Talk:University of South Carolina/Archive 1

Archive 1

Main Campus vs. System

My recent edits were intended to include all eight campuses under one banner, the University of South Carolina. Noboby in South Carolina treats the campuses separately. Any reference to "the System" should be deleted because the University does not refer to itself that way. I disagree with the assessment that the USC article should be more specifically geared towards the Columbia campus and the USC System article should be about other campuses. The section currently titled "Campus" could easily be changed to "Columbia Campus." None of the other campuses consider themselves as anything but Gamecocks, and each should be respected as integral parts of the entire University of South Carolina. Please see [1] for how USC tallys its enrollment. It certainly appears that the University brings all campuses under one banner. That banner should be the University of South Carolina. 69.164.62.134 06:45, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

I'm not quite sure from what you draw the conclusion that no one in the state considers the campuses separately. When people refer to USC they are referring to the Columbia campus, not to the entire system. Regional/satellite campuses are referred to separately, such as USC:A for USC Aiken or USC Upstate for the upstate campus. The regional campuses are not only qualified in speech, but also in designation on the main campus website (sc.edu) and each has it's own distinct site. Furthermore, the athletic teams are by campus and just a few weeks ago USC:A played USC in basketball in an exibition game. See the U of M dispute and vote (mentioned above on the talk page) for a similar dispute which concluded in favor of the continued reference of the primary campus (College Park in U of M's case). USC is not SUNY nor UC, and without qualification it is nearly universally interpreted to indicate the Columbia campus, which is why the USC System page exists in the first place. 65.188.32.4 07:06, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

The regional campuses are subdivisions of the University of South Carolina. There is no mention of "the System" in the state budget or the university statistics. "The System" is a misnomer. Of course people refer to the regional campuses by geographic name, but that does not mean that they are treated separately. Your argument for separate treatment based on multiple athletic teams is not sufficient. All of the campuses come under the administration of the current president, Andrew Sorensen. If they were truly separate, then each would be under the direction of separate president(s). For this reason along with my reasons stated previously, I maintain that "Regional Campuses" as a section in the USC article is more accurate. A separate article called the "USC System" does not make any sense, especially since nobody calls it "the System." 69.164.62.134 02:13, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Then start a vote to have the current article moved to University of South Carolina Columbia, since a single article covering each campus individually is excessive and confusing. However, the current article is about the Columbia campus (just as Michigan's is about the Ann Arbor campus) persuant to Wikipedia naming conventions. In common usage, people understand USC to imply the Columbia campus, especially so outside of the state (and even within the state it's quite nearly entirely true). I wasn't attempting to justify the current situation on the basis of collegiate sports, merely I used them as an example of how aside from administrative issues the campuses are mostly autonomous and, by convention, entire state systems are split into articles for the individual campuses in situations such as this. 65.188.32.4 03:29, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

I may be inclined to do that under one condition: that the USC System article have the word "System" deleted. Re-titling the System article to simply the "University of South Carolina" would allow it to serve as the one true receptacle of big picture stats and history of the entire University. It would not necessarily result in something excessive or confusing. The intent and audience are clear. It would be one article for all campuses. 69.164.62.134 08:52, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

That's your call. However, the current article is about the Columbia campus and not about the entire system. Rather than editing this article to be about something else, you need to start a vote to have the current article moved so-as not to not harm the current article. I'm not about to start such a vote since I believe in the current system, though I wouldn't mind a message at the top mentioning (and linking) the regional campuses. 65.188.32.4 17:26, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

The current USC article would need to be re-titled "USC Columbia" in order for the System article to be re-titled as USC. I don't see that happening due to the survey comment above stating that no changes would be made since no consensus could be reached. Why bother making edits when the work gets changed back to the prior version? 69.164.62.134 20:12, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

The vote would entail renaming the current article USC Columbia, yes, just like the USCA article is titled USC Aiken, etc. The point of referencing that vote was that it has been decided that in situations such as this where the primary campus is overwhelmingly the single thing referred to by "University of..." that the article named such should be about it. The USC system article could probably stand to be renamed, such as to something along the lines of "University of South Carolina (system)." In any event, the system article -- regardless of title -- could use some TLC and your edits would be quite useful over there. 65.188.32.4 21:01, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

On one hand you say that the USC article is about the Columbia campus, but on the other hand you say that a vote may or may not indicate what the USC article should be about. Why should I work on the System article (or any article) when nobody can agree on what the articles should be about? I don't understand the pleasure (if any) that may be derived from writing something only to find that it's been deleted later. What's the point of Wikipedia if there's no consensus and no final product? All of this seems like a big waste of time. 69.164.62.134 10:43, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Any work you do on the system article that's about the system will remain, the vote only determines what points where. If the vote determines that the main USC article should be about the system, the system page would be renamed and the current article moved to USC Columbia (or something similar). This way, none of your work is removed and is why I suggested you go this route in the first place (so that your work wouldn't be lost). 65.188.32.4 21:28, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

My previous comment referred to article(s) in the plural. It seems futile to work on any article when there's no consensus on anything written on Wikipedia. In other words, there's no guarantee that my writing would not be edited no matter what article I write. However, having said that, I may still contribute to the System article if only to show total enrollment stats for the entire University. It will have to wait though until I'm completely bored. 69.164.62.134 00:49, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Mascot

The University of South Carolina's mascot is a Gamecock. "Cocky" is the actually proper name of the guy who jumps around in the suit at football games. Please do not change again.

No, the athletic teams are known as the Gamecocks. The actual name of the mascot is Cocky, which is why the university has trademarked the name [2] [3] [4]. Cocky appears at more events than simply football games, and has been won national mascot of the year (in 1986, 1994, and 2004). So please stop changing it back to "Gamecock."

Looking at some of the other school articles, it looks like Mascot would appropriately be Cocky, and Gamecocks would best be described under "Nickname". Ëvilphoenix ^Burn! 23:38, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

YOU ARE WRONG. Look at every other college in the SEC. The University of Georgia's mascot is the "Bulldogs", not UGA (which is the bulldogs's name). If you are hellbent on keeping Cocky, then the heading should be changed to nickname.

The university has stated that Cocky is the name of the mascot (see my citations) and that the nickname of the athletic teams is the Gamecocks. I fail to see why the free label should be changed. As for "all the schools in the SEC", you didn't mention UT which has the distinction between "the Vols" and "Smokey" made explicit. UGA's mascot is Uga while their nickname is the Bulldogs. Uga is probably the best known mascot in college sports. A mascot is a singular thing, and USC has named their gamecock mascot "Cocky." Calling the mascot simply "Gamecock" is like calling the President simply "person."

A historical query for y'all Cocks

My research while loading historical poop onto the ClemsonWiki project's Clemson History by Year has taught me that the Gamecock mascot name was first used in 1902. My question to you is : What did USC call itself before adopting the Gamecock name? I don't have sources that can inform me, and the official University of South Carolina website does not get into that kind of arcane detail.

Anyone?

Mark Sublette 19:30, 15 April 2006 (UTC)Mark SubletteMark Sublette 19:30, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

They were called by several names, including the Jaguars and the College Boys.

Mascot is a dual use word, as it means both the overall school emblem and a costumed character. I would suggest using the term "Team Mascot" to denote Cocky. RoyBatty42 23:22, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Just wondering but if Georgia's nickname is the Bulldogs and their mascot is Uga, what does that make Hairy Dawg? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.252.30.121 (talk) 23:18, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

protection

The edits from anons have been getting a little hairy lately, so I'm protecting the page temporarily. This can be unprotected by someone within a few hours if I haven't gotten to it yet. In the meantime, to our anonymous editors, let's cool off a bit and work to keep it civil. We can discuss facts in articles, but this is not the place for opinions or disparaging comments about either Clemson or Carolina. Ëvilphoenix ^Burn! 04:38, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

Clemson Bias

Why do Wikipedia editors allow (or even support in the case of Evilphoenix) the Clemson bias that continues to appear in the Athletics section for the University of South Carolina? When the same type of comments are placed on the Clemson University article, they are deleted. This practice does not seem fair. Since Evilphoenix attended Clemson, perhaps he should be stripped of his editor/admin duties as far as the articles on these two schools are concerned.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.164.62.134 (talk • contribs) 00:47, November 28, 2005

