Talk:Michigan–Ohio State football rivalry/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Trivia edits

I see that the recent edits to the trivia section by Murphyle have been changed back. In anticipation of some further discussion on this, I'll just say that I was prepared not to like the (fairly substantial) streamlining of the article when I first encountered it (diff here: diff), but after looking through it I realized that it was a pretty careful job and that the stuff that was excised was in fact fairly low-grade trivia, or stale. I think most of what needed to remain in the article did, and I'd support a change back mostly, if not entirely, in that direction. JohnInDC (talk) 19:01, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

I incorporated some and removed what I thought was unnecessary. Feel free to change what you think should be. NewYork483 (talk) 19:12, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:MichiganWolverines.png

The image Image:MichiganWolverines.png 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.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --06:43, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

This sentence deserves a chance

OSU won the Rose Bowl that year, over the University of Southern California - their last victory of the Trojans to date. It ties in somewhat to this page. FMAFan1990 (talk) 20:14, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

It would seem to have more to do with the Rose Bowl or the history of OSU - USC matches than with UM/OSU. It's not entirely off the point but not quite on it either. JohnInDC (talk) 22:08, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Revision needed

It is clearly obvious that the page has the "personally invested tone" from both sides of the rivalry. This is next to unavoidable and adds some richness to the page, however, I will give fair notice that I will edit John Cooper and Jim Tressel sections due to a very un-encyclopedial inbalance. There are three seperate games from the 1990s that are highlighted as momentus games in the rivalry, when in fact they are only momentus to Michigan. I will either delete or reduce these sections, or add seperate momentus games to the Jim Tressel collections. Any thoughts? Suggestions? --The-outlaw-torn (talk) 04:15, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

I wouldn't delete these sections but the content could be slightly reduced. I don't see too much bias on one side or the other but this page definately suffers from recentism. Frank Anchor ^{Talk to me} 04:27, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

All-Americans

The number was getting jacked around a lot by vandals and rather than revert it to an earlier one that could as easily be wrong as well, I set out to find the right one for both schools. (The linked article does not give any figures and I'm not sure it belongs there as a cite at all.) Following a bit of admittedly brief research, I found two articles - one for Michigan here and one for OSU here. The Michigan one is from a plainly reliable source (the school itself) but is a bit out of date. The OSU one is more current but I'm not sure how credible 'coachtressel.com' is.

I made this edit just to get a bit closer to the truth (the figures I added are 126 for Michigan and 130 for OSU) and invite anyone with a bit more time, or a bit more knowledge about where this kind of data can be found, to improve on my effort. JohnInDC (talk) 14:51, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Injuries

Most incipient edit wars are over pretty silly things and this one is no exception. So rather than continue to push the article back and forth I am soliciting comment here.

My thinking is, injuries to key players in a particular contest - particularly in a storied rivalry such as this - are all part of the retelling. If one of the teams was playing without a star player who was suspended for rules violations, or broke his leg the week before, you'd say so. Why not? It's the same when key players are playing hurt. Who's "key" and who isn't is certainly grist for debate but there can't be much dispute about the starting quarterback and star running back.

It doesn't "qualify" or "taint" the victory. It's just something that one of the teams had to contend with. In some cases they succeed ("despite being forced to start its 2d string quarterback, OSU managed to pull off a resounding upset . . .") and in some cases, as here, they don't. In either case it's part of the story and, in some instances, bears mention.

Thoughts? JohnInDC (talk) 17:36, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

I removed mention of Chad Henne and Mike Hart injuries for 2007 game, as the way it is worded makes a qualification of Ohio State's defensive performance that is mentioned in the same sentence. This seems rather POV as Mike Hart was quoted after the game saying that his ankle was no factor in his performance, and that Chris Wells' ankle injury (chipped bone in ankle) and wrist injury is not mentioned at all. I don't object to injuries being mention, as JohnInDC says they are part of the lore of the game, but they should be mentioned in a way that doesn't appear to give an "excuse" for one teams' loss or poor performance, especially when the other team was also playing with injuries to their star players. 152.131.8.133 (talk) 17:41, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

As I said in the edit summary, if the injury was important and material, then add it. I found several newspaper articles in the days leading up to this game wondering whether Hart or Henne would play at all. Carr was tightlipped, as usual, and no one knew what was going to happen until the game started. Their injuries and questionable status were big news leading up to the game - which in my view makes them worth mentioning. I looked (briefly) for similar concern about Wells but found none.

