Talk:Rutgers Scarlet Knights

Football head coaches

Need dates for the football head coaches unstruck below. Reynolds • H. W. Ambruster • Pendleton • Van Dyck Jr. • Daly • Robinson • Van Hovenberg • Mann • A.E. Hitchner • F. H. Gorton • Smith • Pritchard • Gargan • Sanford • Wallace • Rockafeller • <srike>Tasker</srike> • <stike>Harman</trike> • Steigman • Bateman • Burns • Anderson • Graber • <strke>Shea</stike> • <strie>Schiano</stike>

I removed the Head Coaches section from the main article because the table was too big and unwieldy...too much blank white space. —ExplorerCDT 05:42, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Head Coaches

Twenty-five men have served as head coach of the Rutgers football team since 1891, when the first coach was hired. From 1869 to 1890, and 1892 to 1894, there was no coach.

Coach	Dates	Record (%)	Coach	Dates	Record (%)
- No Coach -	1869–1890	34-59-8 (.376)	Howard Gargan	1910–1912	12-10-4 (.538)
William A. Reynolds	1891	8-6-0 (.571)	George Foster Sanford	1913–1923	56-32-5 (.629)
- No Coach -	1892–1894	7-15-1 (.326)	John H. Wallace	1924–1926	12-14-1 (.463)
H. W. Ambruster	1895	3-4-0 (.429)	Harry J. Rockafeller	1927–1930, 1942–1945	33-26-1 (.558)
John C. B. Pendleton	1896–1897	8-12-0 (.400)	Wilder Tasker	1931–1937	31-27-5 (.532)
William V. B. Van Dyke, Jr.	1898–1899	3-15-1 (.184)	Harvey Harman	1938–1941, 1946–1955	74-44-2 (.625)
Michael F. Daly	1900	4-4-0 (.500)	John R. Steigman	1956–1959	22-15-0 (.595)
Arthur P. Robinson	1901	0-7-0 (.000)	John F. Bateman	1960–1972	73-51-0 (.589)
Harry W. Van Hovenberg	1902	3-7-0 (.300)	Frank R. Burns	1973–1983	78-43-1 (.643)
Oliver D. Mann	1903, 1905	7-10-1 (.417)	Dick Anderson	1984–1989	27-34-4 (.446)
A. Ellet Hitchner	1904	1-6-2 (.222)	Doug Graber	1990–1995	29-36-1 (.447)
Frank H. Gorton	1906–1907	8-7-3 (.528)	Terry Shea	1996–2000	11-44-0 (.200)
Joseph Smith	1908	3-5-1 (.389)	Greg Schiano	2001–present	30-41-0 (.423)
Herman Pritchard	1909	3-5-1 (.389)		TOTAL	580-580-43 (.500)

—ExplorerCDT 05:48, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Semi-automated Peer Review

The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic javascript program, and might not be applicable for the article in question.

• Please expand the lead to conform with guidelines at Wikipedia:Lead. The article should have an appropriate number of paragraphs as is shown on WP:LEAD, and should adequately summarize the article.^[?]
• Per Wikipedia:Context and Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates), months and days of the week generally should not be linked. Years, decades, and centuries can be linked if they provide context for the article.^[?]
• There may be an applicable infobox for this article. For example, see Template:Infobox Biography, Template:Infobox School, or Template:Infobox City.^[?] (Note that there might not be an applicable infobox; remember that these suggestions are not generated manually)
• Per Wikipedia:Context and Wikipedia:Build the web, years with full dates should be linked; for example, link January 15, 2006.^[?]
• Per WP:WIAFA, this article's table of contents (ToC) may be too long- consider shrinking it down by merging short sections or using a proper system of daughter pages as per Wikipedia:Summary style.^[?]
• There are a few sections that are too short and that should be either expanded or merged.
• As done in WP:FOOTNOTE, footnotes usually are located right after a punctuation mark (as recommended by the CMS, but not mandatory), such that there is no space in between. For example, the sun is larger than the moon [2]. is usually written as the sun is larger than the moon.[2]^[?]
• Please ensure that the article has gone through a thorough copyediting so that it exemplifies some of Wikipedia's best work. See also User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 1a.^[?]

