Talk:Indiana–Kentucky rivalry

Picture of Damon Bailey

thumb|right|220px|Indiana star Damon Bailey on the cover of Sports Illustrated. The image, which really should only be used in an article about Damon Bailey not this, was holding up the articles DYK entry. -- Esemono (talk) 07:28, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

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 moved. --BDD (talk) 18:12, 2 October 2012 (UTC) (non-admin closure)

Indiana–Kentucky rivalry → Indiana–Kentucky basketball rivalry – This article recently was moved from its current title to the proposed title. The undiscussed change kicked off an edit war at both locations, and we wound up with two copies of the article. Since there's disagreement about the title, I moved the page back and started this discussion. No vote. - Eureka Lott 14:08, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

• Support move. It's possible that football players on both teams felt some sort of rivalry when the two played each other, however, neither football program has had much success and games between the two were inconsequential as far as media coverage is concerned. On the other hand, searches for "Indiana", "Kentucky" and "rivalry" almost always point to the basketball series in which one or the other (or both) was a major contender for a national title. As written, the article is certainly about the basketball rivalry. It's likely that the schools have competed in other sports, too, but the vast majority of college rivalries aren't built upon golf or volleyball. Alternatively, Indiana–Kentucky rivalry could serve as a disambiguation page pointing to Indiana–Kentucky basketball rivalry and Bourbon Barrel. Location (talk) 15:57, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose move. Although basketball is undoubtedly the biggest facet of the rivalry, it does in fact spill over into numerous other areas. Those include academics, general fan bases, and other sports. --YHoshua (talk) 20:06, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
• Support move. The article only talks about the basketball rivalry between the schools, nothing else. Nuggets56 19:40, 24 September 2012 (UTC) Nuggets56 (User talk:Nuggets56|Nuggets56]])
  • Wrong. It discusses football as well in the context of the "Bourbon Barrel game".--YHoshua (talk) 23:14, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
• Support With its current title one could misunderstand and think it is about a rivalry between the states. the article is about a basketball rivalry and should be clearly titled so, in my opinion. I don't think it is a rivalry at all in football. Rikster2 (talk) 18:42, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Note that numerous other school rivalries are specific to the schools. Also note the Duke–Maryland rivalry, which is exclusive to basketball but does not mention basketball in the title. This page, however, also discuss football.--YHoshua (talk) 23:14, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
    • Note also that that example doesn't involve 2 schools whose names appear as US states, which could be confusing for readers - especially those outside the U.S. I'd argue the Duke Maryland article should be changed too, though. The general convention in college football is to include "football" in the title. See for yourself: Category:College football rivalries in the United States. Why shouldn't college basketball follow suit? Rikster2 (talk) 23:57, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
• Support Move The article is about a basketball rivalry and should have a title with basketball rivalry in it. Theworm777 (talk) 14:47, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
• Support Current title is very ambiguous, so the proposed title clarifies it all. Hill Crest's WikiLaser! (BOOM!) 15:27, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. 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.

Post-RM comments

Please get the move done – consensus has been made to move this article. Hill Crest's WikiLaser! (BOOM!) 19:53, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

History Section

I propose to edit the final History paragraph to the following. I believe some information concerning the ending of the series is pertinent and necessary.

In 2011 Kentucky coach John Calipari briefly discussed the possibility of ending one of Kentucky's annual games against rivals Louisville, North Carolina, or Indiana.[7] Although a last-second shot which propelled Indiana to victory over top-ranked Kentucky and another meeting in the 2012 NCAA Tournament (won by Kentucky) helped re-kindle the rivalry's intensity, John Calipari was ultimately unwilling to accept IU AD Fred Glass's compromise to play two games at Lucas Oil Stadium and one game apiece at Assembly Hall and Rupp Arena, thus ending the series . One possible explanation is Calipari's unwillingness to return to Assembly Hall or place his trademark "one and done" players in a difficult rivalry environment they probably won't be prepared for or understand. Fred Glass's efforts to compromise with UK and IU's willingness to play UK with only two walk-ons returning in 2008 provide evidence that IU was not motivated to end the series . The future status of the series is currently unknown. -— Preceding unsigned comment added by MWLeviathan13 (talk • contribs) 21:01, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

I've added the report regarding the offer by Glass, however, the explanation for the rejection is just speculation which does not appear to be supported by the source. Location (talk) 21:52, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. Glass's offer was pretty well documented in multiple media outlets as I recall, but the rest constitutes original research, which is forbidden on Wikipedia. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 22:07, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Another History Section Proposal

The sentence that states Kentucky's success towards the end of the series is biased towards UK and makes the rivalry's existence appear to be determined by the caprices of UK and Calipari rather than a decision by both institutions. IU had more success at the beginning of the series, yet this fact is not included. IU also played an equal role in determining the existence of the rivalry. I would propose either removing the biased sentence or including IU's success at the beginning of the series to make the section more objective MWLeviathan13 (talk) 22:28, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

 Done I agree. I have added some text regarding the early years. Location (talk) 22:46, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

In addition to the history, I propose striking the speculation part of the sentence in the "End of Series" section: "At the time Indiana had lost three straight to Kentucky, nine of the last 11, and 14 of the last 17 games in the series, leading to some speculation that Indiana may be dropped from Kentucky's schedule."

This is speculation concerning UK and Calipari's motivation to end the series, and the sentence even states it is speculation. My statements regarding Calipari's possible motivation to end the series and IU's possible motivation to continue the series are just as valid, yet they violate Wikipedia rules and the sentence at issue does not: it is a double standard.

I will state that I like the addition to the rivalry history: it provides more information on the rivalry as a whole.MWLeviathan13 (talk) 00:15, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

 Done Speculation attributed to a reliable source is permitted, however, you are correct that the above statement was not supported by the citation that was provided. Location (talk) 02:04, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

General outline of the History section

I've noticed the changes and reverts that are occurring in this section. In my opinion, there should not be a separate sub-header for every game, but rather a separate sub-header for every decade or every distinct period in the series. The readers loses perspective on certain details (e.g. early IU win streak, late Kentucky domination) if every game is a sub-header. Also, when noting specific games in a header, year is important but month and day are not... it clutters the article. Location (talk) 14:54, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Yikes! Agree. There don't appear to be any featured articles on rivalries, but there are a few good articles: Mets–Phillies rivalry, Yankees–Red Sox rivalry, Johns Hopkins–Maryland rivalry, and Federer–Nadal rivalry. Of those, only the last one does breakouts by year, but it's a tennis rivalry, so the rivals met several times during the year. I suggest we use the others as a model; they all employ the time periods/eras convention. In any case, the point about the month and day (and probably the scores as well) is a good one. Way too cluttered. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 15:27, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Agree. Other basketball rivalries, such as Carolina–Duke rivalry, break it out by year as it was here initially. But I like doing it by era. That does mean the previous editor, who kept it broken out by game but just listed the year, was also wrong and I would agree with the original commenter who suggested that be the norm. I'll volunteer to attempt to group it by era.--YHoshua (talk) 15:39, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

References

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Indiana–Kentucky rivalry. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140112011208/http://www.idsnews.com/news/story.aspx?id=12909&search=golf&section=search to http://www.idsnews.com/news/story.aspx?id=12909&search=golf&section=search

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:19, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Indiana–Kentucky rivalry. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140720052409/http://www.iuhoosiers.com/sports/m-baskbl/recaps/121011aaa.html to http://www.iuhoosiers.com/sports/m-baskbl/recaps/121011aaa.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:20, 13 November 2017 (UTC)