Talk:Big Game (American football)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 1 February 2021 and 18 May 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Frothine.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 15:41, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Untitled

The "Cal Bonfire Rally" section should be removed or Stanford Big Game traditions should be included as well. This could form a "Traditions" section. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.12.100.85 (talk) 05:43, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Why was the page moved? --Jiang 23:38, 5 May 2004 (UTC)

Why don't we merge this article with the Stanford Axe Article? Other college football rivalry games usually don't have two articles dedicated to it, one fore the game and one for the trophy. Dspserpico 23:21, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm not for that idea. The "Big Game" and even "the Play" are things that stand as important traditions in all of college football (I would also include "The Game" between Harvard-Yale and "Army-Navy") --and, as purely a sports fan, I hate both those schools (go Trojans!) Bobak 17:12, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Just a question, the article states The legitimacy of The Play has remained controversial. To this day, the final score in the official record shows Cal winning by a score of 25-20, whereas in many Stanford publications it is recorded as Stanford 20, Cal 19. Is this legitimacy of The Play controversial throughout those loving (College Football), or is this a Stanford POV? If so, it should be marked as such. RoguePat 08:35, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

To answer your question, it is purely a Stanfurd point of view. No one else contests The Play. In fact, Stanfurd has even stopped the silly tradition of changing the score when they hold the Axe. I think they realize that the 1992 game (which they won on a VERY questionable penalty) is much more controversial, and so have dropped the subject (for YEARS, whenever the ref, Pat Flood, from the 1992 game was officiating, Joe Starkey would say something like "The ref is....Pattttt...Flooooood") — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.180.165.26 (talk) 09:00, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Stanfordcal.png

Image:Stanfordcal.png 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 07:34, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

User:Falcorian/timeline

A while ago I started working on a timeline for this article, but I sort of forgot about it and left it sitting on my user page. I just remembered it though and though I should make a note of it here so that others can use/expand on it. It can be found on: User:Falcorian/timeline. Pleaes feel free to edit it there, copy it to a subpage here, or whatever. --Falcorian ^(talk) 16:55, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Stanford-Cal game 1936.jpg

Image:Stanford-Cal game 1936.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 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 lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 08:17, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Stanford-Cal game 1938.jpg

Image:Stanford-Cal game 1938.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 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 lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 08:19, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Stanford-Cal game 1955.jpg

Image:Stanford-Cal game 1955.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 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 lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 08:21, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Stanford-Cal game 1969.jpg

Image:Stanford-Cal game 1969.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 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 lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 08:22, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with File:The-play.jpg

The image File:The-play.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

• That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
• That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --13:39, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Game name

At least at Stanford, the annual Stanford/Cal game is referred to as "Big Game" (i.e., without the grammatical article "the"). The title of the (Wikipedia) article is "Big Game" but there are many references to "the Big Game". What is the name of the game per Berkeley folks? I noticed that the media can't seem to choose whether or not they like the article "the". Imagineertobe (talk) 22:37, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

I've always said "the", but I couldn't tell you what the majority of Berkeley folk say. For a quick search it does looks like the media uses both (including the Daily Cal). I personally support using "the" in our article, it just sounds better to me. --Falcorian ^(talk) 12:31, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

I've seen "the" used as well as which edition of the Big Game it is (e.g. the 2010 one was the 113th; cf. Cal's official game notes and Stanford's game notes, which go both ways). I see the point about the official name not being The Big Game, but at the same time to me it's hard to get away from using "the Big Game" the entire time in the article. BrokenSphere^{Msg me} 22:20, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

I have always called Big Game 'Big Game' and not 'the Big Game'. The only people who I have heard use a 'the' were neither students nor alumni of Stanford or Cal. --SelfStudyBuddy^TALK-- 22:14, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

SelfStudyBuddy, I agree with you that the members of both schools do not generally use the article. I read BrokenSphere's links to the game notes, I tried to discern some kind of pattern--it seems to be that if you are referring to more than one Big Game, or Big Game as a group: "...in the history of THE Big Game [the collective group of Big Games]" and "...scored at least 40 points in THE Big Game [again, the collective group]", you use the article. (I'm giving the Athletic Departments a lot of credit for having a really good style guide here.) In the Wikipedia article phrases like "the Big Games of 1906 to 1914" seem to really need the article, but others, like "on the eve of the Big Game" do not. I remember we would always say "Are you going to Big Game?" meaning a specific event, but you might say "Do you remember the Big Game when..." It is tricky.

