Talk:Northern Illinois Huskies

Requested move 24 April 2017

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: Speedy close per WP:SNOW. And for the record, this has no consensus for the rename: Most commenters are opposed and are giving reasonable arguments that a) the names with the acronyms are not more common than the ones without (sources appear to use both spellings) and b) that the acronym'd names are not clear - both points mentioned in the WP:COMMONNAME policy. @AnneMorgan88:, please do not SHOUT here, nobody likes that and this is a collaborative environment. Policy discussions and complaints about them should happen on WP:VPP or WT:TITLE anyway. And please consider the possibility that you might be wrong. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 18:28, 26 April 2017 (UTC) Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 18:28, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

---

• Northern Illinois Huskies → NIU Huskies
• Northern Illinois Huskies baseball → NIU Huskies baseball
• Northern Illinois Huskies men's basketball → NIU Huskies men's basketball
• Northern Illinois Huskies football → NIU Huskies football
• Northern Illinois Huskies men's soccer → NIU Huskies men's soccer
• Northern Illinois Huskies women's basketball → NIU Huskies women's basketball
• Northern Illinois Huskies women's volleyball → NIU Huskies women's volleyball

– Northern Illinois University is properly and correctly, abbreviated as NIU and never as Northern Illinois. Subsequently, the University's athletic teams are known, and correctly referred to, as the NIU Huskies not Northern Illinois Huskies, as currently listed in Wikipedia. AnneMorgan88 (talk) 19:34, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose – I've said it once, and I'll say it again, NIU is not the common name. I've tried to tell Anne that she needs prove that this is the common name with reliable secondary and third-party sources. None of that has been done. So, after a quick look (again)... here are the stats:

1. Northern Illinois Huskies garners 539,000 results vs. NIU Huskies at 191,000 results;
2. ESPN, Fox Sports, USA Today, CBS Sports, SBNation.com, Sports Illustrated, and the Chicago Tribune. Local newspaper Daily Chronicle uses a mix of both "NIU" and "Northern Illinois".

I think it is pretty clear on what the WP:COMMONNAME is – Northern Illinois Huskies. Corkythehornetfan (ping me) 20:29, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

• AGREE with request to move – NIU is the commonly used abbreviation. There is no simpler way to state this fact. The current version is wrong.

1) The document specifies the acceptable registered and trademarked verbiage for the University and its athletic teams on page 8: http://sidearm.sites.s3.amazonaws.com/niuhuskies.com/documents/2016/7/12/NIU_Licensing_Style_Guide_2016_.pdf?id=5541

• Northern Illinois University
• NIU
• Huskies
• Northern Illinois University Huskies
• NIU Huskies

Please note that "Northern Illinois" or any variant is not included. It simply is not commonly used as it is a vague and confusing term.

2) CSNChicago, Chicago Sun-Times, and CBS Sports also use NIU Huskies.

3) The erroneous use of "Northern Illinois" by Wikipedia and the outlets listed above are to be blamed for the search results posted (which by the way, will change dramatically depending on when the search is conducted and therefore are rather meaningless). This wrongful use has conditioned users to search for the INCORRECT term. That is hardly justification to oppose this CORRECTION to the right and appropriate verbiage.

4) It's important to remember that Wikipedia is supposed to be an encyclopedia and is supposed to merely provide information and not DEFINE that information. This is a very slippery slope. The FACT is that the Northern Illinois University athletic teams are the Northern Illinois University Huskies or NIU Huskies and not any other variant. AnneMorgan88 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 20:38, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

I'm not sure how else to get it across to you, but as I've said before, Wikipedia does not go by the way the school wants to be branded. We go by what reliable secondary and third-party sources say, not primary. Corkythehornetfan (ping me) 21:02, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

A common misconception is that all info on Wikipedia needs to be correct; it does not. Information need only be verifiable by secondary sources. It does not matter how "factual" it is that the teams are called NIU (which is debatable). The only thing that matters is what the majority of independent sources calls them, correct or not. Lizard (talk) 22:40, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose, the common name of the athletic teams is Northern Illinois Huskies. Lizard (talk) 20:56, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose No one outside of diehard fans or people from the area know what NIU is at first blush - it isn't USC or BYU. The athletic commonname is "Northern Illinois," which is why sites like ESPN.com, CBS — heck, even their own conference and the NCAA — call them "Northern Illinois." Rikster2 (talk) 21:05, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose. The abbreviation does not appear to be common or well-understood outside the Chicago area, and changing the article names to the less clear, and less-well-recognized "NIU" is likely to impede, rather than enhance, utility. JohnInDC (talk) 21:13, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose per WP:COMMONNAME as Corky has provided the stats to back up. I have no doubt that "NIU" is well understood in the state of Illinois, or in close-ish proximity, but nobody outside that region will recognize "NIU" the same way that USC, BYU, UTEP, SMU, LSU, UCLA (etc. etc.) are understood on a national scale. Jrcla2 (talk) 23:10, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose all per WP:COMMONAME and reasons provided by others. "NIU" is currently the university's preferred branding, but it is not reflected in common usage by not only most media outlets, but even peer schools in the MAC (see this April 24, 2017 article from Kent State women's golf, or this April 14, 2017 article from Kent State baseball for examples), and as Rikster pointed out, the conference itself. Eventually that could change, but as it stands now, the school is most widely known as "Northern Illinois". --JonRidinger (talk) 23:19, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose---If you Google the school name, NIU gets 53,900,000 responses versus 8,0200,000 for Northern Illinois University; however, as User:Corkythehornetfan said, Northern Illinois University Huskies tops NIU Huskies by 485,000 to 181,000 GWFrog (talk) 00:24, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose as WP:Commonname. & close via WP:SNOW. Also there is a reason we don't have OU Sooners, OU Bobcats, CMU Chippewas, EMU Eagles, UB Bulls, SIU Salukis, etc.UCO2009bluejay (talk) 02:01, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose, encyclopedia entries should be spelled out. Readers may not be versed in U.S. college athletic programs.Orsoni (talk) 13:46, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

It's important to remember that Wikipedia is supposed to be an encyclopedia and is supposed to merely provide information and not DEFINE that information.
The FACT is that the Northern Illinois University athletic teams are the Northern Illinois University Huskies or NIU Huskies and NOT any other variant, regardless of how many ignoramuses opine otherwise. Cheers. AnneMorgan88 (talk) 02:39, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

WP:Civility is another important thing to remember. In addition to being, well - uncivil, insults are not a particularly effective way to bring others around to your point of view. JohnInDC (talk) 03:27, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Actually, this proves Wikipedia IS an encyclopedia and ISN'T defining information; it's reflecting how the vast majority of the world refers to the athletic teams at Northern Illinois University. Unfortunately for some at NIU, it doesn't match their current branding guide (be sure to read WP:OWN). If all these outside sources, even those closest to the school, don't feel that using "NIU Huskies" is clear enough for most readers, why should Wikipedia? About the only thing to do is make sure all the "NIU Huskies" variants for individual sports redirect to the appropriate article. --JonRidinger (talk) 04:28, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