69.164.62.134, thank you for your comments and for opening a discussion on the article content. Personally, I'm trying not to maintain a bias, but to protect both the USC and Clemson articles from vandalism and POV editing. I'm not using my administrative powers on these articles (with the exception of briefly protecting the USC article after a particularly mean spirited vandal posted on the page several times), and I'm not intentionally pushing a bias for or against Clemson or USC. 69.164.62.134, First I would like to welcome you to Wikipedia and invite you to sign up for a user account, that way other editors can have a better sense of who they are discussing the article with, rather than a series of unknown IP's. Now, I did attend Clemson, it's true, but what I am interested in seeing added to these articles are facts. For example, If USC had won the recent football game, I would be perfectly happy to have a sentence declaring that in the USC article, nor would I remove such a sentence from the Clemson article. Another thing I would like to see is citation and evidence provided for any facts added to the article. For example, it's ok for the article to say that Clemson or USC holds the all time lead in a particular sporting series, it's better to say exactly what the record is, and it's ideal if there is a citation to a source (such as a website) that says what the actual record is. In short, I am looking for facts, and facts backed up with evidence. Such things I will be much less likely to delete. However, POV comments either highly praising or condemning either Clemson or USC, I will not allow. 69.164.62.134, if you have specific questions about any edits in particular I have made to either article, I would be happy to discuss them with you, and any other changes to the article. Best regards, Ëvilphoenix ^Burn! 03:38, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Note core Wikipedic documents such as Wikipedia:Verifiability, Wikipedia:Neutral point of view and Wikipedia:No original research combine to say that Wikipedia is after tertiary reporting of sterile facts that others have also reported. Providing commentary on the outcome of a sports match is a personal opinion that is the domain of a news report rather than an encyclopedia. The writing of a Wikipedia article should not require the author to carry out any interpretation of his/her sources since they should be reporting other people's interpretation of them and citing from where they are taking those interpretations. Preferably, we would avoid any need for interprtation at all in the outcome of sports events since the raw, numerical facts are all that our readers require: they can form opinions for themselves. When describing a place, person, situation, etc. I usually go back through my writing and see if I can strip out all the adjectives, or at least limit them to the most uninspiring ones available. That way, I'm not having to think of ways to describe the subject for myself, and I leave it to the readers of my work to do that for themselves. -Splash^talk 13:44, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Copyrighted material

69.164.62.134 (talk · contribs) recently added several large sections of text. This edit contains copyrighted material from [5], and This edit is a copyright violation of [6]. Unfortunately, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted material, and I have deleted the material from the article. However, the sites you used would make excellent reference sources. The best thing to do would be to include the information from these sites, but to re-word them so that they are not simply a copy and paste from the sites in question. Best regards, Ëvilphoenix ^Burn! 19:15, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Please change the edits back to my version. The information in the introduction was verified and edited by me and should not be considered copyrighted because it is my contribution to Wikipedia. As for the historical info, credit was given to the source at the end of that section; hence it is not plagiarism when the source for the copyrighted material is cited.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.164.62.134 (talk • contribs) 19:56, November 28, 2005

Please review Wikipedia:Copyrights - Contributors' rights and obligations and also feel free to check out Wikipedia:Copyright problems. The material you added was a copy and paste from copyrighted sources. Though you cited the source, that does not remove the copyright issue, and copyrighted material cannot be accepted, even if the source is cited. I will not change the edits back to your version, and I encourage you not to do so either. As I said before, you've found some good sources, but you can't just copy the text in. Also, you can sign your posts to Talk pages by typing four tildes, ~~~~ , like so. Ëvilphoenix ^Burn! 20:46, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Thank you for clarifying that Wikipedia is not a "work in progress" afterall. The material that you had a problem with was pasted in and then edited by me. In other words, it was not an exact copy, but the source was cited until it could be substantially edited. Others would have edited it again and again, as is the case for everything else on Wikipedia. However, your position on this matter indicates that it must be in perfectly uncopyrighted form in order to pass your scrutiny. The "fair use" doctrine of copyright law allows for large segments of copyrighted material to be used in another document as long as the copyrighted material is not used in the new document to supercede the source. This matter would be considered fair use. The copyrighted material was cited, it was only part of the article, and the editing had only just begun. I have to wonder if you would have even brought up the copyright question if I had not cited the source. My guess (based on recent experience) is that you would have simply deleted it without any explanation. As it is, most people will not visit Wikipedia for authoritative info. My "excellent source" will be visited more often by people who are looking for facts about USC. Considering that you admit to lifting material for the Clemson article, I find you to be unqualified to serve as a Wikipedia editor. Your hypocrisy and Clemson bias discourage competent contributions, and I'm beginning to lose interest in Wikipedia as a result. Word-of-mouth can be a bad thing. Good luck in improving your so-called articles. 69.164.62.134 05:15, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for signing your post. Did you bother reading my comments over at the Clemson Talk page? I mentioned there that I myself did not add the copyrighted material, so you claim that I admitted lifting material for the Clemson article is innaccurate. Again, see my comments there if you want to discuss what's in the Clemson article. While you may have slightly changed the wording on the material you added, if I can Google a phrase from the material and find the source, it's not different enough. That's pretty much how all copyvios from the Internet are located. Fair use tends to apply more to images on here than otherwise, and I dispute your claim that using that text constitutes fair use, but I'm personally not terribly familiar with fair use policies, though I'd be more than happy to try and locate someone more familiar with that (but I'd prefer if you go ahead and grab a user account if I'm going to try and spend that effort, just to say). However, yes, I generally revert copyright violations that I discover, on any article, anytime, and you've inspired me to haul off and finally lop off that section from the Clemson article as it was originally a copyvio. I would not have deleted your edits without explanation, I would have deleted it pretty much as I did, with an explanation in my edit summary of why the section was deleted, and I probably would have placed the links to the material source in those edit summaries instead of the Talk page. But I would have explained why. I knew there was a potential copyright issue just looking at the edit, without even noticing that you'd mentioned a source, simply because large unwikified additions of text are usually copyright violations. If I'd Google tested it, and not found anything, I would have kept it in, but it is a copyright issue and therefore I have to remove it. I frequently use the {{Nothanks-sd}} template on Talk pages of users who upload copyrighted material, but you, however, have been quite active on the Talk pages, which is not a bad thing, so I felt it would be best to explain to you what I was doing and why. I'm sorry to hear you're getting discouraged with the Wiki, I believe you're capable of quality contribution, but you also don't have a good grasp of our rules and policies yet. I'm trying to be polite and discuss things with you, but I will enforce copyright policy on Wikipedia as I understand it, and my understanding of it at present is that the edits you made were in fact copyright violations. Ëvilphoenix ^Burn! 07:31, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

See derivative work. In editing someone elses work, such as is being claimed above, you (Wikipedia) can only maintain a copyright in the edits themselves. The copyright in the remainder of the text remains with the original author. Thus, the use of their copyrighted work here without their permission is copyright infringement. There is no possibility of a fair-use claim since that demands, among other things, that we use as little as possible of the copyrighted work and that it is being used solely for comment or criticism on the text and that the source is credited. From Wikipedia's perspective, this usually means that it's ok to extract quotes from interviews being commented on but it is unequivocally not ok to copy-paste large portions of a website. You absolutely must write your own, original work before submitting it here. -Splash^talk 13:44, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

(post-edit conflict) There is some information in the copyvio material that could possibly stand to be incorporated in the article somehow:

• • • main campus + two senior campuses and five regional campuses
    • over 37,800 students enrolled total (is this already in there and I just missed it?)
    • perhaps add the rankings and achievements link to external links
    • the current history adequately covers everything in the copyvio material, although maybe a couple of other things could be added
      • first state-supported college to earn regional accreditation?
      • desegregation in 1963

I didn't go through the whole thing in detail, nor am I acquainted at all with the subject matter, but this is just what I saw. (I'll be unavailable for further comment most likely for the rest of the day, so cheers!) Hermione1980 13:45, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

To weigh in on this issue (and despite our similarities in name, I assure you that we are not the same person), fair use on Wikipedia only applies to images, as Evilphoenix said. Because it is so easy to state text "in your own words" fair use is never allowed as text. There are too many technical problems that are encountered if copyrighted text were used as part of textual content that aren't seen with fair use images. For instance, if Wikipedia were to go v1.0 and be completely free and open source, all the non-GFDL or non-CC material has to be removed to be sure we don't break copyright laws. This includes images that are explicitly given permission to use as long as we don't make a profit from its use. Images that are still copyrighted (including fair use images) can easily be removed when exporting Wikipedia content to other formats. Copyrighted textual content is impossible to find and remove, especially if the text has been edited. Overwhelming consensus is that it is much, much easier to simply write new content entirely in your own words than it is to use copyrighted material and try to edit it. Edited copyright material is still copyrighted material. --Deathphoenix 13:55, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

