Talk:Carolina–Duke rivalry/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Name Order

I saw in a comment from Bluedog423 in an edit summary about the ordering of the school names. I know I most commonly hear Duke-Carolina but since I work at one of the two foci of this particular rivalry, that's understandable. I generally think, for naming, primacy should go to the older institution. For instance, with the Army-Navy game. I did add a redirect from Duke-Carolina rivalry though, just in case. DukeEGR93 14:06, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Originally I set up the page as the Duke-UNC rivalry. Referring to UNC-CH as just Carolina often gets people into disputes with the University of South Carolina. I also originally put Duke first because of alphabetical order, but someone quickly changed it to UNC-Duke rivalry. As I said at the top of this talk page, I don't really care which way it is, but I don't want to constantly get into rearranging the title of the article. So could we please discuss this on the talk page for awhile before changing anything. Remember 14:40, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm firmly on the side of not changing anything, just wanted to mention the redirect and note that I think the current title is probably the right one. We could also add an "also known as" section for the rivalry in the head paragraph. I suppose I'll be bold and go do that. DukeEGR93 14:46, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

I generally hear it called "Duke-Carolina" as well, so I wouldn't have a problem with changing to that. I don't really think anyone would dispute putting Duke first, just because it seems that's the way we hear it the most. As for those Gamecock people from USC thinking they're called "Carolina"... they're just very sadly mistaken. :^). Cheers, Dubc0724 14:54, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

For something that purports to be an encyclopedia (namely Wikipedia), the use of "Carolina" would be improper regardless of UNC folks' feelings on their claim to that name, since there can be no serious dispute that the name IS used at South Carolina as well as in Chapel Hill. A purported encyclopedia should steer clear of such issues. It also bears noting that the term "UNC" is defined at the beginning of the article, so under most normal conventions that term ought to be used throughout (rather than "North Carolina" or some other form).1995hoo 17:26, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

As this is a page about only two teams in perticular, it's far-fetched to purport that 'Carolina' in an article devoted to a Duke-UNC rivalry would be in reference to "South Carolina", a team which has nothing to do with this article. I would agree with you if we were talking about a general basketball article, but since this is not so and is limited to two specific teams, obviously Carolina is in reference to UNC in this article. For my two cents, I normally hear it as "Duke-Carolina" - though, I have grown up in a Duke family, and therefore should be considered biased in my opinion. --Nomader^Talk 01:27, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

I went to Duke Law School, so I'm quite familiar with the UNC people's usage. But it's irrelevant. More important is the defined term at the beginning of the article. Once a particular usage is defined, an article should stick to that usage instead of veering off to use other terms. Put simply, there is no school named "Carolina," so it doesn't belong in an article that purports to be encyclopedic. 1995hoo 03:53, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

I am from Ohio and have heard the rivalry both ways (Duke-Carolina, North Carolina-Duke) in the national media, often the visiting team's name is placed first. Since it is not like Army-Navy or Yankees-Red Sox, where the rivaly is almost always pronounced that way by the media and fans of both teams, i believe it is sensible to rename the page Duke-North Carolina rivalry or Duke-UNC RivalryFrank Anchor, U. S. American (talk) 21:21, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Clean up of External Links

The External links section was tagged with {{Cleanup-spam}}. As a result, as part of WP:WPSPAM, I've reviewed the external links. There were a few links that might have been more appropiate as References (e.g. msnbc article or CollegeSports.com article). Some other links (e.g. The Carlyle Cup Link) is discussed in a seperate article so are not warranted here. Most of the other links generally do not satisfy WP:EL, mostly because they do not positvely contribute to the article. -- Rehnn83 ^Talk 11:06, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

