Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 21:21, 29 March 2015

Carolina-Clemson Rivalry

No citations are provided for the rivalry portion of the article, and the article seems very biased against clemson, considering "interestingly enough" is somewhat of an incenuation of something not proven by fact. Adding cleanup tag to article. 130.127.78.152 18:53, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Citation appears at the end of that section. Deleted cleanup tag. 65.4.89.232 16:43, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

It seems the page was hijacked by a Gamecock redneck in a small portion of the Rivalry section. That isn't what baffles me, what does is figuring out how they were able to find a computer- much less use one.

There is some major vandalism on this page. Temporary protection should be considered.

Perhaps to avoid vandalism/bias problems (yeah wishful thinking probably :-P), the rivalry should be placed in its own article and linked to by both athletic program articles. The Clemson_tigers article has a much smaller amount of information on the rivalry, but completely different information (for instance it notes that this rivalry used to be in-conference). Actually, maybe I'll just do this... this weekend's a good time for it after all. Krong 19:36, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

I took out some information on the recent Clemson game that was under the SEC Rivals section. If some one wants to include information on this event, that's fine. But it should be placed in the Clemson section and cited.

Perhaps we could make the Carolina-Clemson Rivalry it's own article, instead of having separate information from different sources? The Carolina-Clemson fight from 2004 has it's own page, why shouldn't the rivalry itself? Just a suggestion, anyone agree/disagree? Zchris87v 07:30, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

That may be a good idea. It would probably have to be semi-protected or something against vandalism. It seems that the information on the South Carolina Gamecocks page is very biased in the favor of the Gamecocks.

Possible Traditions Section

Maybe we should include a section on the traditions surrounding Carolina sports. A few things that could be included could be Big Thursday, the various chants and cheers, 2001, the history of the fight songs, the tradition of making cookies and pies for the players, the curse of the chicken, the swaying stadium incident, tailgating in the fairgrounds and farmers market, etc. Some of these things are covered in other places but I think it would be nice to have them under one heading. Does anybody else think this is a good idea?

I agree it's a good idea. I still do think that there should be a page for the rivalry, as seeminly every other rivalry has a page for itself, except this one. For being one of the largest (and oldest), it certainly should have something about it. So does anyone second this? Zchris87v 06:20, 11 December 2006 (UTC

I agree, or if not it's own page, the rivalry section here should be expanded to include more modern games. The problem with a traditions section would be finding sources for it. Of course we know our traditions, but they are rarely reported about.

Here you go, the scores of all the games (add in anything past '01, the article was from before the '02 game)...

1896—USC 12, Clemson 6; 1897—Clemson 18, USC 6; 1898—Clemson 24, USC 0; 1899—Clemson 34, USC 0; 1900—Clemson 51, USC 0; 1902—USC 12, Clemson 6; 1909—Clemson 6, USC 0; 1910—Clemson 24, USC 0; 1911—Clemson 27, USC 0; 1912—USC 22, Clemson 7; 1913—Clemson 32, USC 0; 1914—Clemson 29, USC 6; 1915—Clemson 0, USC 0; 1916—Clemson 27, USC 0; 1917—Clemson 21, USC 13; 1918—Clemson 39, USC 0; 1919—Clemson 19, USC 6; 1920—USC 3, Clemson 0; 1921—USC 21, Clemson 0; 1922—Clemson 3, USC 0; 1923—Clemson 7, USC 6; 1924—USC 3, Clemson 0; 1925—USC 33, Clemson 0; 1926—USC 24, Clemson 0; 1927—Clemson 20, USC 0; 1928—Clemson 32, USC 0; 1929—Clemson 21, USC 14; 1930—Clemson 20, USC 7; 1931—USC 21, Clemson 0; 1932—USC 14, Clemson 0; 1933—USC 7, Clemson 0; 1934—Clemson 19, USC 0; 1935—Clemson 44, USC 0; 1936—Clemson 19, USC 0; 1937—Clemson 34, USC 6; 1938—Clemson 34, USC 12; 1939—Clemson 27, USC 0; 1940—Clemson 21, USC 13; 1941—USC 18, Clemson 14; 1942—Clemson 18, USC 6; 1943—USC 33, Clemson 6; 1944—Clemson 20, USC 13; 1945—Clemson 0, USC 0; 1946—USC 26, Clemson 14; 1947—USC 21, Clemson 19; 1948—Clemson 13, USC 7; 1949—USC 27, Clemson 13; 1950—Clemson 14, USC 14; 1951—USC 20, Clemson 0; 1952—USC 6, Clemson 0; 1953—USC 14, Clemson 7; 1954—USC 13, Clemson 8; 1955—Clemson 28, USC 14; 1956—Clemson 7, USC 0; 1957—Clemson 13, USC 0; 1958—USC 26, Clemson 6; 1959—Clemson 27, USC 0; 1960—Clemson 12, USC 2; 1961—USC 21, Clemson 14; 1962—Clemson 20, USC 17; 1963—Clemson 24, USC 20; 1964—USC 7, Clemson 3; 1965—USC 17, Clemson 16; 1966—Clemson 35, USC 10; 1967—Clemson 23, USC 12; 1968—USC 7, Clemson 3; 1969—USC 27, Clemson 13; 1970—USC 38, Clemson 32; 1971—Clemson 17, USC 7; 1972—Clemson 7, USC 6; 1973—USC 32, Clemson 20; 1974—Clemson 39, USC 21; 1975—USC 56, Clemson 20; 1976—Clemson 28, USC 9; 1977—Clemson 31, USC 27; 1978—Clemson 41, USC 23; 1979—USC 13, Clemson 9; 1980—Clemson 27, USC 6; 1981—Clemson 29, USC 13; 1982—Clemson 24, USC 6; 1983—Clemson 22, USC 13; 1984—USC 22, Clemson 21; 1985—Clemson 24, USC 17; 1986—Clemson 21, USC 21; 1987—USC 20, Clemson 7; 1988—Clemson 29, USC 10; 1989—Clemson 45, USC 0; 1990—Clemson 24, USC 15; 1991—Clemson 41, USC 24; 1992—USC 24, Clemson 13; 1993—Clemson 16, USC 13; 1994—USC 33, Clemson 7; 1995—Clemson 38, USC 17; 1996—USC 34, Clemson 31; 1997—Clemson 47, USC 21; 1998—Clemson 28, USC 19; 1999—Clemson 31, USC 21; 2000—Clemson 16, USC 14; 2001—USC 20, Clemson 15

