Category talk:College sports rivalries

message: Hi, I noticed the new change to the initial wording saying that it is for U.S. colleges only.  I'm not in favor of that.  While this category does happen to only have U.S. college football rivalry games at this moment, there is no reason for it to be restricted to U.S.  In fact the participants in the Wikipedia:WikiProject Countering systemic bias project would probably be against it.
The alternative is probably less palatable, that is, to rename the category to "United States college rivalry games" (or the same with football added).  
I'm aware of current pages for two U.K rivalry games that could go here, namely the Boat Race and The Varsity Match. Brholden 02:33, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Globalize the article

message: *The BU-BC hockey rivalry is included.  Jake 07:55, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Specific rivalries

message: Why isn't this, of course in my opinion one of the more publicized (especially nationally), rivalry not listed here? I'll try to find the time to create the article on it sometime in the future.--droptone 00:08, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  UNC vs. Duke (the Carlyle Cup) 

message: I don't see much use in having :Category:College rivalry trophies and :Category:College rivalry games.  In most cases, the trophy and game share the same name ... Commonwealth Cup for example ... splitting trophies from games just creates a lot of duplication.  I would see, however, a benefit to splitting football, basketball, and other sports.
How about reorganizing the categories like this:
* College sports rivalries
**College football rivalries
**College basketball rivalries
**College hockey rivalries
**Any other sports?
Thoughts? BigDT 05:23, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The problem is that so many articles are in both categories ... take a look at the horribly misnamed List of trophies awarded in U.S. college football ... I've been working on it ... I'm almost done with 1A ... it should be named something like List of rivalry games in NCAA football, I'm open to suggestions but I haven't come up with a name I really like yet.  Anyway, very few games have separate rivalry and trophy articles.  Really, there isn't that much that you can say about the trophy apart from the rivalry and most of the ones that do have separate articles are just forks of each other where both articles partially duplicate the other. With so many articles in both categories, the separate categories don't really do too much. BigDT 12:30, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: (Great work on the table in List of trophies awarded in U.S. college football!)   I still think that the trophies deserve their own category.  Take for example the entries for the Stanford Axe, the Commander in Chief's Trophy, and the Fremont Cannon.  Each of these trophies has its own story as an object that is independent from the game itself.  The Stanford Axe has its history of intrigue; the Commander in Chief's Trophy has its presentations by the president; the Fremont Cannon has its connection to John Fremont.  It would be a disservice to these objects if there were not separate articles and categories for them. Brholden 19:45, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Ones like Utah-BYU that focus on the rivalry as a whole would go into College sports rivalries.  There are a handful of other articles like that.
So how about something like this?
* College sports rivalries
**College football rivalries
***College football rivalry games
***College football rivalry trophies
**College basketball rivalries
***College basketball rivalry games
***College basketball rivalry trophies
**College hockey rivalries
**Other sports?
BigDT 12:30, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

text: That could work - we might also be able to do without one of each of the pair of "rivalry" - "rivalry games" categories.  Sometimes less is more.Brholden 19:45, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Looks good - articles about rivalries in other sports like baseball, softball, wrestling, or lacrosse would start off in "College sports rivalries". Categories could then be added for these later as it made sense.Brholden 06:39, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That sounds reasonable, although we may want to come back and reexamine it at some point.  Any other thoughts or just do it?  Maybe wait until tonight in case anyone else wants to weigh in? BigDT 11:54, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  How about reorganizing this section by sport?