While I appreciate your attention to this article, I do have to disagree with your stated position. First, I don't understand why you didn't just delete the links that did not positively contribute instead of deleting the whole thing. Second, I disagree with your position that all the rest of the links did not positively contribute to the article. I believe that they told people where to go for more information regarding the rivarly. I think the deletion of these links does not help because there is a dearth of good information available on this subject and deleting the only sources that we could currently find, I believe, does more harm than good. What are your feelings on this matter? Remember 12:58, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree some of the Links provide useful information on the subject, as I have suggested they would be more appropiate as references. Before taking any action, I deliberated whether picking off individual links would suffice or would a "drop the bomb" approach be more suitable. It was/is my opinion that the links were not of sufficient merit to warrant inclusion. If you feel some of the external links I have removed should still be included please re-add them. I will not revert you edits. -- Rehnn83 ^Talk 13:36, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Ok. I will add back the ones I think are appropriate. Please let me know if you have issues with any of the links I added back. Remember 13:42, 2 May 2007 (UTC). Let me know what you think of the current version. Remember 13:46, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

On reflection I have probably been over-zealous in deleting all the links. My thoughts are as follows. I would rename the section Personal websites and comments regarding rivalry to Websites Dedicated to the rivalary. I still believe the articles about the rivalary are best in the references section. I'd remove the link to http://www.dukebasketballreport.com/main/index.cgi?6490 as it appears to be dead. I would also suggest formatting the Links as follows: -- Rehnn83 ^Talk 15:10, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

• Carolina Tar Heels on the rivalry
• Duke - UNC: The Rivalry Continues - CollegeHoopsnet.com article on rivalry.
• Best Rivalries: Duke vs UNC - MSBNC.com
• An Unrivaled Rivalry Duke vs UNC - CNN/Sports Illustrated.
• Tope 5 Duke - UNC games - SportingNews.com

I agree with the suggested revisions. Feel free to revise. Remember 15:38, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

OK - have done. -- Rehnn83 ^Talk 16:00, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Interlocking NC Blue.gif

Image:Interlocking NC Blue.gif 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 08:00, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Helm's criticism ctation tag

There's an article in the Fay Observer that fits, but the original isn't available to non-subscribers. The original appeared on 12/26/2009 at http://www.fayobserver.com/Articles/2009/12/26/959868 (link currently dead), and is quoted in its entirety at http://messageboards.aol.com/aol/en_us/articles.php?boardId=149137&articleId=204629&func=5&channel=Sports (although the main arguement there seems to be that other schools don't recognize their Helms award as national championships rather than the NCAA, which of course did not exist at the time). Could a more experienced editor cite this properly? Terrion719 (talk) 17:57, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Cleanup recentism

I tried to shorten two of the recaps, remove some redundant facts, and reorganize the facts in the appropriate categories (especially Series Facts vs. body of article) and will continue to do so in the near future. In my opinion, the "Memorable Games & Incidents" section reek of recentism (WP:RECENTISM). There are recaps that I think contribute little to the overall historical scope of the rivalry's intensity. The recaps of both 2008 games, for example, contain too much statistical info that can be easily accessed via external links from the "Scores of games" section and should not be included in a Wikipedia article.

I did a Google search on great Duke-UNC moments/matchups and all of the games before 2007 that were mentioned in this article also appeared on various lists compiled by national news sources such as ESPN and Sports Illustrated. Here are some examples:

• http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/multimedia/photo_gallery/0803/duke.unc/content.1.html
• http://espn.go.com/classic/s/013101_great_duke/unc_games.html
• http://proxy.espn.go.com/chat/sportsnation/polling?event_id=2038

I keep asking myself: are the 2008 matchups worthy of being mentioned in a Wikipedia article alongside these other, more memorable matchups? I think not. What do you guys think? Usharimau (talk) 18:54, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Tough to say. In both of the 2008 games they were both ranked in the top 5 in the country and the games had big implications. But I can see how this list tilts towards the recent. I would leave it for a season and then revisit it at the beginning of 2009 or continue to discuss on this talk page and see how consensus goes. Remember (talk) 19:06, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

In my opinion none of the 2009 or 2010 games belong in a list of "Memorable Games & Incidents". North Carolina hitting 100 points at Cameron and Duke blowing out a barely-over-.500 Tar Heel squad on Senior Night are of little significance when compared to the "bloody Montross" game or the "Gene Banks tuxedo" game.Musicmax (talk) 18:47, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