Obviously this is all WP:OR. Given that, and given the media's use of the article, at minimum, we have to acknowledge both terms. We really need a link to some reliable source that describes the article-less version. It might be a good idea to use both terms in the lede: "The Big Game (or more typically, 'Big Game'..." Just some thoughts. --Esprqii (talk) 23:31, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Essentially, "Big Game:Stanfurd, The Big Game:Cal" == "5:San Franciso, THE 5:LA". In fact, I am really surprised that no Cal alums or students have changed the name. Thank you for bringing this up, I will notify the Berkeley RallyCom to update this article to include the "The" as a counter-point. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.180.165.26 (talk) 09:03, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Results table

I created the version of the Results table in this version based more or less on the table in Civil War (college football game) because I thought it was easy to read the actual scores and data in black and white with just a splash of color. The current version with the very bright table cells make it easy to spot winners all right, but to me anyway, it makes reading the scores and seeing the footnotes very difficult indeed. I am not colorblind but I wonder if this decreases readability for those people. I'm open to figuring out a way to make spotting the winners easier if that's needed--a colored strip across the top of the cell instead of a box?--but this just seems like too much. There is no real standard for these kinds of tables, and maybe we should take it up on the WP:CFB talk page and develop one. Any thoughts? --Esprqii (talk) 17:13, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

I made the most recent edit to color the table cells. After ESprqii raised concerns about this on my talk page, I went to Category:United States athletic conference navigational boxes and went through the articles of the four conferences (coincidentally, four of the six BCS conferences) with rivalry game templates, I have found most rivalry game articles use shaded boxes. Indeed, most use the format Big Game had (which I will call "HSB" here - for horizonal shaded box) until Esprqii replaced it last month with the version mentioned above (which I will call "CWV" here - for Civil War version). I actually prefer HSB but didn't want to overwrite all of Esprqii's work in creating CWV on the page for Big Game, so I went with the option of shading the boxes of CWV on Big Game.

The Pac-10 is the most haphazard conference when it comes to these tables, Civil War uses CWV, Apple Cup (and now Big Game) uses a shaded box version of CWV, Territorial Cup uses its own unique format, UCLA–USC uses its own unique format, and Colorado-Utah (technically, Pac-12) does not have a table. Indeed, the Civil War page used HSB until this August 2009 edit and the Apple Cup page used a variant of HSB this August 2009 edit; both August 2009 edits were by User:YBG. All 15 rivalry game articles of the SEC, all 14 rivalry game articles of the Big Ten, and 9 of the 13 rivalry game articles of the Big 12 use the HSB format (of the remaining 4 articles from the Big 12, there are 3 with no table whatsoever and 1 that uses an odd format that no other school has). So by my survey, 38 of 48 articles (79%) use HSB, 4 of 48 articles (8%) use no table, 3 of 48 articles (6%) use CWV, and 3 of 48 articles (6%) use a unique format.

OCNative (talk) 05:58, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Great analysis, thanks. Aside from the color, with all the separate columns, I think it's really hard to spot the score of any given game in the HSB. The old Big Game format wasn't too bad (other than the overly wide Notes column), but if you look at something like Deep South's Oldest Rivalry, it's really hard to spot the score of any given game. It's just a table without any cohesiveness, some of which have wasted columns, like the whole "location" column in many of the Big 10 games seems like a waste as 99% of the time it alternates. There is also not usually a commitment to how the score should be displayed: in one column? Two?

