Talk:Army–Navy Game

Description of Locations in Map

@Thewolfchild: 1. Not sure why "the location of Army and Navy service academies" is preferable. It's certainly not colloquial. I was okay with the way it's been all along ("Locations of Army and Navy"). But when @Needforspeed888: changed it, rather than undo his changes, I thought I'd implement his changes in a more colloquial way. I'd be okay with "the location of USMA (Army) and USNA (Navy)." 2. Why did you archive the talk page? . 3665047379b (talk) 20:25, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

The edit made by Needforspeed888 was rather succinct, whereas the subsequent changes seemed rather clunky and repetitive, especially for a simple image caption, and didn't seem to be a improvement. - wolf 21:44, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

@Thewolfchild: The edit by Needforspeed888 actually made the text less succinct than it was previously. The previous formulation, which was there for years was more succinct and colloquial. If there is insistence on adding his detail, let’s talk about acceptable ways to add his detail in a colloquial way (which is what I was attempting to do. 3665047379b (talk) 01:28, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

I originally changed the caption for clarity, but if there is a problem with my wording, I am totally cool with putting it back to the way it originally was (just Army and Navy). Needforspeed888 (talk) 02:20, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

@Needforspeed888: How about this? “The location of Army’s and Navy’s service academies.” 3665047379b (talk) 04:12, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

@3665047379b: That works as well. That is nearly identical to the language I used (aside from the possessives). Needforspeed888 (talk) 04:16, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

That is what I was also going to suggest (also without possesives). I'm not sure why there is a need for this "colloquialism" that 366...b seeks, I just know that all the additional bracketed words and the repetition of "Academy", all in a single sentence caption, was not an improvement. Needforspeed's edit was correct, and as I said, succinct. They are "service academies", (with the word in plural being preferable), and linking that term provides access to additional information. Hopefully this puts the issue to rest and we can all move on. - wolf 13:40, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

@Thewolfchild: @Needforspeed888: Still not a fan of the formulation "Army service academy" or "Navy service academy." No one refers to the United States Military Academy (USMA) or West Point as the Army service academy. And no one refers to the United States Naval Academy (USNA) as the Navy service academy (or Marine Corps service academy). Similar pages on wikipedia use the athletic moniker and ignore the actual name of the school. See Commander-in-Chief's Trophy and Secretaries Cup and Navy–Notre Dame football rivalry and Virginia–Virginia Tech football rivalry and Egg Bowl. What's being done on this page is that the athletic moniker is then taken and worked backwards in a way that no one actually refers to the schools. And, for example, on the Egg Bowl page, the caption does not read "Locations of Mississippi State and Ole Miss universities." It's just the athletic monikers. It's unclear to me why this is the only page on which the athletic monikers won't suffice. I'll leave it like it is for the time being to wait for your responses. If "Locations of Army and Navy" is insufficient, then I have another compromise to propose. I could countenance ""Locations of USMA (Army) and USNA (Navy)" USMA and USNA are already defined in the heading of the article. 3665047379b (talk) 19:17, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

Going forth, I am neutral on whatever the caption says, as long as it effectively communicates what the map is meant to show: the locations of where the teams are based out of. Needforspeed888 (talk) 19:40, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

Something you (366...b) should keep in mind is that arguments such as "no one does this" and "no one says that" are not sound arguments in deciding content. I realize that this is just an image caption and you are both a fairly new account and somewhat of an SPA at that, but these principles apply to all writing and content decisions. Your examples show you are still striving for something "colloquial", but you have to remember this is a global project, and we write for a global audience. It's not just Americans that watch the Army-Navy game, nor read this article. You also haven't addressed the redundancies and needless, clunky brackets you keep proposing. If both Needforspeed and I are ok with the caption as it currently stands, then there really is no need, or basis, to change it again, unless more editors join the discussion and there is a consensus in favor of something else. - wolf 20:49, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

@Thewolfchild: You haven't addressed my main point. This college football rivalry page handles this caption differently from every other college rivalry page. Is there some standard? Will you edit Commander-in-Chief's Trophy and Secretaries Cup and Navy–Notre Dame football rivalry which are exactly analogous? If not, why not? Belittling a participant in the discussion while ignoring his points doesn't say a lot for your perception of the strength of your case. 3665047379b (talk) 23:13, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

There isn't "standard", or guideline, that I'm aware of that says all image captions for college football rivalry pages must be the same. Not sure why you feel "belittled", I just pointed out that your account is relatively new, because it is, and could arguably be considered an wp:spa, because of the couple hundred edits you've made, the large majority have been to this article. I say that not as an insult, but to point out that as you gain more (and varied) experience on WP, you'll see what works, what doesn't, and why. It will also help you avoid entering into massive talk page debates, with borderline edit-warring, over a simple image caption. I sill agree, however, that "perception" does seem to be an issue here. And with that, I don't what else I can add here... - wolf 23:41, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

