootout – Red River Shootout trophies
 * 7. Sweet Sioux Tomahawk – Land of Lincoln Trophy


 * None of the trophies has widespread recognition, with perhaps the exception of the Sweet Sioux Tomahawk, and it's been replaced thanks to the NCAA's foray into native American political correctness. The series record tables should be combined, and separate overall rivalry series and trophy subseries records could be listed in the infobox.  This is what you wanted, right?  Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 20:16, 29 November 2011 (UTC)


 * As I understand it, the remaining vast majority of trophy articles and rivalry articles are properly coordinated. At most, I find two of these articles remotely interesting. I might volunteer my time for articles 6 and 7.  However, the rest are less interesting to me.  I find it unusual that you would block functionality necessary for the vast majority of trophy/rivalry articles because a handful are not properly coordinated. Furthermore, I believe that since functionality existed before this merger and there is not consensus to remove it, it should be retained.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 01:01, 30 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Tony, let's be perfectly clear about merging the handful of separate CFB rivalry articles with their separate, but related trophy articles. In most cases, the trophy article simply describes the trophy and then proceeds to cover much of the same substantive ground as the main rivalry article, often including a duplicate series record table, series history, list of notable games, etc.  We do not need duplicate articles that cover the same ground.  How is this related to the rivalry navbox, you ask?  Well, if we're going to have subseries function you want, then there is absolutely no reason why this handful of separate, but related rivalry and rivalry trophy articles can't be merged.  The infobox will include an overall rivalry series record, and a trophy subseries record, as appropriate.  No duplicate series record tables, no duplicate notable games, no duplicate rivalry history.  One rivalry, one trophy, one history, one series record table, one article.  Are you with me, big fella?  And, no, we're not talking abut combining CFB and CBB rivalries (or any other sports, for that matter), just CFB rivalries with their related CFB trophies.  Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 01:19, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I understand what your objective is. I am just saying that the majority of the articles in need of "collating" content are outside of my area of interest. I lived in Norman, OK as a toddler (66-69 or 70) and rooted for the Sooners until I went to Michigan for my MBA in 1990. Thus, Red River Shootout is near and dear. I am the WP:CHICAGO director so I am a bit interested in the Sweet Sioux Tomahawk. I am just not interested in collating the other content.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 04:50, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
 * In terms of the template, I am just saying that the subseries is needed for a whole bunch of other articles that do not need to be collated. Furthermore, it should be included in the merged template unless there is consensus to remove it since its functionality existed in one of the templates being merged and is needed.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 04:50, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Tony, I think there's a small misunderstanding here; I'm not demanding that you work on these articles, just support their merger. BTW, if you were looking for a consensus as to what fields should be included in the merged template, you've taken the wrong approach.  That should have been determined on the CFB talk page; not here.  We now have a bunch of non-CFB editors voting on whether to merge these templates; they're concerned with the underlying code, not what fields are included.  I'm doing my best to resolve issues that should have been resolved before this TfD was started.  Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 06:18, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Actually, the merge should just merge the functionalities here. We should not be removing functionality with the merge. We can then discuss functionality at WP:CFB.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 06:58, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
 * P.S. I support the merger.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 06:59, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

I support the complete mergers of five of those seven. I think Red River Shootout trophies has enough information and sourcing to stand on its own, per summary style. For the Kansas-Kansas State articles, I think some reorganization is needed, but it shouldn't be squeezed down into a single article. I suggest retaining Sunflower Showdown as the main all-sports article for the rivalry, with detailed information about the football and basketball rivalry spun off into sub-articles. cmadler (talk) 20:16, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Merge, use "Infobox college rivalry" as the destination name: College rivalry is a shorter title  Purpleback  pack  89  ≈≈≈≈  21:12, 1 December 2011 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.