I think this needs to be addressed again. 10 out of 11 games since 2009 have received their own entry. Meanwhile the period between 1980-1997 (when the tenures of Dean Smith and Coach K at the two schools overlapped) has only 9 entries. Have there really been more memorable or "notable" games over the past 5 years than there were in the entire time Smith and Krzyzewski coached against one another? I think this needs a massive cleanup. The only game I think that definitely needs to be included from 2009-13 is the February 8, 2012 game, or the "Austin Rivers game." Arguments could be made for some of the others, but how does #4 Duke clobbering an unranked UNC at home by 32 count as an all-time legendary game (this was the March 6, 2010 game for reference). Andreww401 (talk) 17:56, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Game of February 6th, 2008

The fact that certain players from each team were not able to play in this game has no place in the article. The Blue Devils started five players, unc-ch started five players, and it was 5-on-5 for the whole game. The players who actually played in this game are the story of the game. Period. Adding info about players who didn't play in the game could be considered editorializing or vandalism, not suitable for an encyclopedia. Duke53 | ^Talk 03:34, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

A large part of the story surrounding the game in the national media was the availability of PG Ty Lawson, as well as the lack of Bobby Frasor (not as important in the media coverage, but still notable as Carolina was relegated to its 3rd string PG). Considering there are outcomes where Duke prevailed while missing a prominent player mentioned in previous game summaries - see Mar 2, 1968 - this seems to be a precedent in the article. Mentioning a prominent player being missing from the lineup is not editorializing, it is fact. Shall I add links to support my reference? I think I will, then the other editors can decide whether it is "editorializing" or even more laughable, "vandalism." Your 3RR warning is completely out of line, as I have not attempted an edit war, or even approached 3RR. Ebtunc2006 (talk) 03:44, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Aha, I can see where you are confused ... this is NOT an article about the media attention surrounding the game, it is an article about the game itself. Five (5) DUKE players went up against five (5) unc-ch players for the duration of the game. Zoubek, Frasor and Lawson did not play, so they are not part of the game, only part of the hype concerning the game, and, in Lawson's case, an excuse used by fans for carolina losing this game. Duke53 | ^Talk 03:59, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

I won't war with you, I'll put it up to other editors and admins to decide its relevance. Just remember, the 3RR applies to you, too. Cheers. Ebtunc2006 (talk) 04:02, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

It is an important part of the narrative that UNC went into the game without Lawson and Frasier. There doesn't need to be much discussion of it, just the simple mention of the fact that UNC was without them due to injury. I don't understand the argument that this information is not relevant to the summary of the game, especially considering that almost all major news outlets also thought it was relevant enough to include prominently in articles describing the game. Remember (talk) 13:39, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

"It is an important part of the narrative that unc went into the game without Lawson and Frasier". Interesting that you don't consider the fact that DUKE was without the services of their biggest player, Brian Zoubek, an "important part of the narrative". Hmm. Duke53 | ^Talk 16:46, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

I made no assertion whether or not the appearance of Zoubek was important in my previous comment. Based on your comment, I did some research and found that Zoubek's absence was also mentioned in some articles and so should be mentioned. [1] I would think that all notable players absences should be mentioned in the game's description and that this would not be contentious. Remember (talk) 17:28, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

unc-ch's 'fifth championship'

This championship [sic] is only claimed by those with a strict pro-unc-ch bias; IIRC a meat packing company chose the 'winners' ... who are the experts and what criteria was used? I believe that unc-ch even played some high school teams during 'That Championship Season'. How can any 'experts choose a champion without having seen the teams play? Calling this anything but a theoretical or mythical championship is strictly POV. Duke53 | ^Talk 23:38, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Technically it's not theoretical or mythical since it was actually awarded by the organization to the team in question. Saying it's theoretical or mythical implies that it wasn't actually awarded. While one can argue that the award is meaningless or stupid or non-notable (and therefore shouldn't be mentioned), one cannot deny that the award was actually given to the team in question. Remember (talk) 04:20, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