I suppose the exception to my last sentence is if the copyrighted material has been so heavily edited that it would no longer qualify. The copyrighted version might still have to be removed from article history if an external organisation threatens legal action, however. --Deathphoenix 14:10, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Wow, I have to say that I am impressed. I'm particularly impressed with the restrained response of Evilphoenix. Considering my provocative criticism of him, it would not have surprised me if he banned me (at least the IP address) from Wiki. It is a pleasant surprise that such censorship or any sort of censorship is not the purpose behind your edits. The gist of what I'm hearing from each of you seems to be more of a conservative approach to avoid litigation as opposed to actual outright decisions as to what is fair use and what is not. Although a good argument could be made for fair use in my example, I appreciate the thought that went into each of your responses. I am encouraged to review your rules and policies and look forward to more engaging conversations. 69.164.62.134 01:47, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

You haven't done anything that really approaches calling for a block. Discussing things on Talk pages is how we operate, so the fact that you've been willing to discuss things on the Talk page is a good thing. I also appreciate that you didn't re-place the material I had to remove because of copyright issues, and instead have been discussing it here, which was an appropriate response on your part. Neither I nor anyone else here is interested in censorship, the material in question is simply an issue of copyright provenance, not whether or not the information should be in the article. Again, I would like to welcome you to the encyclopedia, and encourage you again to consider signing up for an account. I'm going to place a message on your Talk page that will have some more information about accounts on Wikipedia. Best regards, Ëvilphoenix ^Burn! 02:42, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps I should clarify what I was trying to say, as we all know the written word is the most difficult form of communication. My argument for fair use would be that a "cut and paste" edited over and over would eventually become something different and unique from the original source. However, it is clear after a quick review of your links to Wiki rules that a "cut and paste then edit" does not work in this environment. Since the "cut and paste" immediately goes out around the world on the internet before a good editing session takes place, the material would not immediately comport to the "free software" concept. I apologize for not thinking this thru. My intention was to simply give USC a better and more fair article. I stumbled onto the article when surfing up Carolina/Clemson sports trivia and was appalled by the Clemson bias. It infuriated me, and, unfortunately for Evilphoenix, I noticed that my edits were being deleted by a Clemson student. This was my first experience with Wiki. Not the best of circumstances either considering all the crap Clemson fans tend to dish out this time of year. Anyway, this "copyleft" concept is new to me. I intend to study the GFDL. In the meantime, I hope y'all don't mind if I clean up the USC enrollment stats. 69.164.62.134 03:02, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

In case you didn't notice it above, read Splash's comment. Copy-paste-then-edit is creating a derivative work, something which is very clearly stated in copyright law (sampling in music is quite similar) and while you can edit it as much as you like, until it is entirely your own work (save fair use of things such as numbers, facts, and short citations) it is a copyvio. You're violating copyright and trying to work your way back, which is illegal (and the point). In all, it's much easier to just start from scratch, even if it means more work in the short-term. 65.188.32.4 07:15, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

In case you didn't notice, my previous comment acknowledged that a "cut and paste then edit" does not work in this environment. However, "working your way back" in and of itself is not illegal and is not necessarily a derivative work. It is the publication of copyrighted material without the author's permission via this website (or any other medium) that makes it illegal, although the fair use doctrine allows for some exceptions. My mistake originally was thinking that the mass editing of a cut and paste on this website would be more instantaneous than it actually is. It was silly to think that this site would get the kind of traffic that would suddenly rip apart a cut and paste to create a totally unique document. In my brief experience on Wikipedia, it is also clear that it takes a long time for any edit to stick (e.g., my recent edits of simple enrollment data). Frankly, I don't understand the pleasure (if any) that you editors get out of going back and forth and checking on edits each day. Creating something on my own outside of this website seems more fun. 69.164.62.134 02:14, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

No, it is illegal as it is an unlicensed derivative work. The Wikipedia article on Derivative works includes the citation of the US code which explains very clearly that a derivative work is, among other things, "abridgment, condensation, or any other form in which a [previously protected work] may be recast, transformed, or adapted." Your inclusion and subsequent revision of copyrighted material taken from the USC site and then published violated copyright law. Fair use is something which you don't seem to understand. You're trying to argue that by slowly "transforming" a copyrighted work by first infringing copyright that it's somehow legal. 65.188.32.4 03:20, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

No, I admitted it was a violation several responses ago. The fair use doctrine does not work in this environment. How many times do I have to say that? I've given up on the idea (as fleeting as it was) that this website gets enough traffic or is even capable of ravenously editing materials. Wikipedia does not function as quickly as originally thought. It's wayyy slowwer than than sugggesteddd. 69.164.62.134 08:57, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Uncited material

There's a fair bit of uncited material in this article, and it is my intention to work to improve that. Soon, I will be working on removing uncited material and searching for citations for said material. By Wikipedia:Verifiability, "Information on Wikipedia must be reliable. Facts, viewpoints, theories, and arguments may only be included in articles if they have already been published by reliable and reputable sources. Articles should cite these sources whenever possible. Any unsourced material may be challenged and removed." Please contribute by working to provide citations for material in this article. I will also be working on Clemson University and Furman University soon as well. Thank you. Ëvilphoenix ^Burn! 15:19, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

It seems counterproductive to remove material and then search for citations when you could easily verify the material by going to the University of South Carolina website. Is there a more reliable, reputable, and published source? What material bothers you so much? None of it appears to be a copyright violation... There is a lot of controversial and uncited material (e.g., religion articles) that remains on wikipedia, but you want to pick on an article that contains basic info about a university. That seems like a waste of time and is a slap in the face of those people who have worked on this article. Perhaps your being a Clemson fan has something to do with such backwardness. Please peruse the university's website and then challenge specific material before removing it. Thank you. 24.211.52.204 12:50, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

The fact that there are a lot of articles on Wikipedia that are not well cited does not mean they should stay that way, nor does it mean that I have any intention of letting this article stay in bad shape. Check out J.K. Rowling, where I've been doing a lot of work getting citations put together. That's what I'm looking for to happen with this article. I plan to remove it because I don't like uncited material to remain in an article I'm actively working on, or in general. I think its best to make the live page as well cited as possible, initially by means of removing the uncited content first. Ëvilphoenix ^Burn! 23:41, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm not quite sure why an anonymous user cares so much, but there is a lot of useless information on both the Clemson University and the University of South Carolina pages. EvilPhoenix has no doubt contributed much more than you have, and therefore I would think he would be much less biased than someone who would make the statement "Perhaps you being a Clemson fan has something to do with such backwardness." Register and contribute. --PabloMartinez 13:03, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

It's not a matter of how much someone has contributed. That's a lame argument. Being a Clemson fan has everything to do with being too biased to contribute to the USC article. I've noticed that the evil one is very quick to change things in the USC article but doesn't treat the Clemson article the same way. It's a matter of fairness. That's why I care. 24.211.52.204 13:20, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Just because you're a fan doesn't mean you're going to be biased in your editing. I can assume that you're a South Carolina fan... Can I assume you're going to be biased in the other direction? Keep contributing and it will help.--PabloMartinez 15:26, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I made the exact same notice on the Clemson article, and if I remove uncited material from this one, I'm going to remove uncited material from the other one. As far as what I allow in either article, if you feel something is discussed in the one that is not represented in the other, by all means, let's discuss that here. If you feel something is not discussed in the one or the other, also feel free to point that out. There are plenty of anons who come wandering in here adding random stupid unthought out cruft praising their school or criticising the other than sometimes it's hard to make sure both articles are completely the same in their representation of the actual facts. I appreciate your intimation that my having attended graduate school at Clemson would somehow cause me to be backwards, despite the intelligence, hard working, articulate nature of the overwhelming majority of the students I met there (not that I didn't hear a few hicks wandering around, but I've met more than a share of those in Columbia, where I lived for twenty years as is) and the fact that my alma mater is actually Furman University, which is no shabby place to go to college. But please, let's not be petty. I'm interested in having facts in the articles, and having said facts be sourced and cited. I maintain both of these articles and a fair number of others because I care about things in South Carolina. I'm not here to make the one school look better or not. The fact is not many people in Clemson really care about Carolina...not the way people in Columbia care about Clemson anyway. Growing up in Columbia, I used to think the football rivalry was this big huge deal, until I moved to Clemson. Then I learned about how Clemson totally dominates the overall football record and nobody recalls the last time Carolina actually won a football game up there, and well yeah. It's just not that big a deal to us. Ooops I got petty......tee hee.