It seemed to me that the other rivalry boxes just evolved organically as long plain tables that eventually had color added to them but hadn't really been thought through. It appeared to me that User:YBG had put some thought into the CWV format. I liked its compactness and the fact that it combines each game result into a single cell, and notes are shorter.

Anyway, I'm fine with the color, though I do think a slightly muted version would be easier on the eyes (but I know, not traditional--we don't want to be accused of pastel patriotism!). To address the non-standard issue, what do you think about switching the other Pac-12 rivalry boxes to this NBGV (New Big Game version)? I think the CU-UU rivalry, CW, and Territorial Cup could be handled boldly (the TC table is really just a mess). Should probably discuss on the UCLA–USC rivalry page.

Any other opinions out there? --Esprqii (talk) 19:25, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Well, since my two main editing are politics and the Pac-10 (or should it be Pac-12?), might I suggest borrowing the color scheme from the political pages? Conveniently, the Republicans and Democrats each have a color in common with the Cardinal and the Golden Bears, respectively. See the list of legislators from California State Legislature, 2011–2012 session, for example. (Also, sorry about the delay in responding, as I have been on a wikivacation during the holidays.) OCNative (talk) 11:01, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Making it the same as the Rep/Dem might be confusing. I'm used to it now, so let's just leave it. Whaddya think about adapting to the other Pac-12 rivalry games? --Esprqii (talk) 19:20, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

It seems Template:CFB Yearly Record Entry has a rivalry game prompt. I don't know if this is intended to be a new standard, or is just an option available for that template.
Assuming that the Template:CFB Yearly Record Entry rivalry game prompt is not a new standard, then I think it makes sense to adapting the Big Game format to the other rivalry games, particularly the three you pointed out since Colorado-Utah doesn't have a table currently, Civil War is just a slight variant of this one here, and Territorial Cup is one of the simplest/least informative tables of any rivalry game. It looks like Apple Cup already uses this one. I agree that any attempt to change the UCLA-USC page would definitely need discussion considering how well-developed that page and table already are. OCNative (talk) 07:10, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Santa Clara template

I just noticed that the "Santa Clara Broncos" navbox is included in this article. (It used to be the Broncos football navbox, but that just got changed because the game was rugby.) I think that's inappropriate; this article is about Big Game which has always been the Cal-Stanford game. Based on the article Santa Clara Broncos, they seem to be claiming the 1916 rugby game between Stanford and Santa Clara as a version of Big Game, because Cal and Stanford did not play each other in the years 1915-1918. I think that's a real stretch, and it doesn't seem to be included in official records of Big Game. IMO the Santa Clara Broncos navbox should be deleted from the article, but I'd like to see other people's opinions. --MelanieN (talk) 14:47, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

I agree it should not be included. Technically, those games were called the "Big Game" but I don't think any Big Game scholars (heh) consider it the same thing. --Esprqii (talk) 21:59, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for removing it. I was waiting to see if the person who modified it would chime in here, but I guess either they are AFC or they don't have an opinion. --MelanieN (talk) 17:20, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Just about to mention that I did it...if someone still objects we can always put it back. --Esprqii (talk) 17:34, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

I really don’t have a dog in this fight, but it looks like from 1915-1917 Stanford billed their “Big Game” (’cause you can’t not have a Big Game, right????) the matchup between them and Santa Clara on the pitch. Whether or not that merits the inclusion of a navbox is debatable, but it’s notable and, really, it takes up so little room you didn’t notice it; I think it’s trivial and hurts nothing to have it. —Wiki Wikardo 04:55, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