It's not about a "point of view" or bringing others to that point of view (or at least it shouldn't be, although it obviously is for Corky, Jon, et al.), it's about what is CORRECT and what is INCORRECT. The FACT is that the current Wikipedia entries are INCORRECT and the suggested changes are CORRECT.
Once again, for those who apparently lack the capacity to grasp the very simple concept: It's important to remember that Wikipedia is supposed to be an encyclopedia and is supposed to merely provide information and not DEFINE that information. The repeated INCORRECT use by Wikipedia and the other mentioned outlets CONTRIBUTE to the search results cited and does not change the FACT that it is INCORRECT and a CIRCULAR REFERENCE.
Yet again, one more time: The FACT is that the Northern Illinois University athletic teams are the Northern Illinois University Huskies or NIU Huskies and NOT any other variant. AnneMorgan88 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 18:22, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Comment What is correct is that those reporting on Northern Illinois U's athletic teams (AKA "independent sources") use "Northern Illinois" overwhelmingly when they refer to them, regardless of what the school is shooting for as a brand. That would make Northern Illinois their COMMONNAME. Rikster2 (talk) 20:15, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Comment Yeah, we're going in circles here. You either understand and follow the policies for titles or you don't. Editors here have been patient in spite of the snide remarks and done their best not only to explain the basic policies, but why these articles should remain as is, so there really isn't anything left to do. Easy case of WP:SNOW here, besides the lack of good faith and civility. --JonRidinger (talk) 21:33, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

I fully understand the title-naming policy. The title-naming policy is wrong.

• The FACT is that the current Wikipedia entries are INCORRECT and the suggested changes are CORRECT.
• The FACT is that the Northern Illinois University athletic teams are the Northern Illinois University Huskies or NIU Huskies and NOT any other variant.
• The FACT is that these FACTS are ABSOLUTE and IRREFUTABLE.

If Wikipedia chooses to ignore these FACTS and insists on following its FLAWED POLICY, that does nothing to change the FACT that it is deliberately disseminating ERRONEOUS information. Is there not a policy against deliberate misinformation? Why don't you link that policy? AnneMorgan88 (talk) 22:58, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

That's called Fake news... No one outside of Northern Illinois University [area] uses NIU, that has been proven by FACTS, a.k.a. the reliable sources shown above. Why don't you quit acting like a little two year-old and own up that you are simply wrong and move on? You keep repeating the same thing, over. and. over. again. By repeating yourself and spreading this fake information, you sound like Donald Trump... except I like him more. If you can't you have it your way, you blame someone else. It's time to grow up. Corkythehornetfan (ping me) 23:17, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

The only "Fake news" is what you are spewing. Outlets use both but only ONE is CORRECT. There is no need to cherry-pick MORE (because I did list some already) examples to disprove your LIE that "no one outside of Northern Illinois University uses NIU" because that's already PROVEN to not be the case. There is no reason to say anything other than what is being repeated "over. and. over. again." because what is being repeated is FACT and INDISPUTABLY CORRECT.
AGAIN:

• The FACT is that the current Wikipedia entries are INCORRECT and the suggested changes are CORRECT.
• The FACT is that the Northern Illinois University athletic teams are the Northern Illinois University Huskies or NIU Huskies and NOT any other variant.
• The FACT is that these FACTS are ABSOLUTE and IRREFUTABLE.
• The FACT is that if Wikipedia chooses to ignore these FACTS and insists on following its FLAWED POLICY, that does nothing to change the FACT that it is deliberately disseminating ERRONEOUS information. AnneMorgan88 (talk) 23:28, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

I want it noted that someone EDITED their post after I correctly quoted it to insert "[area]" into the phrasing used. So I did not misquote them, in case they try to claim as much later. Also, this change does not change the FACT that he is spewing so-called "Fake news." Even with the added qualifier, his statement is a LIE and deliberately misleading (that's the definition of "fake news" by the way).

Case in point: Take a look at footnote #3 in the Mike Kunigonis Wiki article (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mike_Kunigonis#cite_note-3). This footnote cites a source to a national media outlet that appears to originate from the Boston area. The article correctly uses the proper full name of the University in the opening paragraph "...has been named head coach of the Northern Illinois University baseball program..." and subsequently correctly uses "NIU" "NIU Baseball" "NIU athletics program" etc. when referencing NIU Athletics. The only use of the term "northern Illinois" is found later in the article when referencing the "northern Illinois region." So yeah, Mr. Fake News (aka CorkytheFakeNewsFan) is PROVEN WRONG again. Again, both terms are used (and there are several examples of each) but only ONE is CORRECT. AnneMorgan88 (talk) 00:20, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

Comment This has been patiently entertained for too long. At what point can an non-involved administrator review this and close it? Corky, you might want to add the Northern Illinois Huskies articles to your watchlist to keep an eye on bad faith page moves. Jrcla2 (talk) 00:46, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

They've been on my watchlist. Once I saw the first one, I went through them all. Corkythehornetfan (ping me) 01:01, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

Nobody is going to commit any bad faith page moves, you imbecile. And yes, let's get a non-involved administrator to rule on the FLAWED POLICY and see if they will make the CORRECT call and use the appropriate "NIU Huskies" for the titles. AnneMorgan88 (talk) 00:59, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

I think this matter doesn't need any special attention from anyone. We'll wait out the 7 days, and when that's run out and (presumably) the consensus is as clear as it seems to be now, we'll just close the thing. There's no harm in waiting, particularly if we (myself included) let our original comments speak for themselves and not be baited into further futile discussion. Just - let it go. JohnInDC (talk) 01:24, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

Wrong again, this DOES NEED SPECIAL ATTENTION from a neutral administrator as this is not a normal request in that what is being challenged is the FLAWED POLICY itself. I'm sure those who have contributed to this point would like nothing more than to let the "consensus" (aka CIRCLE JERK) play out. GET A NEUTRAL ADMINISTRATOR HERE NOW. Thanks. AnneMorgan88 (talk) 04:30, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

• Comment: Well, this escalated quickly. (I'm opposing the requested moves, by the way, per WP:COMMONNAME and related policies.)  ONR  (talk)  04:57, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
• I am a non-involved administrator; I happened on this discussion by accident, and I haven't played sports since I was coerced to do so in high school. I would like to point out that the policies are not developed and/or changed by the administrators, but by consensus of the editors. However, administrators are sometimes involved in helping to keep discussions civil, so I will point out that capitalization and use of bold text are equivalent to shouting, and that shouting and name calling are considered bullying and are counterproductive. Demanding things isn't effective either, because we are all volunteers with free will. When the time comes to close this discussion (there hasn't yet been time for all interested parties to weigh in), only logical arguments will be taken into consideration, not the vehemence with which they are expressed. By the way, the first thing I did after seeing this discussion was to do a web search on "Northern Illinois University Huskies", "NIU Huskies" and "Northern Illinois Huskies", exempting pages which contained the word "Wikipedia" to discount any mirror sites or repetition of our content. The first two pages which came up were from niuhiskies.com, and the web page title displayed was "The Official Website of Northern Illinois Athletics" (not Northern Illinois University Athletics).—Anne Delong (talk) 10:08, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

• 1) "...capitalization and use of bold text are equivalent to shouting..." - No, it is not. It is merely a way of EMPHASIZING something in print to assure that it does not go unnoticed.
  2) "...The first two pages which came up were from niuhuskies.com..." - NIU Huskies ("niuhuskies.com" NOT "northernillinoishuskies.com"). AnneMorgan88 (talk) 14:18, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