@Thewolfchild: I will be satisfied if you explain why the edit is appropriate here but you are not making the edit at Commander-in-Chief's Trophy and Secretaries Cup and Navy–Notre Dame football rivalry and Army–Notre Dame football rivalry. In other words, if you respond to my question. I can see what works, what doesn’t and why because literally EVERY analogous page is edited as this one was originally. 3665047379b (talk) 00:53, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

I restored the wording back to the way it previously was because it is the convention used on articles about other rivalries (as mentioned above), and it has been this way on the page for a long time with no objection. I sincerely apologize for starting this whole dispute. I was not aware that there was a convention across articles, but now I know there is. I am a big proponent of consistency. Needforspeed888 (talk) 01:31, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

@Needforspeed888: I've re-added the additional text because it's not only an improvement, but a needed improvement. You've been around long enough, and have enough experience to know, that we don't reverse improvements to articles just because a single editor doesn't like it and drowns the talk page in continuous complaints. If you or they want to suggest another way to improve that caption, then I guess we'll need to continue this until a new resolution is agreed on. There is no "convention across articles" here, we don't retain something deficient on one article just becuase similar problems are found on other similar articles. This article was improved. If others have the same or similar issues, then perhaps you or 366...b would like to work on improving them as well. But I believe the issue on this article has had more than enough attention paid to it already. Have a nice day - wolf 04:30, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

(arbitrary break #1)

@Thewolfchild: Let me quote you, "If both Needforspeed and I are ok with the caption as [it originally stood], then there really is no need, or basis, to change it again, unless more editors join the discussion and there is a consensus in favor of something else." I don't agree it's an improvement. It introduced an extraneous concept that is no where else discussed in the article. And it is an athletic rivalry page where athletic monikers are used (and appropriately so) just like every other college rivalry page (not accidentally). It's not your way or the highway and no amount of your appeal to authority can change that it is not an improvement and not consistent with the way things are done at wikipedia. So when I do it it's "borderline edit-warring" and when you do it it's all good. 3665047379b (talk) 12:59, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

@Thewolfchild: By the way, years ago, when Army changed its athletic moniker to Army West Point, I changed the title of this page Army Black Knights football to "Army West Point Black Knights football". Editors more experienced than I changed it back, saying that the wikipedia standard was to use customary language not the official moniker. They went as far as to check ESPN, CBS Sports, and the opposing teams' schedules to see how Army was referred to. In something like an 11-3 margin, Army was referred to as "Army" rather than "Army West Point." They said that until what is customary changes, it is appropriate to leave it as just Army. So I'm not sure that wikipedia holds no value in colloquialism. See the Requested move of 28 September 2017 at Talk:Army Black Knights football 3665047379b (talk) 13:19, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

@Thewolfchild: @Needforspeed888: @3665047379b: Nobody refers to USMA or USNA as Army Service Academy or Navy Service Academy. To have the WP page call them that is, at best, confusing to readers and, at worst, misinforming. This goes for both readers intimately familiar with the institutions and people who have never heard of them. There are two acceptable answers as far as I'm concerned. "Locations of Army and Navy" (preferred) or "Locations of USMA (Army) and USNA (Navy). The term "Army Service Academy" is both less succinct and less informative than either "Army" or "USMA (Army)." NJchsWPna (talk) 15:01, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

366...b, consensus is not a vote, and you keep adding these "other stuff exist in other articles, so they must exist here too" arguments. That's not how WP works. You are misreading this as if the academies are being incorrectly "named" or that it's a violation of some hidden policy on "colloquialism". In your words: "No one refers to the United States Military Academy (USMA) or West Point as the Army service academy.", or in the words of NJchWpna; "Nobody refers to USMA or USNA as Army Service Academy or Navy Service Academy.", but these are just strawman arguments as neither is the case. These are the academies of their respective military services, in short: service academies. They are just being identified, not renamed.

The caption currently reads: "Locations of Army and Navy". It's incomplete. Perhaps knowledgeable fans and some service members will understand, but as I said before, we write for a global audience. The caption was being completed for those who won't readily pick up on what that means. Adding the linked term "service academies", which redirects to "military academy", (or it could link to United States service academies, neither are linked anywhere in the article), is not the "introduction of an extraneous concept that is no where else discussed in the article", it just clarifies what the caption is referring to, with a link (which is a huge part of how WP works). And considering the article is about the annual game between these two federal/service/military (naval) academies, that is a significant part of what the article is about. You make it seem as if a completely unrelated concept, (such as "commodity markets") were being inappropriately added to the caption.