Having just written the foregoing, I thought of a way to rework the paragraph to emphasize the "concern" and "speculation" aspect of it. Let me know what you think. JohnInDC (talk) 17:59, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm the person who made the first-mentioned edit above. I agree that injuries and/or missing players are part of the game, that was never the issue. It was simply the fact that the injuries to Michigan's stars were mentioned in the same sentence as Ohio State holding Michigan to 91 yards of offense, clearly implying some connection between them and Michigan's low offensive output. There are some cases in football where that is clearly the case, perhaps a team loses it's Heisman trophy candidate quarterback, and then loses badly when their freshman backup comes in and throws a number of interceptions, or something similar. But in this case, anyone who watched the game could see that it was Ohio State's dominant defensive performance that held Michigan in check, not Mike Hart or Chad Henne's injuries. Henne did not show any difficulty throwing the ball and was on-target and had enough zip on his passes to be effective, but his receivers dropped many of them. Hart likewise did not favor his ankle and ran as well as he was able, there was simply no room to run. I do appreciate your changing the text to reflect Mike Hart's comments that his injury had nothing to do with his performance. I still think no mention should be made of the Chad Henne/Mike Hart injuries, as we've more or less agreed they had no real bearing on the outcome, but your edit generally indicates that, so I'm satisfied.

Beanie Wells' chipped-ankle-bone injury was fairly well-documented that year, it's just that he came back and played so well despite it that no one bothered speculating that he might not play, because there was no reason to think he wouldn't. I do think if you are going to mention Hart's injury, which he claimed wasn't a factor, then you should also mention Wells' - that would bring a little more balance to the article's perspective, in my opinion. But I think it's ok as it is. Thanks for incorporating my input. 152.131.8.133 (talk) 15:51, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

separating EVERY SINGLE GAME?

Recently an editor reverted, twice actually, an edit from an anonymous contributor with the explanation, at least on the second reversion, that “separating EVERY SINGLE GAME is not necessary.” This is a fair point. In a rivalry in which there have been as many meetings as there have been between these two programs, I think we can all agree that detailing the particulars of “EVERY SINGLE GAME” would be better left to the pages of the thick tomes that grace the bookshelves of fans who just can’t get enough. Certainly though some games have stood out and deserve more than just an “insouciant” reference in passing. The Snow Bowl and 2006’s No. 1 vs. No 2 are noteworthy examples, and I would also offer that the most recent game in the series, in a general sense, should also be highlighted. So if you are an editor who feels that “separating EVERY SINGLE GAME is not necessary”, I would heartily recommend directing your abundant energies at the section on the John Cooper era, which is a bit overdone and gamey (much like my Thanksgiving turkey). Hammersbach (talk) 17:13, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

• I disagree and changed the page. Rodreiguez has accomplished nothing in the rivalry. he has yet to win a game. he very well could over time have significance in the rivalry but as of right now he has no significance in rivalry. Maybe the cooper games could be condensed more too. Baseballfan789 (talk) 17:34, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Why Baseballfan789! The timing and content of your revert and reply are impeccable. But then maybe not so much when the timing and content of your list of contributions are compared next to Frank Anchor’s, nicht wahr? Cheers! Hammersbach (talk) 18:27, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree re every single game. Those descriptions could be pared down quite a bit. I disagree about Rodriguez. For 40 years Michigan enjoyed a remarkable continuity in coaching and coaching philosophy, beginning with Schembecher and moving through his assistants Moeller and Carr. As I observed somewhere above, I think that is the reason that the bulk of this article's description of the rivalry's recent history is marked by coaching changes at OSU and not at Michigan - MIchigan had, in essence, the same coach from 1967 through 2007. (Or sufficiently so that marking the changes weren't really worth it.) Rodriguez is a big, big departure for Michigan even if he's now 0-1 against OSU. So I created a new section - "A Sea Change at Michigan" - which is accurate, worth mentioning, and certainly more interesting to read than "The Rivalry Continues (still)". I tossed in a little about why this is such a change, took out a kind of pro forma quote from Rodriguez about the rivalry, and left everything else the same. If Rodriguez gets fired and Michigan hires Les Miles instead (another Bo protege) then it can be changed again. JohnInDC (talk) 21:49, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Removal of recentism tag

Recently, an “editor” placed a recentism tag on this article with the explanation that… well, actually, they didn’t leave reason. Although I have just recently begun to edit this article I removed the tag as I feel the recent trend here has been to move away from recentism, and as such I found the tag unnecessary. My attempts to remove the tag have met with resistance with the most recent revert demanding “DO NOT delete tag without sufficient explanation on talk page or improvements to this article.” Interesting, you can leave the tag without explanation but if you are going to remove it you have to expain why. Anyway, my explanation for the most recent removal of the tag can be found here. [1] I am off to lunch now where I think I will enjoy some sushi. I just hope that they don’t try to use Uncle Ben’s rice as I think it is just a cheap imitation, nicht wahr? Prost! Hammersbach (talk) 19:52, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Citing John Cooper Day

I noticed a "citation needed" next to the John Cooper Day celebration on Feb. 10, 2001 in Ann Arbor (making light of the Ohio State coach's 2-10-01 career record versus Michigan). I was at this event, but I don't think it was organized by the school or any other official fan organization, and I personally don't have any record of it. I know there were t-shirts made, and that there were plenty of other students present, but it was not covered in the Michigan Daily (Michigan's campus newspaper) or any other voice of record to my knowledge.