FYI - A direct request has already been made to a neutral administrator to rule over this matter. AnneMorgan88 (talk) 14:35, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

• Also, from above: 1) The document specifies the acceptable registered and trademarked verbiage for the University and its athletic teams on page 8: http://sidearm.sites.s3.amazonaws.com/niuhuskies.com/documents/2016/7/12/NIU_Licensing_Style_Guide_2016_.pdf?id=5541
  The Northern Illinois University athletic teams are the Northern Illinois University Huskies or NIU Huskies and NOT any other variant. AnneMorgan88 (talk) 14:35, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

About capitals: [1], [2], [3], [4]. Please note that Wikipedia editors are not employees of the university and aren't necessarily interested in helping with its marketing campaigns and the product branding mentioned in the style guide you indicated. Also, because editors are volunteers, rather than employees of the Wikimedia Foundation, many don't check their watchlists daily, so discussions of this kind often go on for quite a lot longer than two days, except in occasional cases where almost everyone agrees with strong policy-based arguments.—Anne Delong (talk) 16:16, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

• Speedy close please. Any more discussion here is pointless. The outcome is obvious. Lizard (talk) 16:18, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

DO NOT CLOSE THIS DISCUSSION - A direct request has already been made to a neutral administrator to rule over this matter. Allow the administrator to review and rule on the matter. Thank you. AnneMorgan88 (talk) 16:24, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

• FYI - The administrator has been informed of your attempts to prematurely close the discussion prior to their review. AnneMorgan88 (talk) 16:31, 26 April 2017 (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.

Administrator review of move request

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

The discussion regarding the move request was closed prematurely, despite a request to leave it open for a neutral administrator to review and rule on the matter.

That administrator has been informed of this premature closing and has been asked to review the move request at their earliest convenience. This matter is considered open until a ruling from that administrator is handed down. Thank you. AnneMorgan88 (talk) 20:08, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

Jo-Jo Eumerus, who closed the discussion, is a disinterested administrator. So you have what you asked for, albeit not the result. Please let this go now, thanks. JohnInDC (talk) 20:23, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

FWIW, I too am a disinterested admin, and I'd have closed it the same way. GedUK  11:26, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

Personally requesting a specific administrator isn't "neutral" either (see WP:CANVAS). Further, the admin you did contact said the same thing as the admins and other editors here. Again, no one is saying "NIU Huskies" isn't a valid or used term; we're saying it's not the most common way the teams are referred in secondary sources. If a reader types in or searches for "NIU Huskies", they'll end up here or one of the specific sport articles since all of those titles are redirects. --JonRidinger (talk) 11:52, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Subheadings

Men's sports	Women's sports
Baseball	Basketball
Basketball	Cross country
Football	Golf
Golf	Gymnastics
Soccer	Soccer
Tennis	Softball
Wrestling	Tennis
	Track and field†
	Volleyball
† – Track and field includes both indoor and outdoor.

I went through and changed the section headings. Previously, there was a subheading for "Men's athletics" and one for "Women's athletics" with each team listed underneath using the gender-neutral term. This works for visual organization, but not for linking sections. For instance, "Golf" under men's athletics and "Golf" under women's athletics were both wikilinked as "Northern Illinois Huskies#Golf". Same for any sport that has both a men's and women's team. See MOS:HEADINGS, specifically "Section headings should preferably be unique within a page; otherwise section links may lead to the wrong place, and automatic edit summaries for section edits will be ambiguous." --JonRidinger (talk) 07:00, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

• What is your obsession with NIU? Why did you remove the table that included the links to the articles of the coaches? Nine (ten prior to your change of the NIU Huskies page) of the team pages for those teams in the MAC have this table, why make the change so that the page is now INCONSISTENT with the majority of the conference? Will you be editing the other nine pages (actually, this isn't confined to the MAC, will you be removing all of these tables from EVERY NCAA team?) to remove the table from them OR will you be editing the NIU Huskies page to re-insert the table? Why is consistency such a big deal when it's convenient to your argument but otherwise ignored when it doesn't fit your agenda? Never mind, I've CORRECTED the page for CONSISTENCY. You're welcome. AnneMorgan88 (talk) 19:46, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

I've reverted the chart that lists the coaches. We had a WP:CONSENSUS at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject College Basketball/Archive 6#Tables for all not just basketball-related articles, but for all NCAA sports articles. Consensus showed that option 5 was in the majority. This has been placed in the NIU article. Please keep in mind that just because we haven't implemented in all articles, doesn't mean we shouldn't implement it in this one. We are all volunteers don't always get around to things due to other projects. I do plan to work on replacing these charts over the Summer after I finish up with my other project. Corkythehornetfan (ping me) 22:00, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for linking the "consensus" discussion. AnneMorgan88 (talk) 22:33, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

Most schools will field both indoor & outdoor Track and Field teams but that is not always the case, some schools only sponsor one and not the other. In NIU's case the (Indoor & Outdoor) distinction not only adds clarity but it helps to keep the table data CONSISTENT (I've been told that's of the utmost importance) with the article text.

• I RECOMMEND that the (Indoor & Outdoor) qualifier is added to the table for all teams that sponsor both sports and "Indoor Track and Field" / "Outdoor Track and Field" OR "Track and Field (Indoor)" / "Track and Field (Outdoor)" is used for teams that only sponsor one or the other but not both. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AnneMorgan88 (talk • contribs) 23:24, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

To add to the comment left on the edit history page that someone's assertion that having (Indoor & Outdoor) in the table was "not part of the consensus" is a LIE (there's a pattern here), the "consensus" discussion contains five options and both of the options (Option 1 and Option 2) that listed Track and Field as part of its example made the distinction between the two (Indoor & Outdoor) sports. The other examples simply didn't go down the list far enough to list Track and Field but it is reasonable to think that those too would/should have made the distinction as well since the NCAA recognizes Indoor Track and Field & Outdoor Track and Field as separate sports. It only makes sense to keep this distinction IN PLACE in this table and to include it in future updates for other pages. AnneMorgan88 (talk) 23:58, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

• Another option could be to simply list the two sports as two separate entries (Indoor track and field/Outdoor track and field) on the table. AnneMorgan88 (talk) 00:14, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I agree that most schools field both indoor and outdoor, so here is my proposal – if it only lists "Track and field" in the box, then it is automatically assumed that they field both. If they only field one but not the other, we put that sport in parentheses [i.e. Track and field (Indoor)]. If you don't like that suggestion, I would suggest we put a note at the bottom of the box like I have done so on the right. We'd have a key like we see in the standings templates. I don't like the parentheses being in the box because it is too much clutter. I definitely oppose putting two separate fields in the box – that just makes it longer than it need to be. Corkythehornetfan (ping me) 00:44, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

Track and field is unusual since it has that indoor/outdoor component. The MAC has separate indoor and outdoor championships, but lists the sport as "track and field" and has a single composite schedule for track. NIU itself lists "track and field" as the sport offering on their website and the "2016-17 Women's Track and Field Roster" doesn't differentiate between indoor and outdoor, which is consistent with other athletic programs that regard the indoor and outdoor components as two halves of the same season (i.e., there aren't separate indoor and outdoor teams). The footnote seems like the best option since it is a single team. --JonRidinger (talk) 01:09, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