Clemson leads the series 59-36-4. Clemson leads 13-7-1 in games played in Clemson.Clemson leads 46-29-3 in games played in Columbia.

And of course adjust the last two stats to account for anything after 2001. Zchris87v 09:28, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Main Article: Carolina-Clemson Rivalry

I just went ahead and created the article, now go ahead and expand. Zchris87v 09:42, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Football

Well my attempt at the rivalry article took a turn for the worst, with the page ending up being protected. But what I was wondering, when I came here to read about the current football season (as many schools will do with "20{XX} {School} {Mascot} football", but I didn't even see a link to last year or this year's teams - much less even a section on it. I'd think over 100 years of football would be enough to write an article about, but I guess not? I did add some information on the rivlary, inlcuding that it was first played in 1896, 4 years after Carolina's first football season (1892 if you do the math). Zchris87v 18:14, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your addition to the history of the rivalry. The link to Clemson's athletics website was unnecessary, so it was removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.188.37.65 (talk) 23:27, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

I think that it's important to mention that there is another team with the name "Gamecocks" and that's Jacksonville State University, in Alabama. Therefore, above the words "unique moniker" describing the name Gamecocks is inaccurate. Thanks, BlabbequackeyBlabberquackey (talk) 06:44, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

New section

I already know the editor "GarnetAndBlack" dislikes unregistered editors (based on past experience) so I'm gonna go ahead and post this here.

Do other editors agree that this reversion is warranted? The whole point of my edit is to clarify why there would be confusion based on the University of South Carolina's usage of "Carolina", "SC", or "USC".

--96.32.138.125 (talk) 04:10, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Edit war

Please discuss edits to Thomas Sumter's nickname and the use of "Carolina" vs. "South Carolina" here before continuing the edit war on the page. It seems that several users are perilously close to violating WP:3RR, and may already be in violation of at least the spirit of this rule. I don't have a dog in the fight, but providing citations for the nickname would be the easiest way to resolve. Billcasey905 (talk) 15:32, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

No less than Encyclopedia Britannica refers to Sumter as "the Carolina Gamecock". There are plenty of other sources that also confirm this nickname, but this one should suffice. GarnetAndBlack (talk) 16:41, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

He was called the Fighting Gamecock, because he fought like a Gamecock. Plain and simple. The use of carolina Gamecock comes in later unofficially. THE FIGHTING GAMECOCK. Thomas Sumter 1734-1832 by Idella Bodie — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sandlap123 (talk • contribs) 16:56, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Great reference. Not. You've got "Idella Bodie" who "retired as a high school English and Creative Writing teacher from South Aiken High School in 1985 after teaching for 31 years", and I've got one of the most respected references on the planet. Thanks for playing. And surprise, surprise...both Sandlap123 and Gamecockpride123 just happen to be on Misplaced Pages editing at the same time. Looks like it's time for me to file that sock puppet report. When will you kids learn? GarnetAndBlack (talk) 17:11, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Sandlapper is correct. he was originally called the Fighting gamecock for his reason. However, in the future Carolina Gamecock started catching on as the State started aligning with him as their "idol" if you will. However, since there are some sources that say carolina gamecock, we can use both. PROBLEM SOLVED — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gamecockpride123 (talk • contribs) 17:08, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Baseball, football, duck season, rabbit season

I'm not immediately aware of anything in the Manual of Style that says to arrange the sections either alphabetically, or by "importance to athletic program" (a claim that requires a source).