More technically it is an actual award for a mythical championship ... no matter how you slice it, unc-ch has not earned a 'fifth championship'. Duke53 | ^Talk 05:52, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree, in part, with the first part, but disagree with the second part (that unc-ch has not earned a fifth championship). Again, factually they have been given a fifth national championship. You may think that the championship is not based on anything of value and that is fair. But then the focus of the criticism needs to be on how the organization giving the championship uses flawed unfair methods and not on the idea that it wasn't actually awarded a championship. Remember (talk) 13:35, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Maybe the best way to resolve this is to have more information on the Helms Athletic Foundation article so that anyone who wants to know more about this award can easily find accurate criticism. Remember (talk) 13:39, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

I've now revised the sentence to link to the mythical national championship article and criticism of the basketball championships given by the Helms Foundation. I think this may be the best approach. Remember (talk) 13:47, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

The best approach would be to keep referring to it as a mythical championship, since it is based in myth, not fact. Duke53 | ^Talk 15:18, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Duke53, while I agree with you that's it's not a legit championship, give it a rest. Remember has been completely reasonable and his (or her) solution seems fine to me. By the way, Butler also claims the 1924 championship and no other school I can think of actually has a banner in their arena from the Helms awarded championships. The problem with the championship (besides the fact that it was awarded 30 years later by a very small committee of non-basketball historians) is that UNC got SMOKED by Northeast ball clubs in 1925, where the best b-ball was being played in that era. In 1924, UNC only played teams from the Southeast, and thus didn't lose. Anyways, what is factually stated that the Helms foundation awarded UNC a national championship is completely true and not up for debate. People can decide for themselves if they think that the Helms foundation awarded it appropriately. -Bluedog423^Talk 16:00, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure about all the schools awarded Helms Foundation championships, but I know that Purdue has a banner in Mackey Arena for its 1932 award. Ncjon (talk) 13:02, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Every NCAA Division IA football championship was awarded by organizations such as Helms, AP, UPI, etc. prior to the establishment of the BCS National Championship game. Shall all of those championships be considered illegitimate? Has every college football article dealing with pre-BCS championships been edited to read MYTHICAL national championship? I checked the Nebraska Cornhuskers Football article and the word "mythical" is missing - there are only references to "National Championship Seasons". Also, Bluedog's reference to the 1925 team being "smoked" is not relevant since 1924 and 1925 were different seasons. I don't think anyone would question the legitimacy of UNC's 2009 NCAA title just because the 2010 team lost to College Of Charleston and didn't earn a berth in the NCAA Tournament.Musicmax (talk) 18:35, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Title of article revisited

I know I could have added this to the previous section, but I figured nobody would notice it, so I created a new section. I think this should be revisited and have a consensus reached since it doesn't seem like that was the case above. Honestly, I have never heard anybody refer to this rivalry as the "UNC-Duke rivalry" - that is probably the least commonly used combination possible. I frequently hear it as "Duke-Carolina," but don't really care which comes first. I also understand 1995hoo's point that "Carolina" could be seen as "South Carolina," so perhaps North Carolina is better. Also in 1995hoo's point is that after establishing the title, that usage should be used throughout. As it is now, North Carolina is typically used except in the Game Capsules and Series Facts section where UNC is used. In the Achievement by Season, complete scores of games, retired jersey numbers, coaching history, and players section, however, North Carolina is used. With all this in mind, renaming the article "Duke-North Carolina rivalry" or "North Carolina-Duke rivalry" would be a vast improvement. To back me up, the two books cited (and the only two full page books about the rivalry) use the term "Duke-North Carolina" and "Duke-Carolina" in the titles. Thoughts? -Bluedog423^Talk 05:42, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

I am fine with any of these; I just don't want to have a constant debate about what the name should be and which university should come first. I would suggest that if you are going to make a change, that you propose the specific name change and then wait about a month for comments so that we have a good amount of discourse on the subject. Otherwise people will just move it right back or propose another name change and move it again. Remember (talk) 14:02, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

A month? The only ways I have ever heard it referred to were 'Duke-UNC' or 'Duke-Carolina'. Maybe if we waited until July or August to change, it wouldn't be brought up again until sometime next Fall ... November maybe. Just add a tag on the page telling users to not change the title, exactly like many other articles are tagged here at Wikipedia. Duke53 | ^Talk 14:51, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