Online references: http://www.buckeyeplanet.com/forum/337938-post1655.html (not a good one, though) http://forums.mlbcenter.org/lofiversion/index.php/t9789.html (another board, but post pre-dates the event)

Anyone out there willing to corroborate? Misopogon (talk) 19:49, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

"Accomplishments" table

(This discussion has been imported from User talk:JohnInDC and User talk:The Hut concerning a recent series of contested revisions to this table. JohnInDC (talk) 21:44, 24 April 2009 (UTC))

I'm trying to show all national titles won by both Michigan and Ohio State. Please come up with a way to show the total national titles. Please keep my edits that show how many BCS, Coaches', and AP championships Michigan and Ohio State have won. (signed by) The Hut

First you need to be sure you are logging in when you are making your edits. Right now they are showing up as made by the IP, not you. Second, while it may be a worthwhile goal to explain the number and types of titles each program has won, the table doesn't lend itself to it. Because there were "National Championships" before there were AP or BCS championships (whether or not you want to label them "mythical"), the numbers won't add up. And if the numbers don't add up then the reader will be confused. If you really want to do it in tabular format, then I would suggest leaving "National Championships" as is, and adding some kind of sub-category to indicate that the total figures *include* X and Y numbers of AP, BCS or whatever other titles. Then at least it would be clear that what you're trying to do, and also that the numbers shouldn't be expected to add up. Also please use the phrase "National Championships" rather than the slightly condescending "claimed by each program", because the programs aren't the only ones claiming that number of championships. I'll leave the table alone for a bit while you work at this, okay? JohnInDC (talk) 21:31, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

You're also going to have to do something about that double-counting. Right now when you tally up your OSU figures (coaches plus BCS plus AP), you wind up with more championships than they've won. Really the table should say something like, "BCS championships" and "AP championships (pre-BCS)" and "Coaches' poll championships (pre-BCS)". But that's beginning to get ugly. You do see the problem, don't you? By trying to cram everything into a summary table, you either make the table misleading, or so complex that the summary format isn't useful any more. Nevertheless, have at it and see what you can do!

I'm going to copy this exchange to the Talk page, where others can see it and comment. Let's continue our discussion there. JohnInDC (talk) 21:40, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Please link to a cite for Michigan's 11 national championships. I only see the three they won from the AP poll. Where do the other 8 come from? Till you come up with a reference do not remove or edit the BCS, AP and Coaches national championships that Michigan and Ohio State have won. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kill Bubba Kill (talk • contribs) 15:27, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Here: http://bentley.umich.edu/athdept/football/misc/natchamp.htm JohnInDC (talk) 18:25, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Edit war report filed on User:The Hut here. Sockpuppet report filed on User:The Hut along with User:Kill Bubba Kill, User:OhioState4Life and User:76.112.248.224 here. JohnInDC (talk) 16:29, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree that the sockpuppet charges need to be resolved - serially creating new user accounts is not an appropriate way to resolve editing disputes and avoid 3RR problems - but that said, I thought the most recent round of edits by User:OhioState4Life represented a substantial improvement over his prior tendentious efforts. The best way to keep the "Accomplishments" table clear of national championship clutter appears to be to list the various flavors of championship separately. My only major complaint was the unnecessary removal of particular categories of information from "Accomplishments" like Heisman Trophies and total National Titles [of all varieties - pre-polls]. JohnInDC (talk) 20:28, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Known by whom

In your edit summary, you asked, ""Known" by whom?" Known by reliable sources. hmwitht 22:17, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Then those reliable sources should be set forth here - or somewhere - so readers of the article will know that the editors are not just making it up. My recollection, for what it's worth, is that the reliable sources in the prior discussion (fish up the old Talk page references) establish that this contest appears to be routinely referred to as "The Game" by fans of one team or another, very rarely by the national media, and in at least a couple of those instances, only with specific reference to the #1 vs. #2 contest in - whatever year that was. (This is largely from memory so forgive any sloppiness in these representations.) JohnInDC (talk) 22:21, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