They are definitely two different sports as recognized by the NCAA. Further evidence is the fact that they each have their own championships and that they each have their separate sporting season (Indoor T&F is a winter sport, like basketball and wrestling while Outdoor T&F is a spring sport, like baseball and softball). AnneMorgan88 (talk) 01:59, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

I noticed the problems with the section headers when creating a redirect for Northern Illinois Huskies women's golf, along with the other MAC schools. If an article has a subheading for a sport, it's preferable for the redirect to go there instead of just to the main page. As for the table, I wasn't aware of the replacement consensus (life got in the way after my initial participation in that discussion), though the previous table that listed the coaches was the personal project of a single editor, not something that was part of any article guidelines or the result of consensus. That version of the table is mostly found in several MAC team articles. While a table seems redundant to me in articles like this one where each sport has a subheading (and thus a link in the "Contents" box right above it), that's consensus, at least for now. I personally think those kinds of tables benefit lesser-developed articles better, but this isn't the place to discuss their merits. --JonRidinger (talk) 00:35, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

As for the table, I do not like the idea of listing only "Track and field" in the box and assuming that people will automatically assume that the school fields both, because people will not make that assumption. Most people are probably unaware that there is "Indoor T&F" and "Outdoor T&F" or that the two are classified as separate sports by the NCAA. I'm sure that if you showed the list to your "average" person, those who pay close attention to detail will ask why the women's list is "missing" a sport as they will only see nine sports listed on the table but the article mentions 10 sponsored women's sports. I like the idea of the footnote (as shown in the example) for all tables. The footnote can indicate (as on the example shown) that the school sponsors both Indoor & Outdoor if that is the case or just indicate which of the two it sponsors if it only sponsors one. This addresses my concern about having the data in the table reconcile with what is written in the article text and also makes the table less cluttered, which seems to be a concern as well. I think the footnote idea is a good compromise. Also as a bonus, the colored footnote brackets the bottom of the table and aesthetically balances it. AnneMorgan88 (talk) 01:59, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

Alright, it looks like we're in agreement about the footnote. If it's O.K. with you guys, I'll go ahead and have BU Rob13 add the footnote to the table in the infobox. Also, although I prefer the primary color (red) at the bottom, we could use both school colors and have black on the bottom... just a thought? Corkythehornetfan (ping me) 02:23, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

I have no problem using black for the footer as a visual separation. --JonRidinger (talk) 11:35, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

My preference is to only use the one color at the top and the bottom of the table but I'm okay if both the school's primary and secondary colors are used. My concern with that would be that some school colors may not lend themselves to being the background color behind text, but that would be specific to each school. AnneMorgan88 (talk) 02:01, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

A valid concern. For most of the templates, they should be formatted so they have a school's primary color as the background, but the text is a color that meets the requirements of WP:CONTRAST, usually black or white text regardless of official school colors. For instance, Ohio State's main colors are scarlet and gray, but the primary color box for OSU uses a scarlet background with white text rather than gray text, which is difficult to read on top of scarlet. The secondary color box for OSU uses gray for the background with white text. For NIU, the footer will be a black background with white text. I changed the example table above to the secondary style for the footer so you can see :). --JonRidinger (talk) 03:39, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

MAC logo with school specific colors

MAC logo depicted in NIU colors.

Where did you get that MAC logo with school specific colors?

I don't think that's the "official" school-specific MAC logo for NIU.

The one I've seen (I think) only has red and not black or the black is somewhere other than where it is in this logo. Is this the officially sanctioned logo by the MAC?

I'll see if I can find somewhere where the logo is pictured. AnneMorgan88 (talk) 05:47, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

Here is an image with the logo. https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DBMiFNrXkAA1rC6.jpg It's just as I thought, the logo used here on Wikipedia has the red and black transposed. The border should be in black and the inside of the shield should be in red with the star and "1946" in silver. AnneMorgan88 (talk) 05:53, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

It came from the official Mid-American Conference Brand Identity – Usage and Style Guide, found on page 8. To be consistent with other logos I've done, both school colors need to be in the logo as shown in the style guide I've linked. I switched it up to stand out from other MAC schools, but will change it. The silver isn't that important in my opinion, and the brand guide doesn't show silver. Corkythehornetfan (ping me) 05:56, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

If you look at the NIU Brand Identity Usage and Style Guide, the silver is NIU's accent color. The official one used by NIU has the silver. AnneMorgan88 (talk) 05:58, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

Yes, I know what Northern Illinois' brand guide says. I've fixed it. Corkythehornetfan (ping me) 06:01, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

Really, you're going to spell out the whole thing plus add the apostrophe at the end of the "s" instead of just using "NIU's brand guide..." Seriously? I was just about to thank you for fixing most of the "Official website" links on the team pages. Please, don't be so petty. AnneMorgan88 (talk) 06:08, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

But seriously, thanks for fixing the colors on the logo and including the silver and for the links on the team pages. AnneMorgan88 (talk) 06:09, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

FYI - You are wrong in intentionally bastardizing the name of the document. For the record, the name of the document is the "NIU Licensing Style Guide." AnneMorgan88 (talk) 06:15, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

Maybe if you wouldn't be so technical or get so pissed off every time, I would type the name you want. The more you get pissed off because I don't call something by it's written name, the more I'm just going to intentionally write something different. Brand guide, style guide, visual identity standards, licensing guide, etc. – they are all the same thing. Quit getting your panties all in a wad.

On Wikipedia, we use consensus and everyone is to abide by that consensus unless it changes. You can't seem to do that which causes more harm than anything else. Consensus here is to use "Northern Illinois", not NIU. We've been over this – in fact several users have stated this – multiple times. Either start using the name that has a consensus or don't insert the schools name at all. "Northern Illinois" is still better than full university name. "University" doesn't need to be spelled out every. single. time. I'm not sure how hard that is to understand. Corkythehornetfan (ping me) 07:01, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

I don't know, I'm honestly not a fan of the MAC logo being used on any of the school articles, though it is cool to see it in the different variations. If it is used, I think the caption should include that the logo is being displayed in the colors of the specific school rather than just stating that the school is a member of the conference. That fact in itself doesn't need a logo since readers can quite easily go to the article on the MAC if they want to see the logo. I get the logo isn't copyrighted so we have some flexibility, but still, just seems beyond the purpose of including an image. As for the caption, yeah, no reason to include the entire name of the school here or in any other article. "NIU" or "Northern Illinois" is more than appropriate in that context, especially in a caption, which should be as succinct and brief as possible. --JonRidinger (talk) 11:41, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

@JonRidinger: I agree that the articles are probably better without the school-color-specific logos. I also agree that if they stay, that the caption should explain that the displayed logo is a modified version of the official MAC logo using the school's colors. Something along the lines of the example I inserted at the top of this section. AnneMorgan88 (talk) 02:54, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

Some logos I've just captioned as "xxx logo in team's colors." i didn't like that so I changed it. I'm open to discuss the captions... Corkythehornetfan (ping me) 03:37, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

Would it work to have it at the bottom of the infobox like a secondary logo? I'm thinking it would be something people see if they watch games on TV, seeing the logo in the local colors of whatever team is playing (football or basketball). Just a thought. --JonRidinger (talk) 18:06, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