I said a month because I want several people who pay attention to this page to comment on the proposal and not just us three. Again, we have already changed the name of the page before. I want a definitive resolution to this problem and the only way to do that, I believe, is a slow and deliberate process with as many editors as possible. Remember (talk) 19:21, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

UNC-Duke is a poor choice. I don't particularly care what order the title is, but the most commonly referred to ones are Carolina-Duke or Duke-Carolina. Carolina-Duke is the logical alphabetical choice, but if it were to be Duke-North Carolina I would be absolutely fine with that. The contention with "Carolina" comes from the South Carolina folks. Yet, I believe their heated football rivalry with Clemson is listed on wikipedia as the "Carolina-Clemson" rivalry. I don't have any opinion on how to handle their article, but the familiarity of this rivalry would lead me to conclude that it would be okay to use Carolina as long as there were plenty of redirects. Ultimately, I would vote for Carolina-Duke or Duke-North Carolina. First one obviously done alphabetically, and the second avoids contention with the South Carolina folks, even though it isn't quite as colloquial. Ebtunc2006 (talk) 22:49, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Hi Everyone... I'm dropping in as an outside observer to try and help out. My awesome credentials: I'm not a basketball fan and I from the Left Coast. <grin>. First, let me say that given how big this rivalry is my hat goes off to you guys for keeping pretty darn civil and trying to work things out in a fair manner. Second, my main mission dropping in here is that the article stay true to Wikipedia's spirit. To that end the most important thing I can say at this moment is: you can't change the article's title every month, year, century... you need to pick one way and go with it. An encyclopedia needs to be reliable and consistent, changing the name on a regular basis is confusing to the readers. My own personal opinion is that you go with logical choices that are devoid of controversy: 1) use official names for the schools (not nicknames) and 2) use alphabetical order. Just my two cents... keep up the good work. —Noah 06:53, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

I think that the name of the article should be changed to The Battle for Tobacco Road (The UNC-Duke Rivalry). This is what some people refer to it as. Just a thought. Hansbroughfan100 (talk) 00:02, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Tobacco Road includes NC State and Wake Forest too. I've heard ESPN (or was it WRAL/Raycom?) mention Battle for Tobacco Road, but not otherwise. The recent move to Carolina-Duke rivalry seems to match current consensus. As an aside, I've proposed a move for the NC State-UNC rivalry page to Carolina-NC State rivalry to match this scheme. Feel free to comment on it on that talk page. Yellowspacehopper (talk) 05:04, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Hansbrough's "retired" jersey

It seems to me that Hansbrough's number shouldn't appear in the retired jersey list as it hasn't actually been retired yet. His winning of the Sporting News Player of the Year Award means he's eligible to have his jersey retired. But it won't actually happen until the season after he leaves the university. Ncjon (talk) 01:22, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was moved per consensus. PeterSymonds | talk 03:44, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Requested move

UNC-Duke rivalry → Carolina-Duke rivalry or Duke-North Carolina rivalry—Athletics teams at UNC are usually referred to as Carolina or North Carolina. The rivalry between Clemson and South Carolina is at Carolina-Clemson rivalry, so the use of Carolina wouldn't appear to be a problem given context.—Yellowspacehopper (talk) 05:59, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Survey

Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's naming conventions.

• Support - move to Carolina-Duke or Duke-Carolina rivalry or Duke-North Carolina rivalry. Whatever everyone else wants. Remember (talk) 14:07, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
• Support - I agree with the contextual use of Carolina for North Carolina being absolutely fine, especially if it is deemed acceptable for South Carolina and Clemson to use Carolina-Clemson. It is clear that the Carolina when juxtaposed to Duke is the more famous of the rivalries, as it has been cited as one of the most famous sports rivalries. I would suggest that if Carolina were used that it be Carolina-Duke, but if North Carolina is used that it be Duke-North Carolina. I think alphabetical order is the only fair way to approach it. If there is contention from South Carolina fans or confusion, then both North and South Carolina should avoid using Carolina, though I have found this to be a difficult subject to approach with South Carolina fans. Fletch81 (talk) 00:31, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
• Support - Any of the three choices Remember mentions above are fine by me with a slight preference for Carolina-Duke or Duke-Carolina rivalry. -Bluedog423^Talk 23:02, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

• I'll quickly add now that since we'll need to choose one, my preference would be Carolina-Duke. I agree about keeping alphabetical order, though maybe I could use this argument for North Carolina-Duke. ;-) Yellowspacehopper (talk) 14:39, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Discussion

Any additional comments:

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Results etc.