But seriously, I'm interested in neutrality and factual accuracy for both articles. If you think something could improve that, by all means let me know. Ëvilphoenix ^Burn! 23:41, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

My mentioning Clemson was not meant as a derogatory reference to the intelligence of Clemson students, but rather an indication of possible bias. As further clarification, it seems backwards to me for you to suggest the removal of material before attempting to verify it. Challenging the material in this forum should be the first step, right? Also, I made no reference to football. Any rivalry between the football teams is a matter for the athletes and none of my concern. My concern is fairness, as I already indicated and you seemingly don't want to recognize. Your saying that "not many people in Clemson really care about Carolina" is not supported by the inordinate amount of Clemson boasts posted on the USC article, at least in comparison to what Carolina fans may or may not be placing in the Clemson article. It's small-minded to place so much emphasis on football, especially since both schools represent the state very well in so many areas. The State of South Carolina is fortunate to have both schools, and I would like to see both articles treated with the respect that they deserve. As for your reference to what you will "allow in either article," I take that to mean that you have been approved in some way as the official patrolman for South Carolina articles. As such, one would think that you could refrain from your self-admitted petty talk and focus on improving these articles instead of removing material and starting from scratch. 24.211.52.204 14:00, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

It's not about starting from scratch, it's about not having uncited material in the article. Uncited = bad. Period. I don't want uncited material in the article. So I remove it first, then add it back in if it has citation. It's easier and more productive than waiting around for someone to add citations on their own, because that's just simply unlikely. Creating a seperate archive for material removed allows for the possibility of keeping track of what remains to be cited. For example, I've got most of the stuff taken care of in J. K. Rowling, now I'm (slowly) going through the stuff that's still remaining in the Uncited archive and trying to locate citations for it. I agree that challenging the material in this forum should be the first step, I was criticised heavily by other editors of J. K. Rowling for not discussing removing uncited material on the Talk page first, so that is why I have posted this notice. I am challenging the material. If there's a factual assertion in this article of any kind without citation, I hereby challenge it, and request the assistance of any other editors here to help me locate citations for the material, in order to improve this article to a higher level of quality. As far as my reference to what I "will allow", I do consider myself to be patrolling these articles, in my role as a Wikipedia editor. I will not allow vandalism in these articles. I will not allow comments dispariging USC in the Clemson article, comments dispariging Clemson in the USC article, or comments unjustly praising either school in either article. That's what I mean by that. Also, it would be really helpful to all of us if you'd go ahead and sign up for an account, it makes communication between editors much easier. Thanks, Ëvilphoenix ^Burn! 05:22, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

There are citations throughout the USC article supporting virtually everything in it, so I'm wondering what specific material still needs to be cited. I will be happy to help. Just let me know, and I'll find the cite. Also, I appreciate your comments about vandalism. It's nice to know that someone else cares so much about the great State of South Carolina. 24.211.52.204 13:24, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Carolina-Clemson Rivalry

Nice work on the new citations. Some other klunker came in with a ridiculously large biased discussion of USC's football program, which I accidentally reverted back into the article, but removed once I realized what it actually said. There's been a ton of edits to the page so I'm trying to catch up and clean up from some of the mess that particular person made, so if something good got knocked out, my apologies. Thanks for the good work. Ëvilphoenix ^Burn! 23:39, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

It's strange how some Clemson fans can get so hung up on football, especially since their program isn't that much more successful. They must not have anything else better to do, or they are just flat-out envious that USC is superior in so many other respects... I agree with PabloMartinez in that the win/loss records do not need to be posted (despite some of it being favorable to Carolina). Any detailed discussion of rivalry between the schools should be deleted. Such opinions are superfluous and make the citizens of South Carolina look like a bunch of rednecks. 65.4.89.118 15:53, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

I disagree, I think the article should mention the rivalry, as it's very big in Columbia, and it's an important aspect of the athletic competition between the two schools. I've added the discussion back in with some re-wording to try and make it as neutral as possible. It also seems that there's some citations for it, which is also good, so I'm going to have a look at those soon and see how they check out. What I'm not interested in seeing in the rivalry section or any other section of the article is bias and opinion. There needs to be cited, neutral, facts. Nothing else. You may feel that USC is superior to Clemson in many ways, but you need to recognise that that is an opinion, and that the article needs to not have stuff like that. Best regards, Ëvilphoenix ^Burn! 00:14, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

I feel that the rivalry should be mentioned, but that there is no point to list the series record. I think that if you do, then it can be reasoned that maybe we should include ALL sports scores ever for Carolina. Comthought 00:32, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

That wouldn't really make sense to do, it makes sense if you have a rivalry to talk about the overall record, if nothing else. There's a difference between listing the overall record with an instate rival, to listing the overall records for every school USC has ever played, and an even bigger difference between the former and listing every score from every game ever. It's a summary, that's all. This is the kind of crap that we don't need. Ëvilphoenix ^Burn! 00:43, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Why the argument? It's clear that 65.4.89.118 did not say to delete all references to the rivalry, just "any detailed discussion." Posting win/loss records is discussing in detail, is not important to the overall article, and only results in continuous vandalism by immature Clemson fans (i.e., those who feel envy towards USC or have nothing better to do). In other words, mention the rivalry briefly but keep the opinions out and don't use any minor facts like wins and losses that might incite some (but not all) Clemson fans. 24.211.39.25 09:37, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

I feel the discussion as is is about as summarized as it can be. I still maintain that it's ridiculous to mention the rivalry and not discuss the record. In light of the tremendous effort and attention that both schools give to this rivalry, it should be discussed. To me any discussion of a rivalry is incomplete without a discussion of the record. I dispute that including the record will cause vandalism any more than what already occurs on the article, I think there's a fair amount of vandalism to both schools articles from both USC and Clemson fans. I also can't imagine why Clemson fans would be feeling any envy towards USC, but that's beside the point. Either way, vandalism should be removed, and facts should be kept in, in as neutral a tone as possible.Ëvilphoenix ^Burn! 00:29, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

I say take out the "Most recently on November 19, 2005, USC lost to Clemson 13-9." sentence because that doesn't really add anything else to the article and makes it sound a little more pro-Clemson than is warranted. I think the rest of it is fine. Hermione1980 00:54, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

I say take out all the specific scores and just leave in the "overall series" win-loss records. --Deathphoenix ʕ 04:55, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

The rivalry runs deeper than what happens on the athletic fields. It goes back to Benjamin Tillman, a farmer/politician from Edgefield who talked Thomas Clemson into donating property for an agricultural college because he believed South Carolina College (as it was known then) was elitist and didn't help farmers. That's where the hatred started, but there are many other stories that contribute to the rivalry. Also, the overall series records for only football, basketball, and baseball do not put into proper perspective how competitive all of the other athletic teams have been. So does this mean that we should go digging for those records too? I don't think so. Being the largest in-state schools is the biggest reason for the rivalry, and that fact is already mentioned in the article. Expanding the discussion beyond this distorts the purpose of the athletic section, which (to me) is to show the many accomplishments of the Gamecock athletic teams. Detailed discussion of the rivalry should be left to another article. 24.211.39.25 15:27, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Your statement that the purpose of the athletic section is to show the many accomplishments of the Gamecock athletic teams is unfortunately not quite correct. The purpose of any section, of any article, is to discuss the subject in a neutral, factual way. It is not to extoll the virtues of a subject, nor is it to disparage a subject. It is to present a neutral, balanced, informative discussion. I am going to replace the text again, removing the specific score information as per the suggestions of the above users. I am trying to establish a consensus here, and my feeling is that there is opposition to discussing specific scores but that there should be mention of the overall record. Personally I don't know how the rivalry got started, or anything about how Tillman felt about South Carolina College, but if there were well cited information about that, that too would be appropriate to include in the article. If you feel that including only the football, baseball, and basketball record does not put things into perspective, I would have no problem with adding information for other sports. Perhaps there could be a table of some sorts, maybe that's transcluded to both this article and Clemson's in the Athletic section over there. Perhaps another article would be an appropriate place for detailed discussion, but as it stands now I'm not aware of another article existing where that would be appropriate, and further, I do not feel that discussing the overall record is a detail at all, I think it's inherently important to a summary discussion of the rivalry. Please do not remove the record information again from the article without further discussion from other editors supporting the removal of the overall record. Ëvilphoenix ^Burn! 23:23, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Just wanted to comment on a couple things. Mentioning the overall record in the context of the rivalry seems reasonable to me, but I agree that giving scores of individual games may be too much detail. Also, I agree with Evilphoenix that removing uncited material is appropriate, and if sources are found, it can be put back later. Info on the history of the rivalry seems useful, provided sources can be found. Friday (talk) 00:43, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