I placed the MAC logo in the "altlogo" parameter at Kent State Golden Flashes for a visual. I don't mind either way if it gets reverted or not, but if you want to see an example, it's there for now. Can't promise how long it will be visible, though! There's no option to put a caption, but I did use the option to add text if the user hovers over the image. --JonRidinger (talk) 18:26, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

Either "Northern Illinois" or "NIU" is fine as informal, 10th-mention usage. The whole name isn't necessary, and edit-warring about it is, or should be, embarrassing. Anne, please read WP:POINT. It's - on point. Thanks. JohnInDC (talk) 14:04, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

Official name

Following the precedent set on the Arkansas–Little Rock Trojans page, where the school's athletic team's OFFICIAL NAME is not used by Wikipedia, I have included a parenthetical supplement to include it and cited the source that explains what the CORRECT OFFICIAL NAME is and demonstrates that Wikipedia is intentionally using an incorrect name. This SOLUTION clears up any confusion caused by Wikipedia's insistence on using the incorrect term and does so using procedures set by and already in use by Wikipedia. Do not change but feel free to discuss. AnneMorgan88 (talk) 12:16, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

The document that you're citing - link here - is a single document published by the school setting forth the way in which the logos for the athletic teams be displayed. It doesn't purport to create an "official" name, and even if it did, the page to which you're citing in support of "NIU Huskies" also allows "Northern Illinois University Huskies" and "Huskies" - both incidentally requiring a "TM" marker, which your addition omits. This solution seems - well, incomplete at best, and presenting as many problems as it claims to resolve. JohnInDC (talk) 13:04, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

Also if it's appropriate to follow the example you've provided (an open question), then your addition should make clear that the name you prefer is a matter of branding (as that example does), rather than an "official" name. JohnInDC (talk) 13:06, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

It is NOT a matter of branding, but rather the OFFICIAL name for the Northern Illinois University Athletic teams. You lack the fundamental understanding of the issue. AnneMorgan88 (talk) 13:19, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

Thus to be consistent with both the Arkansas–Little Rock Trojans page and to properly reflect the cited source, the edit should read, "formally branded as the NIU Huskies or Northern Illinois University Huskies". JohnInDC (talk) 13:08, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

There is nothing "formerly" about it. It is the CURRENT OFFICIAL name of the Athletic teams for Northern Illinois University. Again, you lack the fundamental understanding of the issue. AnneMorgan88 (talk) 13:19, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

”Formally”, not “formerly” - per the very example you claim to be following. JohnInDC (talk) 13:24, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

Ah my bad - I misread the example, which is in fact inapposite. Look to Louisiana–Lafayette Ragin' Cajuns. The correct parenthetical would be, "branded as the NIU Huskies or Northern Illinois University Huskies". JohnInDC (talk) 13:28, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

So that others don't have to work through the same misunderstanding that I just did: Arkansas–Little Rock Trojans in fact does use the correct name - the preceding link is just a redirect to Little Rock Trojans, to which the article was moved last year following a discussion about COMMONNAME. The parenthetical on the (newly named) page notes that the team was "(formerly branded as the Arkansas–Little Rock Trojans)", which it was. So in fact that page is just about the opposite of the Northern Illinois pages, where the new branding hasn't taken hold, and where a suggested move was not done. The better model is the one that I noted, Louisiana–Lafayette Ragin' Cajuns, where as here the school's self-designation has not yet overtaken COMMONNAME. If we follow that example, and actually hew to NIU's stated branding preferences, we wind up with the language I offered in the preceding comment. I can't see any reason in fact not to do it that way. JohnInDC (talk) 13:44, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

The reason to not do it the incorrect way you suggest is that--AGAIN--it is NOT a matter of branding, but rather the OFFICIAL name for the Northern Illinois University Athletic teams. Once again, you lack the fundamental understanding of the issue. AnneMorgan88 (talk) 13:50, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

The document you link is a guide for people who want to license the school's logos in order to sell merchandise, and can be reached from this NIU page. It's branding and marketing. Elsewhere, here's the main university page setting forth visual and other standards for materials relating to the university. It leads,

"Maintaining a strong and recognizable brand is a key component to NIU’s success in student enrollment. We created this guide to make it easier for you to correctly and consistently represent the NIU brand when you develop new communications. Building and maintaining the Northern Illinois University brand identity is an institutional priority set by the President and managed by the Division of Marketing and Communications with support from the University Marketing and Communications Council."

I do understand. All of this material describes how the school and the athletics department want to portray themselves. It's a preference, not a law. JohnInDC (talk) 14:03, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

Nobody claimed anything was law. Nice fallacy attempt, though. AnneMorgan88 (talk) 14:06, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

Here's what the school's marketing firm (whose name appears throughout the PDF) has to say about all of this. Note here too the heavy emphasis on branding and marketing. http://www.learfield.com/partner/northern-illinois-huskies/ . There's nothing "official" in any of this. It's PR. JohnInDC (talk) 14:07, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

Is there anything from, for example, the Board of Regents (or whatever the name of the body is) that declares the school's official name? That would be much more useful to the discussion than the marketing materials. JohnInDC (talk) 14:11, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

Since you insist on being a smart-ass, here is where you can find the documentation on NIU's OFFICIAL name (YES, NIU does have an OFFICIAL name, *Spoiler Alert* it's "Northern Illinois University"). http://www.ulib.niu.edu/reghist/UA%203.pdf Please note: "Series I: By-Laws, Governing Policies, Regulations, and Proceedings - Item 01.05: Legislation Re: Name Changes, 1955-1957" in the linked document. From Wikipedia: "On July 1, 1957, the Seventieth Illinois General Assembly renamed Northern Illinois State College as Northern Illinois University in recognition of its expanded status as a liberal arts university." You could have easily located this information on your own, although, I suspect you already knew what the OFFICIAL name was. AnneMorgan88 (talk) 16:19, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the link, even if it is beside the point. It says nothing about "NIU Huskies" being an "official name" of the sports teams, as you insist. Indeed if anything this shows the opposite: That if the Board of Trustees took the time to establish the official name of the school as "Northern Illinois University" but said nothing about any other official name (e.g. "NIU" or the athletics teams), then any other name is not in fact, official. Which puts us back to branding, and COMMONNAME. Oh, also, no personal attacks. Thanks. JohnInDC (talk) 16:35, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

I never said it said anything about the athletic teams (Please stop misquoting me). I was addressing your question "Is there anything from, for example, the Board of Regents (or whatever the name of the body is) that declares the school's official name?" which asked about the school's official name. You're just going to keep changing the argument hoping to find something that sticks? AnneMorgan88 (talk) 16:40, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

Regarding "COMMONNAME" that is supposed to be just for article titles anyway. However, it appears to simply be used as a justification to back up one's agenda, there is no consistency in enforcing it. Depending on what the user's personal stance is on a particular issue is what determines if "COMMONNAME" is used. A certain user who invokes "COMMONNAME" against NIU completely disregards it, and even argues against it, in the Talk:Little_Rock_Trojans page. The cast of "usual suspects" chimes in and opinions seem to change from article to article. So again, this is NOT a "COMMONNAME" issue (stop trying to confuse the situation) as we are not discussing the article's title. And "COMMONNAME" is nothing more than a tool used to manipulate the system in order to get one's way, it is very apparent, since there is no consistency in its enforcement on Wikipedia. Stick to the issue at hand, which is that NIU Huskies is the OFFICIAL name of the athletic teams of Northern Illinois University and that the current parenthetical language in the opening line of the article is correct and fully appropriate (and sourced). AnneMorgan88 (talk) 16:52, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