This article is really about the rivalry between Stanford and Cal that happens to be called "The Big Game"--I don't think the Santa Clara games are the same thing even though they had the same name. The scores are not listed for those games and I think it's better to limit this article to the two teams that have the long tradition that has continued (you'd also have to include the Cal-Washington "Big Game" scores from that time.) Seems like a separate article about the Santa Clara-Stanford rivalry should include the 1915-17 games. --Esprqii (talk) 06:01, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for joining the conversation, Wiki - and for inadvertently calling this box to our attention! I agree with Esprqii. The scope of this article is defined in the first sentence: "The Big Game is an American college football rivalry game played by the California Golden Bears football team of the University of California, Berkeley and Stanford Cardinal football team of Stanford University." It does not even mention the Santa Clara game(s) anywhere, because this article is about the Cal-Stanford rivalry. A sentence could be added, noting that the Stanford-Santa Clara rugby games and Stanford-Washington football games for those years were referred to as Big Game, but I think the navbox is inappropriate. --MelanieN (talk) 15:20, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Just wanted to note that the Santa Clara-Stanford and Cal-Washington "Big Games" are already noted in this article (third paragraph under Series History). --Esprqii (talk) 17:24, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks! I stand corrected. In that case I am happy with the article as is. --MelanieN (talk) 18:00, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Big Game (American football). 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 {{dead link}} tag to http://www.gostanford.com/genrel/111705aab.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120104111545/http://www.gostanford.com/biggame/history.html to http://www.gostanford.com/biggame/history.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120404073419/http://www.calbears.com/sports/m-footbl/recaps/112010aaa.html to http://www.calbears.com/sports/m-footbl/recaps/112010aaa.html

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

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

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:06, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

Correcting a discrepancy in the series record

The article clearly shows only 110 meetings between Cal and Stanford in the Game results table. Someone must have confused this rivalry's record with of the Oregon–Oregon State rivalry, which is 63–46–10 in favor of Oregon. Furthermore, when you get to the Stanford game in the article regarding the 2016 California Golden Bears football team, it shows Cal's all-time record against Stanford is 43–56–10, not 46–62–11. How someone ended up confusing the record of the Civil War with that of the Big Game is beyond me. 205.153.48.25 (talk) 19:08, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for coming to the talk page. However, the reliable sources all say that there have been 119 Big Games.

• Cal says 2016 was the 119th Big Game.[1]
• Stanford says 2016 was the 119th Big Game[2]
• The newspapers say 2016 was the 119th Big Game. [3][4]

So let's work this out on the talk page, BEFORE you make these drastic changes to the article. This is the third time you have made the change. That amounts to Edit warring and can get you blocked if you continue it. --MelanieN (talk) 19:17, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

Additional research: the Stanford football site says its record against Cal (not counting this year's game) as 61-46-11. [5] That adds to 118 as of last year. We do need to figure out all these discrepancies. Meanwhile, I think the article should be restored to the way it was but I will wait for someone else to chime in here so we can get a consensus. I don't want to become guilty of edit warring myself. --MelanieN (talk) 19:30, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

OK, I think I've figured this out The chart in this article listing all the games clearly shows only 110 games, with Stanford leading 56-42-10. However, both schools and other reliable sources claim there have been 119 games. The longstanding (up until a week ago) records at the top of this article were: 119 meetings, with Stanford leading 62-46-11 (that adds up to 119). The listing by location of the game also added up to 119.

So what happened to the other 9 games? I think I have the answer. From 1906 to 1914, the Big Game was rugby instead of football. The teams did not play each other at all from 1915 through 1918. The game returned as football in 1919. So: the rivalry (i.e., the Big Game) has consisted of 119 games, of which 9 were rugby games.

So the way to solve this is to restore the original records: 119 games with a record of 62–46–11, and add a note to the chart explaining that it shows only football games. Are you agreeable with that, 205.153.48.25? --MelanieN (talk) 19:46, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

I propose the following wording for the top of the chart: NOTE: This chart lists only football games. From 1906 through 1914, the Big Game was rugby rather than football. No Big Game was played in the years 1915-18 and 1943-45. --MelanieN (talk) 19:53, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

I can't find a reason to NOT like it. Also, I would slightly change the note to read Note: This chart lists only football games. From 1906–14, the Big Game was rugby instead of football. No Big Game was played from 1915–18 and 1943–45, due to World War I and World War II, respectively. 205.153.48.25 (talk) 20:12, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