Lastly, let's not forget that you yourself were in favor of adding "the location of Army’s and Navy’s service academies" just two days ago. With the exception of the possessives, both Needforspeed and I basically agreed with that. You are the one now backpeddling for some reason, and Needforspeed apparently only bowed out becuase of a "convention" that you went on and on about that doesn't exist. That is not the basis for article improvement nor how consensus works, just as we don't undo or impede improvements to one article with an insistence that other similar pages must be improved by the same editor as well (?!). You have again undone that improvement, and have continued to draaag this out for days, and 12+Kb, (over a caption!). I suggest you either let this go and self-revert, suggest another improvement, or take this to dispute resolution (over a caption!). - wolf 21:56, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

@Thewolfchild: @Needforspeed888: @3665047379b: As I said, Army Service Academy or Navy Service Academy on the WP page is, at best, confusing to readers and, at worst, misinforming. I understand there may be a need for clarification of what's behind the Athletic Departments' brands of Army and Navy. So I kept the verbiage and added hyperlinks to the WP pages for the respective academies. If anyone has questions as to what "Army and Navy" means, they're just a click away! That way the verbiage is succinct and there's no question as to what it means.NJchsWPna (talk) 22:37, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

@Thewolfchild: I have not backpedaled at all. From the beginning, I have had a preference for the original formulation. I have attempted to compromise three times. You have not accepted any of my proposed compromises. I am no more responsible for drawing this out than you are. I am not self-reverting. Take it to dispute resolution if you wish. Your prerogative. For someone who claims to be up on wikipedia philosophy you had no clue about wikipedia's preference for common usage (you claim colloquialism is not a thing) nor a clue about organized efforts across wikipedia to ensure that pages covering similar topics handle the same things in a standardized way. I am okay with [User:NJchsWPna|NJchsWPna]]'s edit. 3665047379b (talk) 23:01, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

366...b, the simple fact is you have limited experience (260 total edits, 180 to this page), and when I try to point out how things are typically done across the wider project, you take it as an insult and then respond with hostilty. You have not been willing to compromise on anything, as evidenced by the fact that you keep dragging this out with post after post, insisting on practices that don't exist and finally, you were dug in on the original caption all along.

@NJchsWPna:, the edit you made is problematic for a couple reasons; First, when content is being actively discussed or debated, we don't make edits to it. The content should not be changed until there is a consensus (which is not a vote) in favor of the best edit, which should be an improvement. Second, the two academies are already linked in the opening sentences of the lead, we don't need them linked again in a caption which is also in the lead. And you didn't change the caption, you just linked the words "Army" and "Navy". Well, for people who don't know, it's still "Army and Navy... what"? When NFS888 added "service academies", people at least knew at a glance, and if they wanted to know more, the link to either "service academies" (or "United States service academies"), provided more information. Neither of these pages are currently linked in the article, which is about two service academies and their football rivalry.

Also, why do you think referring to them as "service academies" is "confusing"? That is what they are. As I said above, they are the academies for each military service (also see United States service academies and United States federal academies).

The edit that clarified the caption was an improvement. It's typical of content found across Wikipedia. There is no demonstrable downside to it. And it should not have lead to this loonnng talk page debate, nor all the edits that have disrupted the page since. - wolf 08:43, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

@Thewolfchild: I would be happy to address your points. 1a. When the edit was initially made by Needforspeed, I did not return it to the initial wording (as I would have preferred) I changed it to something that I thought would be suboptimal but still accomplish what Needforspeed was trying to accomplish. That is compromise. You reverted my changes. 1b. I tried a compromise which had Army and Navy as possessives. Those possessives were the comprise. You removed the substance of the compromise and pretended you had accepted my compromise and then later accused me of backpedaling. 1c. I proposed USMA (Army) and USNA (Navy). You rejected those out of hand. 1d. That’s three compromises that you rejected. 2. At the base of our disagreement is whether the initial edit is an improvement. I say that it was not. I say this not just because every other analogous page on Wikipedia (including ones that do not involve service academies) handle this the way it was originally handled here, but because those pages are objectively handling it correctly. It is true that this is a game between two service academies. But this Wikipedia page is in the end a page about a college football rivalry. It is a game between two FOOTBALL TEAMS. That is why every other page uses the commonly used athletic moniker. The pages do not specify whether the games are between universities, colleges, polytechnic institutes, service academies, etc. And for good reason. This is a college football rivalry page. If you went to the Virginia-Virginia Tech page and “improved” the map caption to “Virginia university-Virginia Tech polytechnic institute” you would be reverted and with good reason. What is on these maps is the commonly used name for the football team and that’s not problematic. In fact it’s optimal. 3. You like to lecture me about how things are done across Wikipedia (and as to some things, e.g. common usage, your lecturing is clearly inaccurate). Let me discuss with you some facts about rhetoric generally. Arguments that are long on appeals to authority and short on the issue at hand are not very convincing. Indeed, they make the other participants suspect that the reason you’re arguing that way is that you have a weak hand when it comes to the actual issue. One way that you prolonged this is by ignoring my point that this page, as originally edited, was consistent with every other college rivalry page while spouting Wikipedia jargon and statistics to me until I called you on it. 4. I do not agree the original change was an improvement as I believe that not only is it inconsistent with other college rivalry pages but that there is good reason that those pages are the way they are. I’m no more guilty of dragging this out than you are. 3665047379b (talk) 11:57, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

