Talk:Michigan–Ohio State football rivalry

"The Game", round 2

We may have to reopen this discussion. I readily acknowledge that this contest is routinely referred to as "The Game" by many of its followers. This is easily established by the sources that were provided last February through April (that being 2008). At the same time I strenuously dispute that, per those same sources, this shorthand description can be shown to have anything approaching broad usage, and therefore that any blanket statement to that effect is unsupported. If the reference is to remain it should be appropriately qualified or narrowed to reflect the available sources. JohnInDC (talk) 22:14, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

I've narrowed it per your exact wording. However, I don't know how it got removed from the article in the first place. I must have missed it. Here are some links to some reliable sources that were relevant the first time around:

• UWeekly: "What does ‘The Game’ mean to you?"
• BuckeyeXtra: "Ohio State notebook: OSU, Michigan losses won't ruin The Game"
• The Oxford Press: "The Game defines coaching careers"
• Associated Press: "Ohio, Michigan Kids Dream of 'The Game'"
• NCAA: "'The Game' Means More Than Usual"

It's also mentioned on the Wall Street Journal's blog and on a site of an ESPN affiliate.

Also, just to show it's also fans and not just media, it's mentioned on blogs and fansites of both teams (not reliable sources, but just used to prove that it's said, not the truth of the matter):

• Absolute Michigan: "The Game: Michigan Wolverines vs. Ohio State Buckeyes"
• Buckeye Fans Only: "The Game"
• Kevin M.: "THE Game"
• J-Beanie Sports: "The Game"
• "Michigan mows down OSU"

Cheers, hmwitht 22:46, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Also, note that two of the reliable sources are national news outlets, not local. hmwitht 22:49, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

This may all be moot inasmuch as the article appears to be stable now, but for the sake of discussion, this is my thinking: If the article is going to state that this contest is "known as" The Game then the sources should say that, i.e., that "the annual Michigan-Ohio State matchup is known as The Game". Only one of these sources does that. (It's the NCAA one, apparently reprinting an AP story by Rusty Miller, who appears to be a Columbus-based stringer.) The remainder merely use that phrase to refer to the contest. To my thinking, "locally described as" is not the same as "known as". Of course, if you had a multiplicity of sources using the term in that fashion, in a variety of contexts and for a variety of audiences, then you might fairly infer that the term is in broad use and "known as" is correct. (You don't, for example, need sources saying that Lyndon Johnson was "known as" LBJ. Just a gazillion articles that refer to him that way, presuming the audience's understanding.) But here - all but two of these sources are local publications. And even the two (or three) national ones appear to be written by fans of the matchup, or for fans of the matchup, or - in the case of AP writer Rusty Miller, by someone who is based in Columbus. (Google 'rusty miller ap football' and note the location of the bylines.) In my view there is simply not enough here to support the broad, unqualified assertion that the matchup is "known as" The Game. JohnInDC (talk) 00:12, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't agree with how it currently stands, but I dropped it, because, a) it's better than no mention, and b) from what I've seen in general, certain issues have been making improving the article increasingly difficult. Please do not assume ownership of articles. If you aren't willing to allow your contributions to be edited extensively by others, please do not submit them. hmwitht 00:45, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

My only aim has been to restore the language to the phrasing that was accepted 18 months ago when this issue last made the rounds. I appreciate your forbearance in spite of your disagreement this time. Thank you. JohnInDC (talk) 01:00, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

I removed it for the same reason it was removed in April 2008. The sources above are not reliable sources and they don't refer to the series as a whole as "The Game." Some talk about one specific game (such as the 2006 game). The sources that do use this phrase for the rivalry are fan blogs and the opinions of one person, hardly a reliable source. I don't know about Michigan people, but here at Ohio State, it is never called "The Game." by students or fans except in a way that any football game could be referred to (e.g. "Did you see the game yesterday?) Frank Anchor^Talk 17:42, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Whether or not you've heard it is original research and thus completely irrelevant, even if you bring in sockpuppets like you did before to state your case. I'm also interested to hear how the Associated Press and Wall Street Journal are not reliable sources. TheMile (talk) 18:11, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