I do see that the manual of style generally favors alphabetical order for other things:

• Misplaced Pages:Manual_of_Style/Linking#Position_in_article says "If there is a dispute on the position of an embedded link, consider organizing alphabetically."
• Misplaced Pages:Manual_of_Style/Category_pages#Overview says "Subcategories are split alphabetically along with the articles."
• MOS:DABORDER says "Within each group within a section, and within each non-subdivided section, entries should be ordered to best assist the reader in finding their intended article. This might mean in decreasing order of likelihood as user's target, alphabetically, chronologically, or geographically, not to the exclusion of other methods."
• Misplaced Pages:Manual_of_Style/Lists#Types_of_lists says "They can be organised alphabetically, by subject classification or by topics in a flat or hierarchical structure."

The last two are the closest I can find to anything suggesting that we might do it by importance to the athletic program, but that's four instances where alphabetical order is favored.

We have four reasons to do alphabetical, and two reasons to maybe consider importance to the athletics program that are countered by a lack of sources. It's simply less work and less chance of original research to go with alphabetical.

Despite being a graduate from the real USC (not that knock-off in California), I do not care about sports, and do not care whether the article presents it in alphabetical order, chronological order, order of importance, or through Gematria. I do care about our articles, and do not want edit warring over something so easily discussed and resolved. Ian.thomson (talk) 19:13, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, but I am not edit warring, the anonymous IP has been instructed to seek consensus here for an edit that offers no real improvement to this article, and simply refuses to do so, and continues to revert. There are numerous other instances of similar articles that arrange things in the order of importance to an athletic program, and there is simply no debate that football (followed by men's basketball) is the revenue generator that helps pay for nearly every other small sport at any major university. Next step is template warning on the IP editor's Talk page. GarnetAndBlack (talk) 19:45, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

I'm only in this debate because GarnetAndBlack will not let any edit stand on this article. In fact, I've noticed that GarnetAndBlack causes edit wars on other articles too. Something as minor as alphabetizing becomes a major issue for GarnetAndBlack when it should simply stand until reasons are given on this Talk page as to why GarnetAndBlack feels so strongly about putting football first. GarnetAndBlack hasn't provided any citations to prove football generates the most revenue, but revenue is not the only deciding factor. Accomplishments mean more overall as far as national recognition and so-called importance, and the baseball program has accomplished a lot more than the football program ever will. However, it doesn't make sense and is somewhat childish to continue undoing my alphabetizing simply to have it GarnetAndBlack's way. I would have never thought twice about the order of importance if it wasn't for GarnetAndBlack's continuous reverts and arrogant know-it-all remarks. Regardless, if GarnetAndBlack wants to list in order of accomplishments, then I can agree with baseball first then football. Otherwise, alpha order makes more sense. 24.168.220.179 (talk) 20:30, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

Guys, as far as I'm concerned, both of you are in the wrong here in different ways, so let's just focus on the issue of how we're going to order the sections. Both of you expressed reasons in edit summaries that should have been discussed in the talk page, and I've tried to address how those reasons work with the manual of style and other policies and guidelines. Comment on content, not contributors.

As a southerner, I understand that football is the king of sports for (other) southerners. But to assert that an order of importance to the athletics department requires sources.

Likewise, to assert that the baseball program has received more nationwide attention requires a source.

Now, if either of you want to make assertions as to which program is more important, you need to present sources to that effect, not original research. Otherwise, please cite something from the manual of style or policies or guidelines to support particular article structures. Ian.thomson (talk) 20:52, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

Alpha order makes more sense than our opinions. My comment above was an attempt to educate GarnetAndBlack. I will be happy to remove my comments from this Talk page if GarnetAndBlack promises to cite reliable sources for his/her future edits. 24.168.220.179 (talk) 21:06, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

Also, it's somewhat surprising to find an edit war template on my Talk page after my comment on this Talk page. If it wasn't Mr Thomson's doing, I can only guess that it was GarnetAndBlack. Since I wasn't the one who started this, could you, Mr Thomson, please remove said template from my Talk page or place said template on GarnetAndBlack's Talk page? Edit war templates should go both ways too. 24.168.220.179 (talk) 21:21, 29 March 2015 (UTC)