The football and baseball records are so lopsided that they do not provide any reason for a rivalry. To insist on including them without any other explanation tends to show a Clemson bias. Since the rivalry goes beyond athletics, it should be explained in another section or article. Until well cited material can be found to do this, the series records should be left out. Otherwise, at a minimum, the records for all athletic competitions with Clemson should be included. Please do not post series records until you can find all of this info. Also, Georgia is another one of Carolina's rivals, so to be "neutral, balanced, [and] informative," you should include the series records with Georgia. However, when you include all of this information in the athletic section, it begs for a separate article because it takes away from the rest of the article. Athletics at USC is only a small part of the university, and all that athletic information will not give the entire article the balance it deserves. 70.60.219.60 15:41, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

So are you saying that there isn't in fact a rivalry? Or just that there shouldn't be a rivalry? I think it's fair to say that there is a rivalry, whether justified or not. I disagree that including them shows a Clemson bias...would we be having this discussion if USC happened to lead the football and baseball series? Numbers are numbers. If Clemson leads the football series, Clemson leads the series. It's a simple fact. The rivalry may go beyond athletics, but we're talking about the Athletics section at the moment. However I am curious, I'd like to understand your opinion as to how the rivalry goes beyond athletics (I would have always termed it an athletic rivalry myself...I for one support USC and Clemson, and I was USC to do well in general just as much as I do Clemson or Furman (my alma mater). I support USC athletically too, I want USC to win just about every game they play in (unless it's against Clemson). Granted, my attitude may not be typical, I don't know, but my question remains...if the rivalry goes beyond athletics, and the article should discuss these other elements as well as athletics if it's going to discuss the athletics, what are these other elements? What else should it say then? As far as the records with Georgia, I'm sure that can be researched as well. Ëvilphoenix ^Burn! 22:58, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree with 65.4.89.118, Comthought, and 70.60.219.60 that the series records do not need to be included when referencing the rivalry. To do so without further detailed discussion of the rivalry is not fair and balanced. Another article or at least another section should be started for this detailed discussion. However, it should not be started with only the football, basketball, and baseball series records. Once again, such info needs to be further developed to fully explain the rivalry. 24.211.39.25 17:54, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

So if further detailed discussion of the rivalry is needed to make it fair and balanced, then the appropriate response is to add whatever information would make it fair and balanced, not take away what information we already have. Further developing requires starting from a certain point, not removing what is there. So, what I would like to ask is, what would the "further detailed discussion of the rivalry" include? What other sports do you think should be included? Football, Baseball, and Basketball are probably the most popular and main sports. I can think of perhaps Women's basketball, and Softball being added to balance out on the gender side. Soccer possibly? I'm interested in suggestions. Further, let's review here that several established editors (myself, Hermione1980, Deathphoenix, Friday, John Kenney) have spoken in favor of keeping the overall record discussion. Comthought and Pablomartinez are the only established users to have removed the information, to my knowledge, and I cant speak for him but I think Pablomartinez's main objection was against listing the outcomes of several games, which have subsequently been removed. The fact is that because you are not an established editor here, but instead edit anonymously, I have no way of knowing that 24.211.39.25, 65.4.89.118, and 70.60.219.60 are not the same person, nor can we tell that they are not themselves Comthought or Pablomartinez. I'm not saying that anything like that is happening, I'm just saying that in terms of establishing a consensus, it's hard to gauge it when you have several anonymous editors participating. Again, it would help if you would sign up for an account. Ëvilphoenix ^Burn! 22:58, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

How on earth is it possibly POV to mention the series records in a discussion of the USC-Clemson rivalry? It is the most basic piece of information about the rivalry. john k 18:19, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

To select only some records and not all, that's how. 70.60.219.60 21:58, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Then let's add the records that would make it less POV, not delete the major sporting records. Ëvilphoenix ^Burn! 22:58, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

--Rivalry thoughts--

Okey-doke, y'all. I've been reading through the above discussion on the old Clemson - Carolina rivalry thing. I say now, right up front, that I am a Wikipedian who attended Clemson, and, as a six-year Tiger Band member and writer and announcer for almost all major student campus publications at the time, I am a loyal Tiger! My blood runs orange in the fall.

That being said, I avow that writing about the rivalry in the general media, as opposed to one of the athletic chat rooms (TigerNet, for instance), requires balance. I try to subscribe to the news writing rules I was taught and keep a copy of Chicago style around just in case. To record history is always a bit of a balancing act, every historian having a take on events, but the more data that is included in one's report always moves it closer to the truth. The more viewpoints a story covers, the more complete.

I personally refer to a veritable library of primary sources about Clemson University history that I have collected over a lifetime to provide copy for the Clemson History by Year section of the ClemsonWiki project where I work as C. Mark Sublette, and have provided certain items to main side Wiki coverage of the school where I am simply Mark Sublette. I am so willing to take credit for what I contribute to these projects, that I use my real name, not a "handle".

Factual, documentable, material is what we should have here. The records will speak for themselves, presented in a straight-forward manner. A certain amount of pride and loyalty is acceptable, in my view, (what would sports writing be without enthusiasm?), but out and out cheerleading should be left to the pep squad at the rally - it stops being balanced history and reverts to chest-thumping. And taunting is right out. The anonymous entry on the ClemsonWiki describing a Gamecock as a sad and pathetic creature, or some words to that effect, that was taken down last week, was probably let go unvanquished too long. I probably should have stricken it myself, but it was not on a heavily accessed section of the site and I didn't run across it much. I shall be on the look-out for any other such jingoistic-type entries. They don't belong here.

Re: the comment above about Uga VI being the best known college mascot - I would bet that the fans in Texas would say that Bevo, their long-horn steer, is just as well known...

Respectfully,

Mark Sublette 19:13, 15 April 2006 (UTC)Mark SubletteMark Sublette 19:13, 15 April 2006 (UTC) Falls Church, Virginia

1 April 2006 (No April Fools, though)

Another thought (post script) - - -

As to the presence of all records or none as argued above - excuse me? The entry of such material is an extensive undertaking and requires LOTS of research material. You gotta start somewhere. I have listed lots of Clemson-USC football outcomes because I have the records handy. I also listed outcomes against other significant opponents, noting for instance that Clemson and Georgia's rivalry began in 1897, only the second season that Clemson had a team. If you have record material to add, by all means, add it! I have no illusions that I can provide everything about every squad. That's a book unto itself. The ClemsonWiki year-by-year is especially thin for most of the first half of the school's history. I welcome other contributors of additional material on all topics, not just the sports outcomes.

Actually the vandalism you refer to was only up for about six hours[7], which given that that Wiki sees about three edits a day when neither of us is working, is fairly quick. Ëvilphoenix ^Burn! 08:40, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

No worries, mate!

Mark Sublette 19:49, 15 April 2006 (UTC)Mark SubletteMark Sublette 19:49, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm a Gamecock, and I didn't see anything objectionable in including the series record for the big-interest football game (I left it in when reverting some earlier content). But perhaps it can be left off here and a new Clemson-USC rivalry (like the Duke-UNC rivalry page, among others) can be created? -- JHunterJ 18:52, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Intro

I don't do edit wars. I edited the intro of the USC article down to one paragraph or two paragraphs. The intro should be summery and shouldn’t go into rankings and individual schools. The paragraph that mentions the Carnegie foundation’s classification needs to be edited down. There shouldn’t be comparisons to other universities, especially in the intro. Wikipedia is not about “boosting” the university. If you want to show USC in the best light write a balanced, fact based article. Resist the urge to try to convience readers that it’s the best university on earth.--Thunder 19:44, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Balanced and fact-based.

Wot he said.

Mark Sublette 19:53, 15 April 2006 (UTC)Mark SubletteMark Sublette 19:53, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Falls Church, Virginia

History section

I'm sorry, but the History section as written was essentially a word for word lift of [8]. The text need to be more carefully re-written. I'll look at doing that some tomorrow, but for now I had to go ahead and remove the text. Please review This section of this Talk page where copyright violation issues are discussed in depth. Thank you. Ëvilphoenix ^Burn! 03:04, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Good Article

At present, there are 17 institutions of higher education on the Good Articles list. With the help of other editors, I was able to get the North Carolina State University article on the list and I would like to get the University of South Carolina article on there too.

As of right now, if you google “University of South Carolina” the Wikipedia article comes up 14th. We all know the exposure Wikipedia gets. When prospective students happen onto this page, I would like them to find a well polished, fact-based article, non-boasting article. That is the quality the university deserves.