The article is already very long, and the obvious parts to remove or split are the facts and results sections. Other parts of the article also duplicate information on the schools' individual pages, so it would seem sensible to rework/summarize those to focus on the direct rivalry instead of a comparison between the two. Yellowspacehopper (talk) 18:36, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

I disagree that the results should be removed. First, the results over the past several decades are facts that help educate the reader on the specifics of the rivalry. Second, having the results is in line with other rivalry pages (see Michigan-Ohio_State_rivalry, Iron Bowl, UConn-Tennessee rivalry, etc) Third, this is not a readability issue. If people want to read the results, they can. If they don't they can skip it (that is why it is in a collapsible box). If you are arguing that the page is too big in terms of files size then we can have that discussion. But in terms of deleting this information because it makes the page to long to read, I think that argument is not very persuasive. On a side note, people have put a lot of work into creating those tables and it was probably not the best move to remove these facts without discussing this issue on the talk page first. Remember (talk) 19:20, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

The file size one motivation, and the collapsible box doesn't work well with smartphones. I think a summary of perhaps record scores, over head-to-head record, and/or maybe a decade-by-decade summary would better serve the article from a readability point of view. I understand that people have put a lot of effort into such, but WP:EFFORT addresses that argument in some sense. You're always welcome to revert, rewrite, or just delete anything I write.Yellowspacehopper (talk) 20:14, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

I like the results box. I'd had been thinking for several weeks that there should be a reduction of the "notable games" list. There are too many games on the list, in my opinion. For example: I don't think both '08 games belong, I don't think the '06 game or '04 games are particularly noteworthy, and I'm not sure if both, or even either, of the '05 games are worth noting. If not for the Henderson-Hansbrough situation, I would argue that the '07 game doesn't belong either. Ncjon (talk) 00:16, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Could we create a game summary article or use an expandable section? The game descriptions are a great addition, but I agree they create a bit of clutter. "Notable" also proves to be too subjective, so simply titling it "game summaries" or something along those lines seems appropriate Fletch81 (talk) 00:27, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree with you on the notable games. I think you're right about this year's games especially. I wonder if there way to reformat the results section to be a bit more compact. If sections are in the article, I think they should be visible, but should we summarize or split the article?Yellowspacehopper (talk) 00:38, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

I think summarizing the notable games section as a teaser to another article may be a sensible way to handle it. Perhaps mention there have been many famous games, like the 8 pts in 17 seconds and a few others with less detail, then have a separate article where all the games can have their summaries. It would likely make the article a lot easier to digest. Fletch81 (talk) 00:45, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

I like that idea. It would remove a lot of the heavy text from the main article. Ncjon (talk) 02:28, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

• I, too, like the results sections and they don't cause readability concerns due to the reasons already expressed by Remember. The boxes begin as collapsed and the user has a choice to skip over the sections or look at them in detail. If it was that much text, then, yes, that would be a concern. I also agree that perhaps the notable games section could be cut down. It seems that from now on, every single game is going to have a write up whether notable or not. Having just a few of the truly notable games mentioned and a new article seems to be a fine solution to me. -Bluedog423^Talk 23:08, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
• The collapsable box begins as collapsed on most browsers, but not more specialized ones, such as many mobile ones. Maybe we could move it to the bottom of the page so you never have to skip over it. Alternatively, should the results move to the proposed game summary page, or another page entirely, and set up one of those as a basketball-only rivalry page? Clearly, the rivalry tends to be most visible on the basketball court, but other elements are quite understated on this page. I'd actually merge Carlyle Cup into this page as on its own it's not that significant.Yellowspacehopper (talk) 14:31, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

• I especially like the Clean, Old-Fashioned Hate page about the rivalry between GT and UGA.Yellowspacehopper (talk) 14:51, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

I suggest creating sub-subsections (====) but using {{TOClimit}} to hide them in the contents. PeterSymonds | talk 20:03, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Postseason?