I have a bit of sympathy for Frank on the edit to the foregoing paragraph that seems to be ping-ponging back and forth. So long as he isn't banned from Wikipedia, I'd think he's entitled to his (one) opinion, honestly expressed; and there's been no indication that doing anything other than that in this iteration of this discussion. I fully appreciate that it may be hard to assume his good faith here given the background, but finally it would seem he's entitled to it (or at least the appearance of it). JohnInDC (talk) 01:31, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Assuming good faith is a great policy for WP, but this guy has broken three separate policies in his quest to impose his will on this topic. He's free to express his opinion, but I would like to ensure it's in the proper context. TheMile (talk) 02:12, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Well - it is certainly fair game to complain about the arguments he is making here, to ensure that other editors aren't taken in by attractive, but Wikipedia-irrelevant assertions or claims; but so long as it's just the one of him making those arguments, the sockpuppetry complaint strikes me as a bit of a distraction, an argument directed more at the editor than to what he's actually saying. I'm not intending to leap to his defense here, really - certainly he's made the bed he's lying in - but it's not immediately obvious how that particular past behavior bears on this discussion. (Speaking of distractions, I think this is the last I have to say about it.) JohnInDC (talk) 02:23, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Although OR bears no weight, I find it odd that you've never heard it. You go to OSU, you say? I hear everyone talk about The Game all of the time. I understand that you and your friends do not call it that, but it is called that in general, and it's even referred to as that in local newspapers. It may also have to do with the fact that OSU fans tend to not want to mention the name of "that state up north". I'll add the refs to the actual article at this time. hmwitht 19:19, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

(reset indent)

Yea they talk about "the game" about any game. Ohio State is a big school, many people call it many different names I am sure. At least the people I know usually call it "the Michigan Game." Also, AP and WSJ are both reliable sources, but each discusses one specific game, (the 2003 and 2006 games, respectively), rather than the entire rivalry and series of games. Frank Anchor^Talk 21:05, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Hi folks, pardon me for looking, reading, and now commenting here, but I did want to mention a few points. Some folks make a good point that it depends on which school you come from as to what the connotation of "The Game" has. For me personally, I think of Pitt vs. Penn State, Pitt vs. WVU, or maybe even the Alabama vs. Auburn matchup. What I think is important to keep in mind here though is that we depend on verifiability using reliable sources. As such, I think that ncaafootball.com does indeed qualify here. It's perfectly acceptable to mention that the MI vs. OSU games are referred to as "The Game" (see: this link), so long as we don't apply any undue weight to the item. Stating that various sports reporters refer to the rivalry as "The Game" should be acceptable. Thanks and cheers. — Ched :  ?  21:20, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your input, Ched. There are many games called the game, a few of which are listed at The Game. I'd suggest that any game that's been called The Game by reliable sources should have that in the article. hmwitht 21:24, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Well, your original research doesn't really matter, and neither does mine. We're not saying that everyone calls it that (clearly not), but just that it's said. That's how the alternate names are for every article. hmwitht 21:22, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Automatic archiving by MiszaBot 1

Recently a one time editor arbitrarily added automatic archiving to this discussion page. This archiving is accomplished via the MiszaBot 1 and is set up to archive any discussion thread older than 28 days. On the MiszaBot 1 page is the following statement,

NOTE: Before requesting automatic archiving on an article's talk page or a Wikipedia forum, please establish a consensus that archiving is really needed there.

I really don’t have a strong opinion one way or the other on whether or not automatic archiving is needed here, but I do have a strong opinion on the function being added by a one time editor who fails to seek a consensus, particularly when the bot’s creator specifically asks that one be reached. Therefore I have deleted the bot. So the question is, do we want automatic archiving, and if so, at what periodicity? Prost! Hammersbach (talk) 14:48, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

I think the page doesn't generate all that much talk, and what talk it does, tends to be the same stuff recycled - e.g., which school should come first, is there too much emphasis on this thing or that thing - and prior consensus (or at least discussion) I think would be enlightening. Unless the Talk page here risks becoming unwieldy, I say, don't archive. JohnInDC (talk) 14:51, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Game Results

The changes I made to the game results section were for several reasons:

1. The colors now reflect more accurately for both schools (actually used maize and blue for UM and scarlet and gray for OSU, not just blue and red).

2. The new table presents more details, i.e, who leads the series, total points for each school, cumulative series record after each game, etc.

3. This is the standard presentation form for many other college rivalry articles, see Iron Bowl, Commonwealth Cup, and Florida – Florida State rivalry for more examples.

Thus, I felt that this was a better way to present the results than they were before. However, if the consensus disagrees with this, please revert my changes. --Potato dude42 (talk) 14:28, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

I have reverted the changes to the table, not so much because I think that they are bad but rather since this is a major change I feel that consensus should be reached before rather than after the changes. There are things that I like with the new style table, and some not so much. Anyway, let's discuss and decide. Prost! Hammersbach (talk) 14:57, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree that a change this significant should achieve consensus before it's made.