There were no sources stating the it was nationally known as The Game, but that it was simply known as that. Something doesn't have to be known nationally by another name to have it be notable enough for mention. hmwitht 22:25, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

The verifiability policy states that, "any material challenged [...] must be attributed to a reliable, published source"

WP:SAYWHEREYOUGOTIT  Chzz  ►  23:30, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

I first did in April. I had to go find them. This user was aware of the sources (we conversed the first time around). I knew he'd know what I meant. If you'd like to see the sources, they're all listed below. The reliable ones are currently in the article. hmwith☮ 04:22, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

"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)

I have deleted the recent addition of the MiszaBot, again for the same reason. Hammersbach (talk) 16:21, 1 November 2013 (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)

Oy, this again? Maybe we should add "the" to other universities. The Michigan State University. The Arizona State University. The Delaware State University. Please, these arguments are ridiculous and illogical. At least answer me this: why is "the" always capitalized as "The", even in the middle of the sentence? If anything's illogical, it's that. "...a rivalry between the University of Michigan and The Ohio State University"? If we're following logic here, it should then be "...a rivalry between The University of Michigan and The Ohio State University." But since you guys aren't using logic, you just want to keep a "The" because it makes you feel important. Seriously, capitalizing it? Please! (If you're curious where my allegiences lie, JohnInDC, I'm a graduate of Florida State. Are we so awesome that it should be "The Florida State University"? No. As a fan, I'd love that. But being objective requires you to take a step back.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jeffrey S (talk • contribs) 02:56, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

If you want to follow logic please dispute the link provided by JohnInDC, not by presenting an emotion based "Maybe we should add 'the' to other universities" rebuttal. I agree with Frank Anchor and JohnInDC. Hammersbach (talk) 03:10, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Here's a wonderful compromise: "the University of Michigan Wolverines and the Ohio State University Buckeyes." This way, you guys get your "the" but it's not inappropriately capitalized. I guess the capitalization in the middle of the sentence is what continually makes it look biased. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jeffrey S (talk • contribs) 03:27, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

You don't compromise facts and the fact it the official name is The Ohio State University. You also don't violate the 3RR. Hammersbach (talk) 03:37, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

You violated it. Your only rationale was that you agreed with another person and that later you just put "rvv" as your rationale. I have continually offered compromises so that everyone gets what they want. And why has no one responded about capitalizing "The" in the middle of the sentence, which is grammatically inappropriate, as in "as well as The Ohio State University."--Jeffrey S (talk) 03:41, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Recanting my earlier, snide, quasi-concession to include "The" with this better opinion: The official name of OSU might include "The," but here on Wikipedia the name of the article about OSU is simply Ohio State University. Until that article's name is changed via move to include "The," the argument for its inclusion in articles such as this one, Michigan – Ohio State football rivalry, is weak, irrespective of the underlying idiocy and absurd, aught-to-be-shaming, point of pride for OSU people endorsed by such an inclusion of an emphasized definite article in the school's title. Jweiss11 (talk) 06:28, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't care whether "The" is capitalized here or not but I do think it's important that Jeffrey S understand that the official, legal, statutory name of OSU is "The Ohio State University". It's right there in the Ohio State University article along with a citation to the Ohio statute that establishes it. That being the case it's really not accurate, or fair, to contend that advocates of including it are illogical, merely engaging in boosterism, or inconsistent in their naming of universities. JohnInDC (talk) 11:09, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

What I *do* care about is one editor's tweaking another editor's comments from months earlier to shade the discussion in the direction he favors. See this diff. Jeffrey S, once I find the right template I'll be slapping a warning on your Talk page. JohnInDC (talk) 11:22, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

"If common usage has overwhelmingly rejected the The, then it should be omitted regardless of university usage"; see WP:THE. Jweiss11 (talk) 19:44, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

In this case common usage has not overwhelmingly rejected the use of "The." The phrase "The Ohio State University" is frequently used to talk about the college (at least in the Columbus area). The most common name given to the universitry is "Ohio State" or "OSU," but both are abbreviations and it would be silly to use them in the intro. But generally, at least in the OSU area, it is called "The Ohio State University" more often than "Ohio State University." Frank Anchor^Talk 19:50, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Frank Anchor, the operative phrase in your last comment is "in the Columbus area". Common usage in places out of the Buckeye sticks like New York has indeed rejected the "The." Jweiss11 (talk) 03:43, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Just double-checked my diploma from there - officially it is The Ohio State University. Sapphiremind (talk) 10:27, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Did you graduate with a concentration in definite article usage? I know that's a very important subject in those parts. Jweiss11 (talk) 15:13, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Here's another important subject... in these parts: WP:Civil. Hammersbach (talk) 16:29, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

