Talk:Battle for the Palladium

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Untitled[edit]

Moderators deleted this page apparently on the basis that it isn't noteworthy because there haven't been enough games.

Apparently, ESPN disagrees and will televise this game on national TV for the second time in three years Tuesday night. Also, ESPN columnist named this one of the top five non-BCS in conference rivalries in college football.

Furthermore, others who have a page such as Fresno St and Boise St. have an even shorter history yet their page hasn't been deleted on this basis. Recommend the page staying based on the fact that this is a college football rivalry played at the highest division of college football. Thanks. Cwicky (talk) 20:30, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The problem identified in the prior AfD hasn't been cured: there are no reliable sources provided for the rivalry. —C.Fred (talk) 01:53, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is not true. I provided links directly to Middle Tennessee State University's official published game notes on the matchup between Troy and Middle Tennessee found here (http://www.goblueraiders.com/content.cfm/id/41284). This is an official University publication. You can find the full detail on page 2.

I also provided a link to ESPN who has recognized the game as one of the best non-BCS rivalries. I don't understand...how many sources do you need? Based on these sources, please reinstate this page. The problem was addressed by citing official University publications in addition to news articles. Here are more if they are required...

http://www.dnj.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=2009910040330 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cwicky (talk • contribs) 16:17, 5 October 2009 (UTC) http://www.troytrojans.com/ViewArticle.dbml?DB_OEM_ID=17200&ATCLID=1311613# http://www.orlandosentinel.com...0,319757.column http://www.dnj.com/article/20090930/BLUERAIDERS01/909300329/Blue+Raiders+think+they+are+Sun+Belt+contenders http://www.nmnathletics.com/ViewArticle.dbml?DB_OEM_ID=17200&ATCLID=937606# Cwicky (talk) 16:09, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Cwicky (talk • contribs) 16:19, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to rewrite the article—sticking to facts and staying clear of flowery language and speculation about the effects of this game carrying over to other sports—you're welcome to. Make sure to cite sources in the new text, paying particular attention to use independent sources (like ESPN, vs. the university sites) where possible. —C.Fred (talk) 16:54, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Thanks C. Fred. The flowery language you reference isn't mine. It was taken verbatim from the University. That's why I sourced that particular section back to the University. Their words...not mine. I believe what you're picking up on is the fact that the University's are playing off the mythology of Greek lore. Those words are the "official" description of The Palladium. For example, in the Michigan/Michigan State rivalry they play for the Paul Bunyan Trophy, which is also based on a mythical tale. Below is a description from that rivalry....

The naming of the trophy after the mythical giant lumberjack Paul Bunyan reflects Michigan's history as a major lumber-producing state. The trophy was first presented in 1953 (State's first year as a full Big Ten member) by then-governor G. Mennen Williams, and is a four-foot-high wooden statue on a five-foot-high base.

To that end, the part you're referring is the description of "The Palladium" as defined by the schools. Given that, I'm not sure what would need to be rewritten? Also, when you reference ESPN vs the unversity sites which one do you say carries more weight? I work with the media in my profession and honestly they have come completely irresponsible and not as credible as official sources of information such as those that come from a University. Personally, I would give the University's who produced this more credibility than I would the media, but I took it that you felt the news media is more credible. Is that correct? Also, I'm not sure I can reproduce that page. It took me most of Sunday to pull together the language and sources that I had pulled. Is it something you could reinstate and then we could figure out what needs to be edited out of it? Thanks, Cwicky (talk) 19:26, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to go ahead and restore it. Anything that is taken verbatim, make sure it's noted as being a quotation (quotation marks or block-quote formatting)—and expect those sections to get heavily edited down and rewritten in original prose. —C.Fred (talk) 01:06, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. Sounds good. I placed the verbatim text in a block quote. I'll also do some additional research and apply more sources where it would be helpful to validate some of the language. One of the problems I had was only being able to identify abstracts to news articles. Some of the stories dating back more than five years are archived and not easily accessible unless the article was purchased (which obviously doesn't help if you're trying to source something using a web link). Cwicky (talk) 02:04, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Battle for the Palladium. 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, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:23, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Battle_for_the_Palladium&oldid=1205817747"