To get this article on the Good Articles list, I want to build a consensus of to-dos that can be turned into a todo list. Here are things I would like to see improved or changed:

1. History Sections: Needs to be expanded and needs to have more than one sources. Sounds like it may be a lift off a SC.edu page.
2. Campus: the Campus section reads more like the history of the campus as opposed to the current state. I think this section needs to be redone. I like this campus sections North Carolina State University#Campus, but I am biased to it because I wrote much of it.
3. Academics/Research: I really don’t like that section. First off, I don’t think there should be comparisons made to other institutions in the Carnegie Foundation paragraph. Second, the entire thing reads like a press release promoting the school. My vote would be to delete the section altogether.
4. Academics/School of Law: The Law School is the only school with its own section. That section is centered on boasting that the school is the only public Law School in SC. Perhaps the Law School could get its own article like the Moore School of Business.
5. People: The people section is too long. I seriously doubt anybody reads that part of the article. I know editing this list will be a tug of war between editors, but that is what the discussion page is all about.

--Thunder 15:30, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree that the history section needs more sources, but it's not a lift (see footnote and other discussions). Campus section should continue to contain historic info because it's a historic campus, and I disagree with the assessment that it doesn't include enough of its "current state". Research section is important because the university is expanding the campus to make research its main mission. Please don't delete it. As for the law school, I vote for creating a separate article. People section has already been made into a new article. 70.144.3.19 02:54, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

I still think the campus section need drastic editing. I figured out what I don’t like about the research section. It is a lift from promotional material: http://www.aaatix.com/aaatix/usctickets.html Lets get this article to Good Article status!--Thunder 13:03, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

The promotional material you reference is a lift from Wikipedia. I know because I wrote a chunk of it months ago. In other words, it's not copyright violation. 65.4.83.40 23:40, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Article Status

The alumni list has mushroomed to take up more than a quarter of this article. I suggest that the ten most recognizable names be presented on the main page and the remainder be put in a new article.

Also, editors have taken it upon themselves to feature USC's rankings very visibly in the article. It would be better if the rankings were summarized in a paragraph, showing the rankings of the strong programs and the overall rankings of the school.

I would do this myself but I'm still a little bad at editing. (unsign by anom) 6/2/2006

I agree on all points. The ranking list used to be an unreadable list and the table is a improvement over it. I also think the list also include esoteric rankings that only the university promotions department cares about.

The alumni page could stand on its own, but the list on this page needs to be cut way down. --Thunder 23:46, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Good: alumni list moved to its own, rankings still in chart. Bad: any addition of standalone school articles such as the Mass Communications, which is proposed as a merger. I vote for no merger. Each school should stand of its own, like the Business School. (unsign by anon) 9/23/06

The extracurricular section is getting out of control. Why does every organization have to be listed? This section should be in summary form, not a long list. 68.154.153.118 05:11, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Collections

There should be a section devoted to the various collections the university houses. It has the MovieTone News newsreels; the James Dickey and the James Ellroy literary collections (the Ellroy collection is very interesting considering the writer has stronger ties to Los Angeles yet chose to house his papers at USC). RoyBatty42 23:22, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:USC1.jpg

Image:USC1.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 04:28, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Lowcountry vs. Upcountry, Backcountry, Upstate, etc

I don't want to get into an editing war, but I think the dichotomy in 1805 was between Lowcountry and Upcountry. My basis for this is the book writtem by my Carolina history professor, Daniel Walker Hollis, 'University of South Carolina, volume I, South Carolina College, 1951, Columbia: University of South Carolina Press. The index has numerous references to Low Country and Up Country, as he spelled them, but absolutely none to Backcountry. Upstate is a recent invention, probably from the Department of Tourism but it sounds more like it came from New York which uses Upstate and Downstate all the time. clariosophic 03:49, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

You're right, the terminology for the region of the Upstate is "Up Country" in both volumes by Hollis. The term "Backcountry" was mainly used until the College's founding and after which the term "Up Country" came into use. I believe I originally added "Backcountry" from the book Jeffersonian Democracy in South Carolina, which covers much of the history of South Carolina around the time of the College's founding. The whole essence of the College was to bring sophistication to the people of the Upstate (Backcountry) because the men of the Lowcountry feared that those of the Upstate would soon dominate government (due to their increasing numbers) and they would hold power without the sensibilities and values of the Lowcountry. Gamecock 00:27, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Length of Main Article

The length of the main article has been cut in half to reduce it to acceptable Wikipedia levels. The History section, which accounted for almost half of the entire article, had already been transferred it a separate article, so it was delted today except for a stub. The Board of Trustees section, which had been merged here from its own article, was transferred to the USC System article, to which it properly belongs, and then deleted except for a stub. clariosophic 21:06, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Great work! Well done. Gamecock 03:06, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Ocean Isle Beach fire

Why is this a notable event related to the USC Cola page? The event was not (1) held on campus nor (2) sponsored by the University. The only connection is that it involved several USC students. See Notability is not temporary. Gamecock 02:42, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree. I cleaned up an edit added yesterday by someone else, but agreed with a better move to delete it entirely. None of that takes away from the tragic nature of the incident, nor feelings/caring for those impacted. It just doesn't belong here in the context of the long view of USC. Mark in Historic Triangle 10:16, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

• And yet, it is a notable news event. As a Clemson alumnus living in the D.C. area, I feel just as stricken by the loss of these seven (one from CU) as if I were in state and they were MY own relatives. Perhaps a free-standing article is okay?

Mark Sublette 19:08, 30 October 2007 (UTC)Mark SubletteMark Sublette 19:08, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

There is an item already started in the Ocean Isle Beach article. That is probably best place for it to fit into WP. In saying "not notable" I didn't mean it doesn't hurt or isn't significant. It's tragic and a lot of people feel sad and wish they could do more than just pray. My comments were only in the long view context of WP. "Notable" is WP terminology and I wouldn't want anyone to think I meant that I think that it isn't serious and worth some efforts. Look at Ocean Isle Beach, North Carolina in the Recent News section, and go from there. Mark in Historic Triangle 22:36, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Agree. Gamecock 03:04, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

I have placed my small contribution of edits on the Ocean Isle Beach article. Blessings to all who are supporting the grieving families. Mark Sublette 06:16, 31 October 2007 (UTC)Mark SubletteMark Sublette 06:16, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Template:University of South Carolina

I'm not sure that the new Template:University of South Carolina is an improvement. The width is shorter and leaves blank spaces on the sides. The black lettering on the garnet background is unreadable to my old eyes. The logo is an improvement and should stay. clariosophic 13:12, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

• I've reverted it to last good edit by Gamecock. For a good use of Garnet and Black, see Image:USCGamecocks.png. Why not try to work that into the template? clariosophic 19:35, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Agree, black lettering against garnet background is impossible to read. Gamecock 20:51, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Borat Film

What is the veiw out their on including a "controversy" section relating to the sutdents involved in the film Rotovia 10:36, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

How is it controversial with the University of South Carolina? It is controversial with the students involved, not with the Palmetto state's flagship university. Gamecock 01:56, 9 November 2007 (UTC) * BINGO! Mark Sublette 05:45, 9 November 2007 (UTC)Mark SubletteMark Sublette 05:45, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Aesthetically unpleasing tables

This article is extremely unsightly. It would be greatly improved with the removal of all tables. I fail to see how the breakdown of the university's enrollment by college serves as useful information. Additionally, a table detailing the university's high rankings seems to violate wikipedia's standards against bias. These rankings can be summarized in a short paragraph but are ugly and useless in table form.

These tables are standing in the way of this article being desirable for reading and research. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.159.115.36 (talk) 00:02, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

You want some discussion? Okay, you'll get it. There is no merit whatsoever to this anonymous IP user's idea of REMOVING useful information from an encyclopedic article. And anything proposed by an IP that has blanked an entire article and replaced it with "RAT PRICK" and called another Wiki user "PUSSY FAGGOT" on their Talk page shouldn't be assumed to be in good faith. Someone please just ban this IP now and get it over with. Nothing constructive is going to come from this. ViperNerd (talk) 20:15, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

What exactly does that have to do with the tables in the article? Your criticisms belong on my talk page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.159.115.36 (talk) 23:10, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Tuition

Shouldn't the current tuition levels be included? The school's own website has the info. It's an obscene amount for a state funded college I grant you. 24.24.244.132 (talk) 17:10, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Tuition at USC is lower than the other major state-funded university in South Carolina. And the school has been ranked No. 35 among 500 public universities for best values for in-state students, up from No. 51 in 2007, by Kiplinger Magazine. And USC's ranking for out-of-state students also improved, up to No. 59 from No. 72 in 2007. So people who have studied the issue more carefully than you apparently don't feel that the cost of a higher education at USC is "obscene." But thanks for your uneducated opinion. ViperNerd (talk) 18:21, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

USC charges $4,219 for resident undergrads and $11,254 for nonresident undergrads. Compare the University of Florida with $3,790 for residents and $21,400 nonresidents. Admittedly both are much higher than when I attended them, but I think they are representative of today's higher costs. clariosophic (talk) 20:23, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

POV Check

The whole article is written like an editorial. Sources are lacking. Some examples:

"History

"The University was founded as South Carolina College in 1801 in an effort to promote harmony between the Lowcountry and the Backcountry. The College became a symbol of the South in the antebellum period as its graduates were on the forefront of secession from the Union. After the Civil War to World War II, the institution lacked a clear direction and was constantly reorganized to meet the needs of the political power in office. In 1957, the University expanded its reach through the University of South Carolina System and rapidly became the state's preeminent and most popular institution of higher education, a status it retains to this day."