I'm going to add this exchange, with the individual above, from another page:

Again, you lack the fundamental understanding of the issue. It is NOT a matter of branding, but rather the OFFICIAL name for the Northern Illinois University Athletic teams. Therefore, there is not an "other equally acceptable branding alternative" that you're referring to but rather "other OFFICIAL names" for the athletic teams at Northern Illinois University. If you are suggesting that the articles use: "(officially the NIU Huskies, Northern Illinois University Huskies, or Huskies)" that is fine with me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AnneMorgan88 (talk • contribs) 14:12, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

The Louisiana-Lafayette page is precisely the same as this case; and I've provided several links and sources to show how these are issues of "branding" and "marketing", rather than any official, formal act by the school to bestow a correct name on all of its athletic teams. You disagree, but haven't offered more than bald assertions and the claim that I "don't understand". I'm unpersuaded, and will wait for others to weigh in. JohnInDC (talk) 14:49, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

Again, you lack the fundamental understanding of the issue. It is NOT a matter of branding, but rather the OFFICIAL name for the Northern Illinois University Athletic teams. The OFFICIAL name of the University is not in question, it is "Northern Illinois University" and its athletic teams are the NIU Huskies or Northern Illinois University Huskies. There is no attempt to "re-brand" anything as you claim. The example you cited is the opposite to what is happening here. The "University of Louisiana-Lafayette" is ULL (U-University, L-Louisiana, L-Lafayette), that is what they are. Their attempts to re-brand as something they are not is the opposite of what is happening here. Northern Illinois University is NIU (N-Northern, I-Illinois, U-University). In FACT, YOU are the one who is attempting to re-brand Northern Illinois University/NIU as something that it is not. "Northern Illinois" without the "University" is inadequate to describe the institution. The "Northern Illinois Huskies" what? Do you mean the "Northern Illinois Huskies Dog Rescue"? When you say "Northern Illinois" what do you mean? Do you mean the "Northern Illinois YMCA" or the "Northern Illinois Food Bank" or the "Northern Illinois shelter for battered women"? What exactly do you mean when using the vague "Northern Illinois" term? Are you referring to "Northern Illinois University" or NIU, or its athletic teams, are you? Then SAY SO. AnneMorgan88 (talk) 15:01, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

People are not going to be confused by "Northern Illinois". It is the title of the article and is used in the lead sentence. The Athletics Dept. is inconsistent themselves – the banner at niuhuskies.com shows "The Official Website of the Northern Illinois Athletics". So the only person who will have any confusion is you. People are not going to confuse "Northern Illinois Huskies" with a food bank, YMCA, or a women's shelter. They are going to know they are specifically talking about the sports teams at Northern Illinois University because the that is what the article is about. If someone wants to talk about those other specific organizations, they will include "food bank" or "YMCA" after "Huskies" so there is no confusion. As we've mentioned numerous times, we go by the COMMON NAME, not OFFICIAL NAME, used by reliable outside sources such as newspapers, TV stations, etc. The term most used and most well-known to the public is the term we use so that there isn't any confusion. Not sure how many times we need to state that... Corkythehornetfan (ping me) 17:32, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

AGAIN, this is NOT a "commonname" issue. We are not discussing the article's title. Per the PRECEDENT set by Wikipedia, the parenthetical supplement mentioning the OFFICIAL name of the Northern Illinois University athletic teams is correct and appropriate (and cited) as currently written. There is no issue here, you all are arguing for the sake of arguing. AnneMorgan88 (talk) 17:39, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

The precedents use the term "branded", not "official". I'd be content to follow them. JohnInDC (talk) 17:42, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

Just - for the sake of those coming later to this (extended) discussion, the nub of the issue is this: If we add a parenthetical to the first line of the various Northern Illinois athletic pages, should it say that the Northern Illinois Huskies [team] is "(officially the NIU Huskies, Northern Illinois University Huskies, or Huskies)" or "(branded as the NIU Huskies or Northern Illinois University Huskies)"?

Since "NIU" seems mostly used by the school and isn't a common name, I favor branded as... just like the Ragin' Cajuns articles... Corkythehornetfan (ping me) 17:56, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

WRONG. For the sake of those coming later to this discussion, there is no "if" the PRECEDENT exists for the language to be there. What is being discussed is JohninDC's wanting to change the current (CORRECT) language to one that INCORRECTLY uses "branded as" when this is NOT a branding issue. The example that he keeps citing (that apparently he hasn't realized argues against his point) is the University of Louisiana-Lafayette. In that case, the "University of Louisiana-Lafayette" is "A" but brands itself as "B" where "B" is something completely different to "A" and something that the "University of Louisiana-Lafayette" is not. Using that language in this instance would be wrong because it implies that "A" is correct and "B" is just a re-branding to something other than what the institution is officially named. In the case of NIU, Wikipedia insists on using the INCORRECT "Northern Illinois Huskies" as the article title so the current language is correct as written "(officially the NIU Huskies[5])" where "A" is the name of the article but "B" is the official and correct name. The two cases are NOT the same. To argue to change it to the INCORRECT "branded as" language only compounds the issue of using the INCORRECT article title with an INCORRECT parenthetical follow-up clause. As mentioned above, the only ones here who are re-branding Northern Illinois University (NIU) and its athletic teams as something they are not, are the people arguing to use the INCORRECT "branded as" language. AnneMorgan88 (talk) 18:06, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

The whole point of the parenthetical language is to act as a CLARIFIER. As mentioned above, using the incorrect "branded as" language only further confuses the issue and compounds the errors in the article and has the opposite effect. In the cited example, the "branded as" language serves the purposes of clarifying that the "University of Louisiana-Lafayette" brands as something completely different to what the University is actually officially named. Again, the two are completely different, despite efforts of someone trying to confuse the issue. Also, as mentioned previously, this is NOT a "commonname" issue and, as I pointed out, those trying to confuse the issue continue to inject it into this discussion where it doesn't belong. AnneMorgan88 (talk) 18:40, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

The official name of the school is "Northern Illinois University". "NIU Huskies" is not that name. It is, as you say, an effort to brand the teams as "something completely different to what the University is actually officially named". It's exactly the same as the Louisiana-Lafayette page. JohnInDC (talk) 18:52, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

WRONG, AGAIN (and you know you are, you're just stubborn and petty). NIU is simply an abbreviation of the OFFICIAL name. AnneMorgan88 (talk) 18:57, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

Well, then, how about we just say "(sometimes abbreviated as the NIU Huskies)"? Also, I appreciate that it may be easy to lose sight of in the heat of discussion, but please remember to assume good faith and refrain from personal attacks. JohnInDC (talk) 19:04, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

Someone give me the TLDR version. I'm not sifting through this mess. We're basically discussing whether or not "NIU Huskies" should appear in the lead as a parenthetical, right? Show me the evidence of why this should be the case. And cite relevant guidelines if possible. Lizard (talk) 19:02, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