@Thewolfchild: Two more thoughts regarding your response to NJchsWPna. I have alluded to the reason it is confusing in a previous post. An entity (university, college, service academy, etc.) decides to brand its publicly facing athletic department in a particular way. Usually (although not always) this brand comes into common usage in the general public for those athletic teams. It is not accurate to work backwards then and identify the entire institution by the athletic brand. That is what you are proposing. That’s why the possessives that you dropped were critical. Because it is true that the school at West Point is the Army’s service academy. But it’s not true that it’s the Army service academy and not only is that not in common usage but not appropriate to identify the entire institution by the athletic moniker. 2. None of that changes the fact that this map ought to have the common name of the football teams like everywhere else on Wikipedia. 3. You have edited several times while this was still under discussion. 3665047379b (talk) 12:31, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

So, you're going to complain that I "lecture" you about how things are done on WP, then turn around and lecture me about how things are done in sports? Needforspeed made an edit that was an improvement to this article. At one point, the three of us essentially agreed to having said improvement, which is known as a consensus. Here are the edits made since, including the first one;

list of edits

[1] - Needforspeed888: Locations of the Army and Navy service academies [2] - 3665047379b: Locations of the Military Academy and Naval Academy [3] - 3665047379b: Locations of the Military Academy (Army) and Naval Academy (Navy) [4] - Thewolfchild: Locations of the Army and Navy service academies [5] - 3665047379b: Locations of Army and Navy. [6] - Needforspeed888: Locations of Army and Navy [7] - Thewolfchild: Locations of the Army and Navy service academies [8] - Needforspeed888: Locations of Army and Navy [9] - Thewolfchild: Locations of the Army and Navy service academies [10] - 3665047379b: Locations of Army and Navy [11] - NJchsWPna: Locations of Army and Navy

I stand by my edits, which were due to that consensus. The edits made by others, since and now, are not an improvement. In fact, the page is worse off now than before this started. You are only interested in arguing. You seem to think that not getting your way is "losing", and you seem more determined than ever to "win". Making an article worse is not winning. I've tried to be patient, and have responded to all your incessant and argumentative replies, but that has just turned this talk page into a lengthy mess. You are clearly not working in good faith towards any kind of resolution here, and instead seem determined to just waste people's time. I'm not letting you waste anymore of mine. We're done here. - wolf 00:19, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

Results table

In the results table, what is the meaning of the notes that appear on some lines, e.g. "No. 21"? Is this explained somewhere that I didn't see? Theoldsparkle (talk) 14:50, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

@Theoldsparkle: They are the ranking (probably the AP or CFP) of the team entering the game. I agree that they should be referenced or explained somewhere. They seem to be on every rivalry page. For example, see Egg Bowl. As with the above discussion, this is handled so uniformly across college rivalry pages, I feel as if there must be a standard somewhere. I wouldn't know how to find it though. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 3665047379b (talk • contribs) 23:13, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

@Theoldsparkle:@3665047379b: It is now annotated, as is customary with other rivalry pages. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:c6c0:5cf0:d1cf:f929:8a4:bc72 (talk) 00:14, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

I came here to ask the same thing. It's rather presumptuous and wrong to write an article that is only understood by the nation who is writing it. What's the point of a global encyclopedia is the rest of the world doesn't understand it? The numbers don't make any sense because they are still not explained? Besides what does the ranking mean, is that a rank against other college football teams or in the league as a whole? Also think about the terminology, what does ranking mean in this context, the rest of the English speaking world uses Seed (sports), which implied favourite to win, whereas ranking is where a team is currently now, eg a position in a league. When you have to ask these questions like this, you have to realise people learn nothing from these articles because knowledge is capped by the people who write them.146.200.202.126 (talk) 12:10, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

Army-Navy Game

History section needs to mention why the one Army-Navy Game was played there (WWII) 2600:1004:B16D:42A:0:51:8253:7B01 (talk) 15:40, 28 July 2022 (UTC)