Talk:War on I-4/Archive 1

Archive 1

Fair use rationale for Image:Usfbulls newlogo.gif

Image:Usfbulls newlogo.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 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 lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 02:35, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:UCFKnights.svg

The image Image:UCFKnights.svg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

• That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
• That this article is linked to from the image description page.

The following images also have this problem:

• Image:Usfbulls newlogo.png

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --20:26, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Name

The supposed nickname "War on I-4" is demonstrably not the WP:COMMONNAME for this burgeoning rivalry. "War on I-4" returns only 86 hits in the Google News archives, the majority of which are unrelated (they're for this rivalry). All together, descriptive names such as UCF-USF rivalry, USF-UCF rivalry, "USF-UCF game", "UCF-USF game", etc., return far more relevant hits. Additionally, per WP:PRECISION, natural disambiguation should be preferred to a parenthetical. I'll be moving the article.--Cúchullain ^t/c 15:40, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Non-free file problems with File:Usfbulls newlogo.png

File:Usfbulls newlogo.png is currently tagged as non-free and has been identified as possibly not being in compliance with the non-free content policy. For specific information on the problems with the file and how they can be fixed, please check the message at File:Usfbulls newlogo.png. For further questions and comments, please use the non-free content review page. -- Toshio Yamaguchi 10:36, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Recent revert

I've moved the page back to UCF–USF football rivalry and restored the text. I initially moved the article to this title from The War on I-4 (college football) per this comment - specifically, that nickname is not the common name for the subject. The recently-created nickname "I-4 Corridor Clash" is simply too new to have become most common name, and being official doesn't necessarily make it the best name. In fact, the trend at other rivalry articles has been to move to descriptive names rather than nicknames, as they are much more recognizable and natural for readers.
I've also restored the text for a few reasons. For one thing, it removed the term "UCF–USF football rivalry"; for another, the Bulls article is still located at South Florida Bulls. If that's not the best name for it, it probably should be corrected across the board.--Cúchullain ^t/c 03:55, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

USF usage

According to USF press releases: "When referring to the University please be aware of the following policy regarding usage. First references to the school and its intercollegiate athletics program should always be the University of South Florida. The only secondary reference used should be USF or Bulls. Please refrain from using South Florida, S. Florida, South Fla. or any other similar combination." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.97.243.73 (talk) 19:20, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Other Sports

With both schools now competing in the same conference, should the page be expanded to include other sports such as basketball, baseball, and soccer. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.97.243.73 (talk) 19:20, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Requested move 21 September 2016

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Not moved. Evaluate again in a few months to see if the name takes hold. Furthermore, the article is only about football at the moment. If it is expanded to other sports, then it would be a good idea to remove "football" as Cuchullain suggests.  — Amakuru (talk) 12:01, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

---

• South Florida–UCF football rivalry → War on I-4
• War on I-4 → War on I-4 (Arena Football)

– The South Florida-UCF rivalry has just been officially named The War On I-4. Since this will now be a multi-sport rivalry, it should be renamed like other named rivalries, such as the former Border War (Kansas–Missouri rivalry) and the Red River Showdown. Since the Arena Football rivalry is one played in a minor professional sports league and is only the nickname for the game, where the USF-UCF one will be formally named "War On I-4", I propose this multi-page move, with the new "War on I-4" page receiving a About template similar to the current one, that directs to the Arena Football rivalry. Elisfkc (talk) 19:45, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose moving South Florida–UCF football rivalry to War on I-4, for two reasons: First, the adoption of the name is too WP:RECENT to determine if sources will follow suit. Second, a glance at Google News shows sources using "War on I-4" are split between this rivalry and the arena football one. As such, the descriptive name still looks more useful here. However, I'd support moving the article to South Florida–UCF rivalry if we're adding content on the other sports besides football.--Cúchullain ^t/c 19:56, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

I was planning on it. At the very least, I'd say we should move both to "War on I-4 (<sport>)", and make "War on I-4" disambiguation. Elisfkc (talk) 20:01, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

Creating a dab page may not be a bad idea, but I don't think it's clear that "War on I-4" is the common way of referring to the USF-UCF rivalry.--Cúchullain ^t/c 21:34, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

@Cuchullain: I have started working on the all sports article in my sandbox if you want to help. I'm basing it on the Border War (Kansas–Missouri rivalry) and the Sunflower Showdown articles at the moment. Elisfkc (talk) 23:50, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

Sure, I'll lend a hand.--Cúchullain ^t/c 15:10, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose per WP:COMMONNAME and Cuchullian. Corkythehornetfan (ping me) 21:50, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

@Corkythehornetfan: according to the WP:NAMECHANGES under that, it should change. Elisfkc (talk) 23:31, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

It should...

...if the sources written after the change is announced routinely use the new name, Wikipedia should follow suit and change relevant titles to match. If, on the other hand, sources written after the name change is announced continue to use the established name, Wikipedia should continue to do so as well, per COMMONNAME.

As of right now, the hits on Google from news sources are more for the arena football teams, not the NCAA teams. As Cuchullain said above, it to recent. Give it a few months and go from there. Corkythehornetfan (ping me) 00:36, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

@Corkythehornetfan: looks like that's already changed. Took me until the 3rd page to get a non-UCF/USF page, and the 4th page to get to any Arena Football mention. Elisfkc (talk) 19:35, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

I'm still going to oppose because I honestly hate the "official name" of a rivalry. They change to way much to be set as the main article title. I prefer the rivalry articles to be names "school1–school2 (football) rivalry". Corkythehornetfan (ping me) 20:48, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

@Corkythehornetfan: looking at the other rivalries in Template:NCAA Division I all sports rivalry navbox, where this one will be listed, the precedent seems to be listing them under their official name. Regardless, I still believe this article needs to be moved, whether it is to "War on I-4", "War on I-4 (USF-UCF)", or "USF-UCF rivalry". The USF and UCF could also be replaced by South Florida and Central Florida, but I feel like they should not be different like they are now. If it will say the schools in the title, they either both should be the initials or full name minus "University of". Elisfkc (talk) 21:34, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

If it will say the schools in the title, they either both should be the initials or full name minus "University of". – That's a WP:WikiProject College football (and/or sports) issue right there. They usually stick to the main athletics article name (usually the WP:COMMONNAME). I've requested more comments (here) so that more (experienced than me) editors can weigh in. This is just my opinion, and I am only one person. If others disagree and the consensus is to move it to War on I-4 or a different name, then that's fine with me. My opinion sticks to oppose. Corkythehornetfan (ping me) 22:05, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for asking for more opinions. Elisfkc (talk) 22:28, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

---

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