No, the discussion revolves around the wording to be used in the parenthetical. The current language or suggested language that instead of clarifying muddies up the article even more. AnneMorgan88 (talk) 19:08, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Yeah, it's a branding issue, simple as that. Branding is what an organization wishes to be emphasized and perceived. In this case, it's "NIU" to give it a more national feel, over a regional name like "Northern Illinois", along the lines of the University of Southern California favoring "USC" over "Southern California". The difference there is that the "USC" and "USC Trojans" usage has largely been adopted by secondary sources; "NIU" and "NIU Huskies" has not, at least yet. Universities have branding campaigns all the time; Louisiana-Lafayette is just one. I remember my own alma mater doing a similar one in the 1980s when they wanted to be referred to as "Kent" instead of "Kent State" and the athletic and university logos reflected that branding. I participated in recent branding discussions at Talk:Los Angeles Clippers#Rename article? and Talk:Buffalo Bulls#New York Bulls, which both had some similarities to this one. I favor "branded as the NIU Huskies" even for the individual sports articles, since, even on the NIU home site, the individual sports are presented in context, so are referred to as "NIU baseball" or "Huskies gymnastics". I don't like "officially known as the Northern Illinois University Huskies" because it's not only laborious and cumbersome, but the university name is usually mentioned right after in the same sentence. On top of that, the official name of every college athletic team includes the full university name, such as Kent State University Golden Flashes. Nothing unique about NIU's usage. "Branded as..." makes it clear there's a preference from the school. --JonRidinger (talk) 19:06, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

@JonRidinger: Please read the section here where the differences between this situation and the University of Louisiana-Lafayette are explained. They are the opposite of each other. It's located above and will not take long to read. Thank you. AnneMorgan88 (talk) 19:12, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) TLDR - If it is appropriate to add a parenthetical to the first line of the various Northern Illinois athletic pages, should it say that the Northern Illinois Huskies [team] is "(officially the NIU Huskies, Northern Illinois University Huskies, or Huskies)" or "(branded as the NIU Huskies or Northern Illinois University Huskies)"? Similar parentheticals, using "branding" appear at Little Rock Trojans and Louisiana–Lafayette Ragin' Cajuns. My position is that these other, non-COMMONNAME appellations simply reflect branding efforts by the school and should be described as such. Anne's view is that "NIU Huskies" and the others are the official, and only correct, terms and should be described as such. JohnInDC (talk) 19:10, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

And you're wrong, because in this specific instance, the article title uses the wrong term. So the parenthetical CLARIFIER needs to CLARIFY that the OFFICIAL (and it is the official) name of the Northern Illinois University athletic teams is NIU Huskies and Northern Illinois University Huskies. The cited examples are DIFFERENT to this specific case. Why do you refuse to look at this case on its own merits? AnneMorgan88 (talk) 19:18, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

• Question. AnneMorgan88 notes that NIU is not really a separate name but merely an abbreviation. We use such abbreviations when they constitute the more common usage, e.g., BYU Cougars or USC Trojans. We do not say "Brigham Young University Cougars, branded as BYU Cougars." Why should we treat NIU differently? Is it simply that Northern Illinois is a lesser known entity than BYU or USC? Cbl62 (talk) 19:14, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

Exactly. NIU is not a separate name, it is not a re-branding, it is not an attempt to present itself as something that it is not, it is NOTHING like the University of Louisiana-Lafayette example that keeps getting cited. AnneMorgan88 (talk) 19:23, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

In this case, "Northern Illinois Huskies" is (for now) the COMMONNAME and a move request to NIU Huskies was recently declined. I don't much care if in the body of the article the narrative refers to "NIU Huskies" in some later mentions. Indeed for that reason I don't think that the parenthetical is really even necessary; but if we do have one, then the issue is what adjective we use to describe this other name. JohnInDC (talk) 19:21, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

Got it. I misunderstood. Cbl62 (talk) 20:01, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

AGAIN, this is NOT a "commonname" issue. The article's title is NOT what is being discussed. Why do you deliberately try to deflect from the actual issue being discussed? Do you really think the rest of as are so dim that we can't see your attempts at deception? AnneMorgan88 (talk) 19:25, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

Anne, I've been really patient and indulgent with you but if you insult me again or impugn my motives I'll go back to the admin who blocked you previously for your non-collegial behavior, and ask that you be blocked again. You have got to knock it off. JohnInDC (talk) 19:38, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I agree. While I prefer "is branded as...", I really don't think it's necessary at all; I see it more as a reasonable compromise. But yes, the emphasis on "NIU" over "Northern Illinois" is clearly a branding issue. That's why the school has invested in new logos and uniforms that have "NIU" instead of "Northern Illinois". --JonRidinger (talk) 19:34, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

That's wrong too, but I will give you the benefit of the doubt that you aren't being intentionally deceitful in your statement. NIU's uniforms didn't have "Northern Illinois" on them but instead the more generic (yet still official) "Huskies" if they didn't have the "NIU" that is used exclusively now. AnneMorgan88 (talk) 19:38, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

@JonRidinger:But Jon, there is nothing ""reasonable" about the ""compromise" that you say you see. The "branded as" language does NOT serve the purpose of the parenthetical clause, which is to clarify the issue. Instead it does the opposite and implies that the wrong term being used in the article's title is correct and that the correct and official term is merely a re-branding. That is wrong and therefore using the "branded as" language would be wrong. Using that language is forcing a square peg into a round hole. That "branded as" language was appropriate to clarify the article in which is was used, but that does not pertain to this specific article. To suggest that language, in this article, is utterly illogical. AnneMorgan88 (talk) 19:42, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

You're right, which is why I actually prefer nothing be used. It's more than clear for the reader as it originally read with the title of the article. No need for "officially known as" any more than we need to do that for any other university athletic team like BYU or USC. If I'm not going to say "officially known as the Kent State University Golden Flashes" there's no need to say it here. But seriously, time to move on. This is wasting enormous amounts of time and effort for a silly branding preference and *one* editor's insistence. And yes, it's STILL a branding issue. --JonRidinger (talk) 19:51, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

But the big difference there is that there is NO NEED to do that for BYU and USC because those articles don't have a wrong term forced upon the title of their article. AnneMorgan88 (talk) 19:53, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) "Northern Illinois" is not a "wrong term" being "forced" on the article. It's a common name the school itself has used for several decades (on some uniforms up until at least 2016...still on the header for the official website, "The Official Website of Northern Illinois Athletics"), which has now fallen out of favor based on the current branding campaign. You talk about others being deceitful... --JonRidinger (talk) 20:02, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

And I agree, time to move on. As I mentioned above a long time ago, there is no issue here. The article is correct as it's currently written. No changes required. AnneMorgan88 (talk) 19:55, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Cool, I ask for a TLDR and I get another wall of circular and irrelevant arguments. Not worth my time. Lizard (talk) 19:35, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

The WP:BOLD new claim in the WP:LEAD that Northern Illinois University athletic teams are "officially the NIU Huskies" does not appear to be supported by the existing citation and therefore should be removed per WP:V.