You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks, Ruhrfisch 03:32, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

• • Like to thank you for running the automated PR script. As the article's not done yet, I might have you run it again when the article is at a stage where it could be called "complete." Also, I'll wait until the article is complete (hopefully with the next few days) before crossing off these suggestions, in order to get a better idea on how to address them for the entire article than doing it piecemeal. But, they will be addressed. Thanks again. —ExplorerCDT 18:33, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was no move. ExplorerCDT makes a very good point; he is the main contributor to the article, so his opinion gets greater weight as well. If he plans on expanding this page to non-varsity sports and there are some teams with other names at the school, Athletics at Rutgers University should be where the page should be. —Mets501 (talk) 15:28, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Page move to Rutgers Scarlet Knights

IMHO, this article should be moved to Rutgers Scarlet Knights (currently, "Rutgers Scarlet Knights" redirects to the main university article). My reasoning:

• From WP:NAME:
  • Generally, article naming should give priority to what the majority of English speakers would most easily recognize, with a reasonable minimum of ambiguity, while at the same time making linking to those articles easy and second nature.
• While there has been no formally established standard for naming of college athletic program articles, a de facto standard for such articles has developed as "(Short school name) (Nickname)". The main exception I can see would be if a school has separate nicknames for men's and women's teams, but that's not necessarily consistent:
  • Oklahoma State (Cowboys and Cowgirls) is at Oklahoma State Cowboys.
  • Penn State (Nittany Lions and Lady Lions) is at Pennsylvania State University Athletics.
  • Southern California (Trojans and Women of Troy) is at USC Trojans.
  • A small number of schools have separate men's and women's articles. For examples, see Arkansas Razorbacks and Arkansas Ladybacks, or Hawaii Rainbow Warriors and Rainbow Wahine.

If Rutgers ever did use separate men's and women's nicknames, they don't any longer. I looked through the official Rutgers athletics site and noticed that "Scarlet Knights" was consistently used for women's sports. (later added by original poster)

What does everyone else have to say? I was about to make the move (I'm an admin), but I realized it would be much better to get feedback before any move. — Dale Arnett 09:20, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

• I disagree with the proposed move. Mostly for consistency, and because I don't think it necessary (Athletics at Rutgers University is not ambiguous, it's recognizable, and it's within the guidelines of WP:NAME), and until there is a de jure standard, I think it's best left to the decision of the contributors as long as the contributor's decision isn't a departure from the guidelines WP:NAME (which this isn't). Right now, I'm the majority contributor (98% or so of content). Also, considering that I am intending (eventually) of adding a section about recreational or "club" sports (which some of our varsity teams are being reduced to), I'd prefer to keep it at "Athletics at Rutgers University" rather than moving it Rutgers Scarlet Knights because club sports don't fall under the "Scarlet Knights" rubric. Lastly, for consistency, the articles affiliated with Rutgers are all set up as X at Rutgers or X of Rutgers. History of Rutgers University won't be renamed Rutgers University history because most affiliated history articles are entitled History of X. To have one article be renamed as such (or even as Rutgers University athletics) and others X of Rutgers, etc. would be deal an aesthetic deficiency to any enumeration of Rutgers-related articles. Lastly, this article's title is consistent with an incalculable number of articles like Transportation in Azerbaijan, Politics of New Jersey, etc. —ExplorerCDT 09:45, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

• Support for reasons of consistency. The nom makes an excellent point in referencing how similar college atheletics articles are titled. Now if Rutgers had other college teams in addition to the Scarlet Knights then you might have a valid reason to keep the article with its current name. 205.157.110.11 14:53, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
  • There is no "one standard" in order to be consistent. And you forget Newark is the Scarlet Raiders, and Camden the Scarlet Raptors...which while not mentioned at length in the article right now, will be mentioned. You might have noticed that if you actually read the article. Also, consider: Pennsylvania State University Athletics. This article just puts the "athletics" first. —ExplorerCDT 16:29, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
• Support - honestly, because WP:ILIKEIT. It's not like there's any policy that supports it either way, but it just sounds better, IMHO. Neutral (just barely leaning to support), per below. Patstuart^talk|edits 03:59, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
  • And RSK fails to acknowledge that there are two other team names used at Rutgers, namely Scarlet Raptors and Scarlet Raiders. To accomodate and be comprehensive, it's best kept at AoRU. —ExplorerCDT 08:23, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
    • Hmm, good point, changed to neutral. Mostly because I know Penn State is the Nittany Lions, but I also know that neither the Penn State Icers (hockey team) nor the Penn State Lady Lions (women's teams), wouldn't mind too much. Patstuart^talk|edits 08:45, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was PAGE MOVED per discussion below. -GTBacchus^(talk) 23:24, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

---

Athletics at Rutgers University → Rutgers Scarlet Knights — All but 4 of ~100 pages at Category:College athletic programs are of the form: (short college name) (nickname) (for example: Louisville Cardinals or Washington Huskies). The remaining 4 should be moved. Even though this was proposed a few months ago but all the remaining schools not following the de facto standard have proposed moves and this article should too Oren0 17:36, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Survey

Add  # '''Support'''  or  # '''Oppose'''  on a new line in the appropriate section followed by a brief explanation, then sign your opinion using ~~~~. Please remember that this survey is not a vote, and please provide an explanation for your recommendation.

Survey - in support of the move

1. Support per current naming convention. *Mishatx*-In\Out 17:39, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
2. Support--Nitsansh 01:48, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Survey - in opposition to the move

Discussion

Add any additional comments:

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.