"Honors college

The University of South Carolina is home to the prestigious, nationally recognized South Carolina Honors College, which is designed to offer academically gifted undergraduates the advantages of an Ivy League quality small college in the setting of a large metropolitan university."

Most of the Research section lacks citations.

I would like some other input into this. Thanks Fletch81 (talk) 02:08, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Here's some input...ABSURD. ViperNerd (talk) 06:12, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

This line particularly: state's preeminent and most popular institution of higher education - rings of debatable POV... Mark Sublette (talk) 12:30, 13 April 2009 (UTC)Mark SubletteMark Sublette (talk) 12:30, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, here's a wild thought...instead of just complaining about these types of comments in the Talk section or lazily slapping a template on the entire article, why not, oh I don't know...EDIT THE FREAKING ARTICLE? Isn't that the entire point of Wikipedia in the first place? Pretty much every article on here could have the POV template plastered at the top for a biased sentence or two, but that would be pretty silly now, wouldn't it? ViperNerd (talk) 22:16, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

According to WP:NPOV dispute on How to initiate an NPOV debate

"If you come across an article whose content does not seem to be consistent with Wikipedia's NPOV policy, use one of the tags below to mark the article's main page. Then, on the article's talk page, make a new section entitled "NPOV dispute [- followed by a section's name if you're challenging just a particular section of the article and not the article as a whole]". Then, under this new section, clearly and exactly explain which part of the article does not seem to have a NPOV and why. Make some suggestions as to how one can improve the article. Be active and bold in improving the article." Fletch81 (talk) 02:57, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the copypasta. That really helps in improving this article. Except for the fact that you didn't "clearly and exactly explain which part of the article does not seem to have a NPOV and why" and you made ZERO suggestions as to how the article could be improved. As it stands, the POV issues you raised have been addressed by edits, and accordingly the template removed. If you have issues with citations in the article, there are other mechanisms by which these can be dealt with, primarily via use of the {fact} tag. ViperNerd (talk) 03:15, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

I think those voicing POV concerns have a point, in that the article could do a better job of avoiding normative editorial judgments. Some of the language sounds more like a promotional brochure than a neutral encyclopedia article. Examples: "...is home to the prestigious, nationally recognized South Carolina Honors College", "the only university in the state of South Carolina to be classified a research institution of 'very high research activity' by the Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching", and "Top of Carolina Dining Room is on the 18th floor and was the only revolving restaurant on an American college campus". It's not enough to give references supporting the statements. Even if all the statements are scrupulously sourced and verified as factual, there's still a problem created by selecting these particular facts and presenting them in this particular manner. I think the article would benefit from the removal of some of the promotional language, while retaining the underlying facts. John Callender (talk) 07:05, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Agree that some WP:PEACOCK language should be removed. If a college is "prestigious", let the facts speak for themselves without trying to write a promotional brochure. However some of the other issues aren't so clear cut. If it can be reliably referenced that USC has the only revolving restaurant on a US college campus, then that's an interesting tidbit of information that fits well into the section on housing. Likewise, the fact that it is one of the most research-intensive colleges in SC is a useful bit of information (and not necessarily a brag - it's been my experience that research Unis are less focused on their undergrads). It's all in the way the information is presented. --Yeti Hunter (talk) 12:04, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

I'd also gently remind Vipernerd to keep it civil. They're not out to get you.--Yeti Hunter (talk) 12:07, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm attempting to revisit this sentence, but I'm once again running into an editor who is reverting edits made in good faith to remove the WP:PEACOCK language. I've read where the sentence came from, and its also an example of WP:PARAPHRASE. Again, the sentence in question is this: The University of South Carolina is home to the prestigious, nationally recognized South Carolina Honors College, which is designed to offer academically gifted undergraduates the advantages of an Ivy League quality small college in the setting of a large metropolitan university." I'd appreciate some other input from fellow editors. I believe its been made quite clear Fletch81 (talk) 00:40, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, but it's not very clear to me. In fact, I'm quite confused. The sentence you quoted above appears nowhere in the USC article. So it would appear someone has already addressed your concerns. GarnetAndBlack (talk) 01:12, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

I apologize, I misquoted the sentence from earlier in the POV check, it reads "Founded in 1978, the South Carolina Honors College offers academically gifted undergraduates the advantages of a small liberal arts college with the resources and academic depth of a comprehensive research university." It has not been addressed, as the point of contention remains. It is close paraphrasing from a U of S. Carolina webpage. Fletch81 (talk) 01:29, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

RfC

Attempting to eliminate WP:PEACOCK from page has led to some edit warring and attempts at ownership of the article. I seek adherence to WP:NPOV 18:08, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

I found the piece on the NPOV Notice Board. One issue is that so much of the sourcing is from the University of South Carolina itself. It has affected the tone and neutrality of the article. Unbiased, third party sources should be used to support all of the statements in the article. WP:RS "Wikipedia articles[1] should rely primarily on reliable, third-party, published sources." [9] Grade inflation in SC must be serious. Incoming freshman average 3.9 but only 30% were even in the top 10% of their classes. Editors shouldn't cherrypick the information by including the details they find flattering while ignoring those they find less so. Overall the article doesn't sound encyclopedic. Proper sourcing I suspect would resolve this problem. --Eudemis (talk) 16:30, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

The same could be said of pretty much every article about a university on Wikipedia. For example, just a cursory glance at the sources in University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill reveals that most link to a page with unc.edu somewhere in the URL. It only makes sense that the best sources for facts and figures related to a school would come from the school itself. And you're going to nitpick and bring up "grade inflation in SC"? You are aware that not all the students who attend USC actually went to high school in the state, right? Not to mention that it's fairly common in many high schools for valedictorians (and others in the top 10% of their class) to have well above a 4.0 GPA these days. There isn't a hard ceiling at that number like there used to be. But if you're truly worried about grade inflation, I'd suggest that you should be more concerned with it taking place at institutions of higher learning. ViperNerd (talk) 19:03, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

I see no problem with using university archives or history to cite an article, as they're often the definitive source. They employ a university historian to maintain records. But you're missing the point, viper, as the SCarolina page is loaded with WP:PEACOCK and plenty of unsourced material written from a biased perspective. Most, if not all, of the POV in the UNC article is written from a third party source. The SCarolina article isn't a brochure, its an article. The UNC page has been through a peer review, and while it isn't perfect, its light years ahead of the SCarolina page in terms of work done to construct it. Its even met the [Article criteria] I'd encourage you to nominate the SCarolina article to see others' opinions on what needs to change to change this from a vanity piece to a good article. When you revert everything someone changes in this article that you don't agree with, there is a problem. You don't own this page. That wasn't the case in the UNC article, but then again, the only thing the UNC article should have to do with this is as an example of what a good article should be. The SCarolina article is currently not one. Thank you and good day Fletch81 (talk) 06:28, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, B-Class (USC) versus GA-Class (UNC)..."light years" difference there, huh? Give us a break, Captain Hyperbole. Just for comparison's sake I read the University of Michigan article, which is rated FA (light years ahead of the UNC article, I suppose) and it read as much like a "brochure" as pretty much any other university article I've read on Wikipedia; full of "bests," "greatests" and other superlatives liberally scattered throughout. Perhaps you'd better rush to the talk page for that article and inform everyone "what a good article should be." ViperNerd (talk) 07:32, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Is it possible for you to attempt to maintain civility? What further steps should we take to resolve this? Are there any to which you're agreeable? I've tried a POV tag, which you deleted, a POV check, and an RfC. What would be the preferred method to handle this article to improve it to wikipedia standards? Thanks and take care. Fletch81 (talk) 08:07, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

In case you somehow missed it since you started your agenda here, people ARE working to improve this article. Maybe not to your lofty standards, and maybe not as fast as you'd like (for whatever reason), but it IS being worked on. And the article already meets "Wikipedia standards" (not clear on what YOU deem those to be), as it's already rated B-Class. As I've said before, why don't you let the process you set in motion take its course and go get that UNC article you're so in love with up to FA standards? Seems like that would a better way for you to occupy your time. ViperNerd (talk) 08:20, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