One of the things I really like about this article is how folks from both sides of the fence work at keeping it a good one; so right here would be a good point to wrap this exchange up, I think! JohnInDC (talk) 16:43, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Jweiss, who are you quoting, there? And if anybody is likely to be correct, it would be those in "the Buckeye sticks". Should we call FIFA idiots for abbreviating Spain "ESP" because most of the world doesn't call them "Espana"? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 164.107.203.227 (talk) 22:55, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Title of article and Info Box

Okay, this has been discussed before and was resolved we are going alphabetically. It should be Michigan-Ohio State, not Ohio State-Michigan. However, let's discuss. Bcspro (talk) 22:17, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Agree that it is alphabetical. I left a message on the anon's talk page. Malinaccier (talk) 22:18, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Ask anyone who attended either university, and they will tell you it is Ohio State/Michigan. Check the Big Ten Network or ESPN's rivalry countdown. This article (and apparently those with the time to edit it) are the only ones who insist on making it alphabetical. If that is your only logic, let's retitle it Buckeyes/Wolverines or The Ohio State University/University of Michigan just to keep you satisfied. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 164.107.203.227 (talk) 22:27, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Doing a quick Google search I have found that it goes both ways. There is nothing universal and honestly most of the pages put Michigan first ([2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7]). Alphabetical is the only neutral way to go. Malinaccier (talk) 22:32, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

"OSU Michigan" is 4x as common as "Michigan OSU". Since this page is referenced in many places, searching what is already in the title gives misleading results. We can resolve this whole thing by writing the full name of both schools (as I said earlier) As for your specific references, you reference the same film multiple times (and a different film calls it "Ohio State Michigan") and your only other reference is a Michigan website.

In reading the above comments, it would appear that pettiness wins out in these situations, as it has been decided to ignore OSU's proper name, as well.

I provided a Michigan website listing Michigan first, an OSU website listing OSU first, and several neutral websites listing Michigan first. Malinaccier (talk) 22:53, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

The same film is referenced 3 times. On amazon, on the film's website, and posted clip from the film. You have yet to address my second point, so I will bid you farewell. I don't have the time for this, and apparently you do. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 164.107.203.227 (talk) 22:58, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Sigh. The earlier discussion can be found here. There is no obvious reason to favor one order over the other (idiosyncratic Google searches not being particularly persuasive) and accordingly the most expedient resolution is to employ some neutral means of ordering them. Because alphabetical order is well understood and not subject to dispute, it's a good order. It's a common solution to these sorts of problems too. Let's stop beating this dead horse. JohnInDC (talk) 23:00, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

My opinion is the alphabetical name: "Michigan – Ohio State football rivalry" — X96lee15 (talk) 23:01, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Semi-protection for a week or two?

Would it make sense to ask for semi-protection of the page for the next couple of weeks? I am sure we can keep up with the annual uptick in vandalism, but it'd be nice not to have to. Thoughts? JohnInDC (talk) 15:27, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

This is a good idea, thanks for suggesting it. Hammersbach (talk) 15:30, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

I requested it at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection. JohnInDC (talk) 15:58, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Declined - not enough recent vandalism to warrant it. We are free to ask again as gameday approaches. JohnInDC (talk) 16:32, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Well, it's vigilance then. Good try though. Hammersbach (talk) 16:44, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

A preemptive, seasonal protection on this page, and other high-profile Michigan football pages, seems like a great idea. There is a huge jackass contingent in Buckeye nation, no offense intended toward respectful and reasonable Ohio States fans, especially ones that contribute constructively here, that members of which, when they have no more cars to flip over or couches to burn, love to vandalize Wikipedia with anti-Michigan graffiti. They ought to simply be happy that their football team is much better these days. But, alas, no. This is simply a fact we have to live with. Jweiss11 (talk) 17:36, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Well, when it hits the fan we'll go back and ask again. I think it's silly to have to wait until it actually happens, but it's no more than a minor chore to have to ask twice. JohnInDC (talk) 17:49, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Looks like it has begun. Jweiss11 (talk) 00:17, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

I'd be down for that.VictorsValiant09 (talk) 00:47, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

I'll try to keep an eye on the article to protect it if I'm not too busy. The problem is that we cannot protect pages preemptively, so we have to wait. Malinaccier (talk) 14:46, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

It's picked up a bit so I just made another request. JohnInDC (talk) 15:32, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

"The Big One"

No. Hammersbach (talk) 11:29, 14 December 2010 (UTC)