To elaborate a bit more on what I said in the edit summary, and to respond a bit to the comments here: First, there no reason that color "accuracy" should matter at all in a table that is meant to provide a handy visual representation of wins and losses in the history of a rivalry. The principal aims should be legibility and coherence, with a nod to esthetics, and in my view, the suggested revision fails on all counts - even if other pages present the data similarly to the proposed edit. (Those other examples are by and large awful - that style of presentation may be common, but it's inferior.) The darker colors in the revised table demand a change to light text, which is inherently less legible. (See User-centered_design#Legibility for a quick reference.) This is particularly a problem when the tables try to combine background and foreground colors of varying contrasts, in the service of "accuracy". Next, by including the current series record on each line, the revised layout forecloses a 2 or 3 column presentation, meaning that for this longstanding series, a single column stretches out for more than a hundred lines. The original table could fit on a single computer screen (at least on one that's 1024 pixels tall) and give the reader a sense of the entire rivalry at a glance, but with the revised one that's impossible. The new table is much less useful for that reason. In short, the original table is easier to read, presents much less visual clutter, is viewable on a single page, and doesn't struggle to include information of marginal or trivial significance.

I invite others' comments and will, of course, abide by the consensus. JohnInDC (talk) 15:19, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

"The" Ohio State University

Frank Anchor is correct. The name of the school is, officially, "The" Ohio State University. Whether it makes sense in Wikipedia to adhere to the formal name when it is not very commonly employed, is another matter (though not, as Jeffrey S suggests, because there is POV lurking in the "The"). Personally, I think if the name of the school is "The" Ohio State University, then that's what it should say here, and throughout Wikipedia, but there is apparently insufficient consensus on the point to make that change. See the extensive discussions here: Talk:Ohio_State_University. JohnInDC (talk) 12:20, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

In response: Frank Anchor, while he might have good intentions, is an admitted fan of OSU. While contributing to the Michigan-Ohio State article alone on his part is no crime, adding bias is NOT what Wikipedia is about. See the cornerstones of Wikipedia. Adding "The" to Ohio State University, while purported by the website in an effort to garner support and placate fans, is not how the school has been historically or objectively referred to. It is how fans of OSU refer to the university. The Big Ten does not refer to OSU as The Ohio State University, neither does ESPN. There is no other Ohio State University, so there is logically no need for specifying that it is The Ohio State Univeristy. User:Jeffrey S 25 February 2010

Why it is BIAS: First and foremost, the general public outside of Ohio State University does not refer to it as The Ohio State University. Inside and around the university itself, however, it is a different story. Since Ohio State University is more successful (statistically) than the University of Ohio, it is considered the flagship university of the state of Ohio. Ohio State University students, alumni, fans, and benefactors play up this fact by adding a "The" to the name, when historically it has been absent. Furthermore, the website of Ohio State University cannot be considered a truly objective source for Wikipedia because, like any school website, it seeks to advertise to prospective students. And Wikipedia is not, and will never be, an advertisement. Frank Anchor's insisting that Ohio State University be referred to as The Ohio State University is not grounded in fact, not done to make Wikipedia better, but done because he feels that's what the univeristy should be called, especially since HE WENT THERE. His actions supremely lack an objective perspective, and thus should be removed. User: Jeffrey S 25 February 2010

Suggestions for compromise: Because Ohio State University is sometimes called "The Ohio State University", it is acceptable to put, on Ohio State University's article, in the first sentence, a "sometimes referred to as The Ohio State University" to distinguish its title and the name given to it by fans and supporters. This does not make the article appear biased, since it is an acknowledgement of a title attributed to the university by fans. However, Frank Anchor insists on adding his bias to Wikipedia. User: Jeffrey S 25 February 2010

See the Talk: Ohio State University article and talk page for further discussion. Pay particular attention to the Naming Conventions section. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jeffrey S (talk • contribs) 23:47, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Jeffrey, you're off the mark with this "booster" and "bias" thing. I'm a twice graduate of the University of Michigan, an avowed lifelong fan of the school and its teams, and I think that "The" should be in the name of The Ohio State University. I acknowledge that this point of view hasn't held sway on Wikipedia, but it's my view and with me - like Frank Anchor - it has nothing to do with my rooting sensibilities. So let's move on from that and have a rational, logical, fact-based discussion. Thanks. JohnInDC (talk) 00:32, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Here by the way is the specific Ohio statute that designates the school officially as "The" Ohio State University: link JohnInDC (talk) 00:42, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Yup, we can all agree that people from Ohio are blockheads who think "the" is a fancy word and get thrilled by spelling out the four letters of their home state. As such, Wikipedia should accurately reflect their idiotic naming conventions. THE Ohio State University is it! Jweiss11 (talk) 01:08, 26 February 2010 (UTC)