My only agenda is to improve this article. Thank you. Fletch81 (talk) 14:40, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Whether the "flagship" status of a university can be presented as objective fact

There is currently an RfC on this question at Talk:University of Maine#Flagship RFC. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 12:54, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Innovista

GarnetAndBlack has repeatedly removed sourced text that discusses Innovista in a negative light. I am unconvinced by his or her "arguments" (presented only as edit summaries when he or she has removed the material) that it's "vandalism" and "POV pushing." Removing this text while retaining the other material that discusses this USC-related venture in a positive manner seems partisan, POV, and akin to whitewashing. In any case, no one editor can decide by him or herself what material is included or excluded from an article. --ElKevbo (talk) 05:21, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

You state that "no one editor can decide by him or herself what material is included or excluded, but that's exactly what is happening in this article. Also, a large part of the material that was added by "one editor" from an anonymous IP address was copypasted straight from one of the sources listed by the editor as a reference. http://www.scpolicycouncil.com/research-and-publications-/fact-sheets/626-innovista-state-driven-economy-struggling-despite-140-million-in-taxpayer-support. The rest of this addition cannot be supported without these introductory sentences that clearly violate copyright, and appear to be lifted directly from a website. I am deleting the section until someone can manage to include it without obvious copyright violations. GarnetAndBlack (talk) 21:44, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

I think I fixed the copyvio. Please let me know if I missed something else or if more of the text has been copied from somewhere.

And note that I am not the unregistered editor who added this material so your assertion that one editor is controlling this article is demonstrably false. :) --ElKevbo (talk) 00:12, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

• The innovista data should stay. it is well sourced in my opinion and does not violate any copyright regulations.
  >>>> Posted By Alex Waelde (Leave Me A Messgae) 01:01, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Second infobox logo reverts

I entreat fellow editors to help settle this nascent edit war. I have repeatedly deleted the redundant modernized logo in the infobox because it destroys the margins and makes the article unsightly. These constructive edits have been reverted, but no reason has been given for the reversions. The second logo, contrary to claims made by those whom I will not name, is not part of any prescribed standard we must all follow, nor would it matter if any editor were to arbitrarily impose one. I operate under the (perhaps fair) assumption that one ought to have and give reasons for doing anything that affects other people; in the particular case of an encyclopedia article, well-intentioned editors make changes to improve the article. These reflexive reversions must stop. So stop.

Sorry, but your personal taste for how you feel an article should look does not make you the sole arbiter of what should and should not be included in any article. There are numerous university articles that include both the official seal and official logo of the school in the infobox, and you have given no compelling reason why this article should be any different, other than your personal sense of style. Do not remove the official university logo from this article again or your edit-warring will be reported. GarnetAndBlack (talk) 23:28, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

This is laughable! 'My personal taste...?' What is the implication, that you lack one yourself? If so, then how do you explain the fact that you prefer a second logo? As I asked earlier, what does the second logo being commonplace have to do with its desirability in THIS article? The Universities of Rhode Island, Rochester, Reading, Regina, and Rostock all lack the second logo in their articles... would you extend your arbitrary criticism to these articles as well?

I have given a reason, a compelling reason, which is more than can be said for you. The second logo clutters the article. It's unsightly. It messes up the margins. Stop being obstinate; your resistance is beyond ridiculous, and your stalking this article for the purposes of reverting change says a great deal about your misplaced priorities. Go on and hypocritically report ME for edit warring; YOU WILL NOT WIN HERE.

This is your final warning to cease your disruptive editing, one has also been given on your talk page. You have provided no valid reason for removal of useful information from this article. The University of South Carolina has both an official seal and an official logo, and there is no reason why both should not be provided in the infobox of this article (as they are in numerous others) for the edification of users visiting the article. Your personal taste does not override Wikipedia policies and standards. Continue on this path of vandalism and disruption and I can assure you that a block is in your immediate future. Please stop. GarnetAndBlack (talk) 04:00, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

I have a proposal. Make an earnest attempt to fix the margin ugliness (I don't know how to fix it) as a result of the second logo, and I will drop my resistance to the logo's inclusion in this article.

What an awful proposal. Never thought I'd side with a Gamecock, but here it is. IP, your reason for this edit war is ridiculous, and you've been blocked for the proper reason. Drmies (talk) 01:20, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Anonymous poster's proposal is "awful", and his/her reason for the edit war is "ridiculous", yet no elaboration on these disrespectful insults is being given. There is an important distinction, familiar to ethicists and military experts, that can be made between one's rights TO war and one's rights IN war. Anonymous' conduct is wrong here, but there has been zero engagement with his/her grievances. Would somebody just be the bigger person and make the article a little nicer-looking at the top? The conflict would end and the article would look better. Does THIS proposal sound a little better?

(outdent)The look often depends on your monitor. I recently changed the section order per WP:UNIGUIDE. It now looks fine on my laptop with the margins lined up, but just okay on my larger monitor. Alanraywiki (talk) 05:45, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Bible

The Ernest F. Hollings Special Collections Library has acquired a very special bible--but this article has no heading for libraries or special collections (though it lists every single student organization). I could find no place to stick that news in, so I'm pasting it here. Drmies (talk) 00:58, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Image deletion discussion

Relevant deletion discussion at Wikipedia:Files_for_deletion/2011_December_31#File:South Carolina Football.png.--GrapedApe (talk) 17:35, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Honors College honors

An editor recently added this to the article:

"In 2012, the South Carolina Honors College was ranked the number one honors college in the nation, according to "A Review of Fifty Public University Honors Programs.""

He or she cites this university news story as the source. I dispute the importance of this "honor" since the only source provided is a self-produced one by the university. We don't know anything about this book and how notable or important it is. On those grounds, I reverted the addition but my edit was (quite rudely) reverted without comment or explanation by another editor. I am opening discussion here hoping that others will offer comments and come to a consensus regarding this edit. ElKevbo (talk) 20:35, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Two references from news sources (other than the University) added. Hope that's notable enough for some. GarnetAndBlack (talk) 04:06, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

And what makes this "first-ever ranking of public university honors colleges" notable or interesting enough for an encyclopedia article (beyond being a simple news item)? Has anyone other than local media recognized this ranking as notable? Do we have any indication that it's respected and trusted by anyone other than those who were ranked highly? ElKevbo (talk) 04:21, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

NPOV issues (August '12)

I question the presence of the following info in an encyclopedia:

Top-10 ranking from U.S. News & World Report for being "most promising and innovative

Founded in 1978, the South Carolina Honors College offers academically gifted undergraduates the advantages of a small liberal arts college with the resources and academic depth of a comprehensive research university. (And as for the claimed #1 public honors college ranking, see above discussion on Honors College)

I also question the presence of the entire Recent accomplishments section.

Yankeesfan10023 (talk) 16:04, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

I question the presence on Wikipedia of someone who uses sock puppets to edit articles in an attempt to skirt the rules. GarnetAndBlack (talk) 20:40, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on University of South Carolina. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090307234601/http://president.sc.edu:80/FormerPresidents.php to http://president.sc.edu/FormerPresidents.php
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080506212752/http://www.sa.sc.edu:80/studentmedia/garnetblack.htm to http://www.sa.sc.edu/studentmedia/garnetblack.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 20:10, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on University of South Carolina. 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/20140828025627/http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/college_guide/rankings-2014/national-universities-rank-all.php to http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/college_guide/rankings-2014/national-universities-rank-all.php

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) 14:56, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

Proposed merge with University of South Carolina Library

• Would fit better in the University of South Carolina article instead of being orphan. RafaelS1979 (talk) 22:01, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

• Disagree. Keeping University of South Caroline Library article independent (or orphan) would keep people add and edit things into this article. The University of South Carolina article itself is already of too many paragraphs and words. Instead, it would be better if we just keep the link to the Library article in the University one, so that people who want to know the library more can click and go to the University of South Carolina Library article. (unsigned)

• Strongly disagree. Library systems should be on a separate page. deisenbe (talk) 14:56, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

• South Carolina Governor Henry McMaster (cropped).jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 03:07, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

Changing USC to UofSC

https://www.sc.edu/uofsc/posts/2019/01/uofsc_new_look.php#.XYtkFyUpAlR

SC has changed their name and branding from USC to UofSC since they did national surveys that found USC and Carolina were more commonly thought of as Southern California and North Carolina. It can be good to have some variation but I’d recommend changing most it the USCs to UofSC in article to reflect what is correct. Carolina Football (talk) 13:22, 25 September 2019 (UTC)