Talk:Carolina-Duke rivalry/Archive 2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
← Archive 1 |
Archive 2
| Archive 3 →


Contents

Name Order

I saw in a comment from Bluedog423 in an edit summary about the ordering of the school names. I know I most commonly hear Duke-Carolina but since I work at one of the two foci of this particular rivalry, that's understandable. I generally think, for naming, primacy should go to the older institution. For instance, with the Army-Navy game. I did add a redirect from Duke-Carolina rivalry though, just in case. DukeEGR93 14:06, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Originally I set up the page as the Duke-UNC rivalry. Referring to UNC-CH as just Carolina often gets people into disputes with the University of South Carolina. I also originally put Duke first because of alphabetical order, but someone quickly changed it to UNC-Duke rivalry. As I said at the top of this talk page, I don't really care which way it is, but I don't want to constantly get into rearranging the title of the article. So could we please discuss this on the talk page for awhile before changing anything. Remember 14:40, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
I'm firmly on the side of not changing anything, just wanted to mention the redirect and note that I think the current title is probably the right one. We could also add an "also known as" section for the rivalry in the head paragraph. I suppose I'll be bold and go do that. DukeEGR93 14:46, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
I generally hear it called "Duke-Carolina" as well, so I wouldn't have a problem with changing to that. I don't really think anyone would dispute putting Duke first, just because it seems that's the way we hear it the most. As for those Gamecock people from USC thinking they're called "Carolina"... they're just very sadly mistaken. :^). Cheers, Dubc0724 14:54, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
For something that purports to be an encyclopedia (namely Wikipedia), the use of "Carolina" would be improper regardless of UNC folks' feelings on their claim to that name, since there can be no serious dispute that the name IS used at South Carolina as well as in Chapel Hill. A purported encyclopedia should steer clear of such issues. It also bears noting that the term "UNC" is defined at the beginning of the article, so under most normal conventions that term ought to be used throughout (rather than "North Carolina" or some other form).1995hoo 17:26, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
As this is a page about only two teams in perticular, it's far-fetched to purport that 'Carolina' in an article devoted to a Duke-UNC rivalry would be in reference to "South Carolina", a team which has nothing to do with this article. I would agree with you if we were talking about a general basketball article, but since this is not so and is limited to two specific teams, obviously Carolina is in reference to UNC in this article. For my two cents, I normally hear it as "Duke-Carolina" - though, I have grown up in a Duke family, and therefore should be considered biased in my opinion. --NomaderTalk 01:27, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
I went to Duke Law School, so I'm quite familiar with the UNC people's usage. But it's irrelevant. More important is the defined term at the beginning of the article. Once a particular usage is defined, an article should stick to that usage instead of veering off to use other terms. Put simply, there is no school named "Carolina," so it doesn't belong in an article that purports to be encyclopedic. 1995hoo 03:53, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

I am from Ohio and have heard the rivalry both ways (Duke-Carolina, North Carolina-Duke) in the national media, often the visiting team's name is placed first. Since it is not like Army-Navy or Yankees-Red Sox, where the rivaly is almost always pronounced that way by the media and fans of both teams, i believe it is sensible to rename the page Duke-North Carolina rivalry or Duke-UNC RivalryFrank Anchor, U. S. American (talk) 21:21, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Clean up of External Links

The External links section was tagged with {{Cleanup-spam}}. As a result, as part of WP:WPSPAM, I've reviewed the external links. There were a few links that might have been more appropiate as References (e.g. msnbc article or CollegeSports.com article). Some other links (e.g. The Carlyle Cup Link) is discussed in a seperate article so are not warranted here. Most of the other links generally do not satisfy WP:EL, mostly because they do not positvely contribute to the article. -- Rehnn83 Talk 11:06, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

While I appreciate your attention to this article, I do have to disagree with your stated position. First, I don't understand why you didn't just delete the links that did not positively contribute instead of deleting the whole thing. Second, I disagree with your position that all the rest of the links did not positively contribute to the article. I believe that they told people where to go for more information regarding the rivarly. I think the deletion of these links does not help because there is a dearth of good information available on this subject and deleting the only sources that we could currently find, I believe, does more harm than good. What are your feelings on this matter? Remember 12:58, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
I agree some of the Links provide useful information on the subject, as I have suggested they would be more appropiate as references. Before taking any action, I deliberated whether picking off individual links would suffice or would a "drop the bomb" approach be more suitable. It was/is my opinion that the links were not of sufficient merit to warrant inclusion. If you feel some of the external links I have removed should still be included please re-add them. I will not revert you edits. -- Rehnn83 Talk 13:36, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
Ok. I will add back the ones I think are appropriate. Please let me know if you have issues with any of the links I added back. Remember 13:42, 2 May 2007 (UTC). Let me know what you think of the current version. Remember 13:46, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
On reflection I have probably been over-zealous in deleting all the links. My thoughts are as follows. I would rename the section Personal websites and comments regarding rivalry to Websites Dedicated to the rivalary. I still believe the articles about the rivalary are best in the references section. I'd remove the link to http://www.dukebasketballreport.com/main/index.cgi?6490 as it appears to be dead. I would also suggest formatting the Links as follows: -- Rehnn83 Talk 15:10, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
I agree with the suggested revisions. Feel free to revise. Remember 15:38, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
OK - have done. -- Rehnn83 Talk 16:00, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Interlocking NC Blue.gif

Image:Interlocking NC Blue.gif 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 Wikipedia: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 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 uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 08:00, 5 June 2007 (UTC)