They haven't met at the postseason save for the NITs? –Howard the Duck 19:12, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree that the "postseason" heading is misleading. This section should at least include a summary of the results of head-to-head matchups in the ACC Tournament.Musicmax (talk) 19:10, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

---

Very sorry to have overdeleted.

There was a long string of some kind of gibberish after the text, of which I only deleted a few characters, but which resulted in deletion of the rest of the article.

I hope someone can soon restore everything.

All I wanted to do was delete the small section saying that Duke students invented the term "air ball".

They did not: the term was coined in the late 1960s or early 1970s.

I myself recall seeing it in print in Sports Illustrated in reference to UCLA player Henry Bibby, who I believe graduated in 1972.

Two Erroneous citations should also be deleted.

NCDane (talk) 15:21, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Bad Title

Shouldn't this be called - Carolina fanboy vs. Duke? All of the "great games" are UNC wins. Really? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.240.30.23 (talk) 02:38, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Surely you're joking. 13 of the 26 games listed are Duke victories. Ncjon (talk) 13:50, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

I didn't bother to add them up, but the last 6 games listed are UNC wins, which is not really reflective of the general direction the rivalry has taken over the last couple of years. For a "memorable games" section, you would think they would have included a game where the winning team was down by double digits at halftime (Feb. 2011), where one team won by 32 (March 2010), or where the two schools were meeting in the conference title game (March 2011). Instead, literally every Duke win for the last few years has been left off in favor of the UNC wins. Mac46 (talk) 15:17, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Mention in The Elder Scrolls: Morrowind

TES fans know this for sure. The easter egg in the game to convert the goldbrand sword to eltonbrand is selecting "Go to hell Carolina!" in game after doing certain steps. Apparently some guy (Bluedev) who worked on the game was from Duke.

Full details here:

http://www.uesp.net/wiki/Morrowind:Easter_Eggs#Eltonbrand

174.97.164.173 (talk) 01:23, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Basketball needs its own page

Yea it takes up the whole page, this should be a broad scope of all the sports, its clearly biased in basketball. The basketball rivarly should have its own page.

considering people are concerned with file size, I would certainly support this. 280.status.net/douglasawh (talk) 03:42, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Duke won the February 8, 2012 game!

Just an FYI that watching the Carolina-Duke game on TV on February 8, 2012, Duke beat UNC in the very last second, the score was: Duke 85, UNC 84. NHRHS2010 the student pilot ✈ 04:21, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Yes, Duke, down by 9 points with a little over two minutes to go, fought back and eradicated the tarholes on their own court at the buzzer. It was .... beyond sweet. AWESOME. Can we say "awesome win" in the article, or is that POV? (grins) HammerFilmFan (talk) 05:32, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

This was an awesome win! And LOLOL I refer UNC Tar Heels as "tarholes" too! GO DUKE! NHRHS2010 the student pilot ✈ 20:32, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Requested Move 2

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: not moved Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 23:37, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

---

Carolina–Duke rivalry → Duke–North Carolina rivalry – The term "Carolina" is ambiguous. "Carolina" is not the common name of the public university, and the proposed title sacrifices conciseness only a little and gains hugely in precision and recognition--it remains for you, !voters, to determine if it's more natural as well and whether or not this page should be moved. (Note that, as per our normal naming practice, we put the names of the schools in alphabetical order, which is why I am proposing for Duke to come before North Carolina.) Red Slash 04:04, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose - As you can see from the previous discussions on this, Carolina-Duke was the consensus when it was debated previously. In my opinion, nothing has changed. "Carolina" is only ambiguous to the folks from South Carolina. It is the term commonly used to refer to North Carolina sports teams by UNC, Duke and State fans. I would also point out that this issue has been stable for 5 years now, after being contentious for some time before that, and I consider that additional evidence that the current name is appropriate. Ncjon (talk) 11:24, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

• "Carolina" in this context is not ambiguous to the folks from South Carolina. There has never been any rivalry between the two. —  AjaxSmack  04:17, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