Specifically, offered the citation and location of page 8 clearly undercuts the view that "NIU Huskies" is uniquely an 'official' name by commingling and itemizing multiple registered and trademarked terms:

• Northern Illinois University®
• NIU®
• Huskies™
• Northern Illinois University Huskies™
• NIU Huskies™

Any further discussion focused on the school's purported view is currently moot, absent clarity of the school's view. UW Dawgs (talk) 19:59, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

Again, STOP MISQUOTING ME. I never stated that "NIU Huskies" is uniquely an 'official' name" anywhere. The OFFICIAL name of the Northern Illinois University athletic teams are the NIU Huskies, Northern Illinois University Huskies, and Huskies, and that is what I have stated TIME AND TIME AGAIN. Also, if you bothered to read the discussion you would see that. The language is CORRECT as currently written or can include "(officially the NIU Huskies, Northern Illinois University Huskies, or Huskies)" AS HAS BEEN SUGGESTED ABOVE, if you bothered to ACTUALLY read the discussion. Do not come in here late and WITHOUT READING the discussion and throw out wrong and baseless accusations. AnneMorgan88 (talk) 20:06, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

Please quote directly from page 8 of your citation the text which establishes "officially the NIU Huskies." Otherwise this remains prohibited WP:OR and should be removed. UW Dawgs (talk) 20:18, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

As mentioned by @Cbl62: why is NIU being treated differently? The PRECEDENT has been set by Wikipedia that clarifying language in a parenthetical like this is being used in other articles. But taken out here WITHOUT any justification. Not to mention that fact that NIU needs this language to begin with when (as has been pointed out) BYU and USC do not. AGAIN, why are NIU articles being TARGETED and treated differently? AnneMorgan88 (talk) 20:14, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

They're coming out because the claim made by them ("officially the NIU Huskies") is not supported by the source you cite or any other that has been identified; and, the precedents which you say warrant the footnote both describe 'branding" efforts, which language you can't abide. I think that's why. JohnInDC (talk) 20:16, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

THIS IS THE OFFICIAL DISCUSSION for the parenthetical clause issue. I DO NOT appreciate the CONTINUED efforts to undermine the discussion, the latest being a FALSE CHOICE created in a different section. DISCUSS AND COMMENT HERE. AnneMorgan88 (talk) 20:22, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

KEEP: I am for keeping the language as is as it serves the PURPOSE of the parenthetical and clarifies the issue at hand. AnneMorgan88 (talk) 20:22, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

Interestingly, not only does the example of Louisiana–Lafayette Ragin' Cajuns use the language of "branding", but the parenthetical appears only on the main athletic page and none of the subordinate ones - see by way of example, Louisiana–Lafayette Ragin' Cajuns football, Louisiana–Lafayette Ragin' Cajuns men's basketball, Louisiana–Lafayette Ragin' Cajuns baseball, Louisiana–Lafayette Ragin' Cajuns women's basketball. So if we're going to go with what's been done before, we'd add a parenthetical to one page (this one), leave the others alone, and refrain from describing something as "official" in the absence of any source to that effect. JohnInDC (talk) 20:38, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

The University of Louisiana–Lafayette uses "branding" because that's what THEY ARE DOING. That is NOT the case with NIU. The current language is correct. AnneMorgan88 (talk) 20:41, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

NIU is using branding too. Style preferences or branding; it's the same thing. That's why they shifted from using "Northern Illinois" to "NIU" in their athletic logo, athletic uniforms, university logo, and style guide. Schools do that regularly (Ohio University, for instance, wants the school name to always be "OHIO" in all caps). Louisiana-Lafayette's branding effort is similar to NIU in that it is seeking for a more national, less regional perception, similar to how the University at Buffalo tried to emphasize "New York" in their full name for a few years. --JonRidinger (talk) 20:52, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

Parenthetical addition to Northern Illinois athletics articles - state your preference

With the threat of an edit war now looming, and talk going in circles, it’s time to identify a consensus and move on. The broad options –

1. “Official” parenthetical: “The Northern Illinois Huskies men's soccer (officially NIU Huskies men's soccer or Northern Illinois University Huskies men's soccer) team is the college soccer team ...”

2. “Other” parenthetical: “The Northern Illinois Huskies men's soccer team (branded as / abbreviated as / also known as NIU Huskies men's soccer) is the college soccer team …”

3. No parenthetical: “The Northern Illinois Huskies men's soccer team is the college soccer team …”

State your preference, and please, try to keep it neat and clean here by not rehashing all that we've already been through above.

Me - I prefer 3, could live with 2 (any of the three options), believe 1 is incorrect. JohnInDC (talk) 20:12, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

OPTION 3 is NOT an option, there is PRECEDENT set by Wikipedia. If this gets completely taken out I will make a "Federal case" out of it. AnneMorgan88 (talk) 20:16, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

As mentioned by @Cbl62: why is NIU being treated differently? The PRECEDENT has been set by Wikipedia that clarifying language in a parenthetical like this is being used in other articles. But taken out here WITHOUT any justification. Not to mention that fact that NIU needs this language to begin with when (as has been pointed out) BYU and USC do not. AGAIN, why are NIU articles being TARGETED and treated differently? AnneMorgan88 (talk) 20:14, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

• #3. The source says nothing about specifics for individual sports, and simply offers "NIU Huskies" as one of the preferred overall name options. Nowhere does it state the teams are "officially known as...". Never mind the university name is listed either in the same sentence or right after. --JonRidinger (talk) 20:18, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
• Option 3 per both John and Jon, though I'd favor option 2 as well. I'd accept option 1, but that isn't the official name, just a brand name. Plus, it doesn't help one editor is trying to take ownership of the articles and being uncivil. The yelling needs to stop, as well.Corkythehornetfan (ping me) 20:27, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
• Option 3 as any lang change currently fails WP:V. UW Dawgs (talk) 20:31, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
• Option 3 This has come up before from this editor. The news still reports them as WP:COMMONNAME "Northern Illinois" (see espn.com standings for one of many examples - Northern Illinois' own conference also list them as such in the official standings). Generally, the press has adopted Little Rock as the default COMMONNAME, this hasn't yet happened with Northern Illinois. As an aside, an admin should probably moderate this discussion as this user doesn't have a history of listening to alternative opinions on this subject. Rikster2 (talk) 21:01, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

AGAIN with the Fallacies. Nice FALSE CHOICE. The #1 OPTION: Is LEAVE AS IS, as it is CORRECT and appropriate as it is currently written. AnneMorgan88 (talk) 20:19, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

THE OFFICIAL DISCUSSION for the parenthetical clause issue is taking place in the Section above. DISCUSS AND COMMENT THERE. Thank you. AnneMorgan88 (talk) 20:23, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

• Option 3 - It is clearer, and in keeping with WP:COMMONNAME. This appears to be the core of the issue, and readability and name recognition are important to our readers. Scr★pIron^IV 20:35, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
• Option 2, preferably "(also known as the NIU Huskies)". As the program has clearly branded itself as being the NIU Huskies, it seems kind of ridiculous to suppress this alternate, verifiable formulation. Cbl62 (talk) 21:00, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment I could live with that, but only on the main Northern Illinois Huskies page. The rest of the pages don't need that explanation. We can reasonably assume most readers will notice the school is abbreviated "NIU" and that the current logo uses "NIU". --JonRidinger (talk) 23:17, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment Yeah, me too. While NIU isn't quite the COMMONNAME yet, it's hardly unknown and there's little harm in offering it up as an aka on the main page, kind of like at Ragin' Cajuns above. JohnInDC (talk) 00:41, 8 June 2017 (UTC)