I'll add it as corrected. Also, I removed an incorrect item from the lede which claimed this is the seventh most played college football rivalry in the U.S. That was based on the number 119, but the linked list is specifically for FOOTBALL rivalries, so 119 is not the right number - since there have not been 119 football games. Thanks for calling attention to this problem, I think we have it fixed now. Want to check it and see if I missed anything? --MelanieN (talk) 21:13, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

P.S. The close correlation between the statistics for the Big Game and the Civil War was interesting - and confusing. And it turns out that the Big Game is the oldest rivalry in the west, but the Civil War has played the most football games. Something for everybody. --MelanieN (talk) 21:15, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

Both Stanford and Cal include the rugby matches from 1906 to 1914 as part of the history of the Big Game rivalry. This article is about Big Game, and both schools agree that those rugby matches were Big Games. So, those rugby matches should be listed here. Elmo McGee (talk) 22:23, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Big Game (American football). 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/20100807203402/http://www.la84foundation.org/SportsLibrary/JSH/JSH1984/JSH1103/jsh1103b.pdf to http://www.la84foundation.org/SportsLibrary/JSH/JSH1984/JSH1103/jsh1103b.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20040804133920/http://www.signonsandiego.com/sports/college_football/20021118-9999_1s18play_transcript.html to http://www.signonsandiego.com/sports/college_football/20021118-9999_1s18play_transcript.html

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

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

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:15, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

Moved pre game traditions section to above memorable games.

I think the traditions are an important part of "the big game". It makes sense for a reader to get a complete sense of what is the big game, before moving out to finding out about the highlights of this tradition. Rybkovich (talk) 21:04, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

Big game bonfire pic

I propose that we change the current big game picture to this It is a picture of the actual bonfire and the amphitheater. If we agree I will upload it, it has an allowable creative commons license. Rybkovich (talk) 21:25, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

There is no response, so I will go ahead and swap the pics. Rybkovich (talk) 23:34, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

Origin of the term "Big Game"

Right now the article states that the term was first used in 1900. Yes the title of the 1900 issue of the San Jose Evening refers to the game as Big Game. However in For the Blue and Gold a 1901 novel, that describes life at the UC sometime in the 1890s (see quote "on that Thanks Giving Day 189-" p. 92), the term is regularly used (See pages 80, 92, 93...) Which would indicate that the term was not "first used in 1900" as stated in the article. I suggest we take that out and put in that the term was already used by 1900. The book - https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=uc2.ark:/13960/t5cc0vf5z&view=1up&seq=2 Rybkovich (talk) 01:31, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

I found a source that the term was used before 1900. See the cite. Rybkovich (talk) 18:26, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

Start of section Series History

To start the section Series History, it should be “The Big Game”, not just “Big Game” 2601:644:8F01:AA20:A463:20A0:E6D1:9831 (talk) 03:28, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

I see that you added "The" to the section already. Let's discuss it here. I have heard it both ways, but probably more without "the" than with, as in "who are you going to Big Game with?" or "Big Game is in Berkeley this year". And the college celebrations mostly omit "the": "Big Game Gaieties", "Big Game Week", etc. "The" is mainly used to talk about a specific game, as in "the 1988 Big Game". Overall I believe it should be called "Big Game", not "the Big Game". -- MelanieN (talk) 03:43, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

Since your addition of "The" changed longstanding content, it needs consensus. I am going to revert it while we discuss. -- MelanieN (talk) 15:43, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

125th Big Game Logo

On the Cal website, they are advertising an “Axe Pack”, with tickets to all home events against Stanford this year. Along with it was a logo for this year’s game. Should it be on this page? 2601:644:8F01:AA20:A463:20A0:E6D1:9831 (talk) 03:58, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

I doubt if we can use it. The logo is almost certainly copyrighted. -- MelanieN (talk) 16:00, 24 July 2022 (UTC)