• Weak Oppose. WP:COMMONNAME is the guideline I'm looking to here. Since the majority of media coverage refers to it as Carolina–Duke, it's reasonable to use that as the name. Now, if there were shown to be fragmentation of that—particularly if the terms Duke-North Carolina or Duke-UNC were used in greater frequency than Carolina-Duke, then I'd have to re-evaluate my position. —C.Fred (talk) 15:47, 22 November 2013 (UTC) amended 21:14, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose - we have already done this before. Check the archives. I don't have a stake in this either way, but I do want the article to be stable. If you can provide evidence that the name of the rivalry is more commonly referred to as something else, then please do so. If the evidence is strong enough, that could be persuasive. Remember (talk) 18:37, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

But the proposal is based on the fact that the name is not particularly precise, not that it's not commonly used. Red Slash 20:57, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

Taking a look at WP:PRECISE: "Exceptions to the precision criterion, validated by consensus, may sometimes result from the application of some other naming criteria." Previous discussion has established this as an exception. I'm no longer convinced that this nomination has merit, and I've strengthened my opposition. —C.Fred (talk) 21:14, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose Carolina-Duke is honestly the only name used for this rivalry. When it comes to NC State, Duke, and Carolina, all teams refer to The UNiversity of North Carolina at Chapel Hill as Carolina in rivalries because they all represent North Carolina, or at least want to. Carolina is the oldest public university and has been commonly nicknamed "Carolina" before other schools even existed. The point of this encyclopedia is to educate people on terms. When people hear Carolina-Duke rivalry in the media, they research it. This is the page. Carolina and Duke are fighting for North Carolina,in a sense. So renaming this title only wouldn't be accurate, it would be more confusing. The first sentence in the article states that Carolina-Duke is the rivalry between The University of North Carolina (Carolina) and Duke University (Duke). How much clearer can it get. These two teams are in the ACC. No one else uses Carolina as a nickname in the ACC. Why in the world would it be changed to the name of the state both teams are trying to represent. North Carolina is arguably the biggest and most known state for college basketball, and the big 3 are Carolina, Duke, State. Using North Carolina is more confusing because the majority of teams in NC are University of North Carolina-Chapel Hill, Pembroke, Greensboro, Charlotte, Wilmington, Asheville etc. etc. etc. Even NC State and Appalachian Stateare under the University of North Carolina. University of North Carolina is a system of higher education in North Carolina. See Encyclopedia Brittanica on this.. The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill is called "Carolina" to alleviate confusion. Therefore, changing the name of this title would actually create the opposite effect of which it is trying to achieve. Furthermore, Duke-North Carolina sounds like an address because Duke is in North Carolina. it is sometimes refered to as Duke-Carolina rivalry, but thats an alphabetical rule. There is no clearer title than Carolina-Duke Rivalry. Plain and Simple.NCPride321 (talk) 05:04, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose - print sources seem 50/50 for both titles in Google Books, 8 each. In ictu oculi (talk) 16:52, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose. "Carolina–Duke" (or "Duke–Carolina") is the most common name for this rivalry. Rreagan007 (talk) 17:39, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose it's Carolina-Duke or Duke-Carolina. Example, the HBO documentary a couple years back was "Battle for Tobacco Road:Duke vs. Carolina." The are numerous other examples. Rikster2 (talk) 00:22, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

References

Cleanup recentism part II

It looks to me like once again we need to address WP:Recentism in the notable games section. Apparently there were no notable games in the first 48 years of the rivalry, but more than half of the games played in the last 15 years are notable. I find that hard to believe. My suggestion would be to remove the following games from the list of notables: Feb 1, 2001; Mar 9, 2003; Feb 9 2005; Mar 9, 2008; Feb 11, 2009; Mar 6, 2010; Feb 9, 2011; Mar 5, 2011; Mar 13, 2011; Mar 3, 2012; Mar 9, 2013; Mar 8, 2014. That would reduce the notable list back to something almost manageable. Ncjon (talk) 10:13, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Carolina–Duke rivalry. 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/20090808184418/http://www.newsobserver.com:80/664/story/387987.html to http://www.newsobserver.com/664/story/387987.html

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: 5 June 2024).

• 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} 01:49, 17 February 2016 (UTC)