This article is within the scope of WikiProject College football, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of college football on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.College footballWikipedia:WikiProject College footballTemplate:WikiProject College footballcollege football articles
This article was reviewed by member(s) of WikiProject Articles for creation. The project works to allow users to contribute quality articles and media files to the encyclopedia and track their progress as they are developed. To participate, please visit the project page for more information.Articles for creationWikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creationTemplate:WikiProject Articles for creationAfC articles
This article has been given a rating which conflicts with the project-independent quality rating in the banner shell. Please resolve this conflict if possible.
With these edits a few days ago, editor Ostealthy changed the game names in the two main tables, by removing the sponsorships. For example, Capital One Orange Bowl was changed to Orange Bowl, and Bad Boy Mowers Gasparilla Bowl was changed to Gasparilla Bowl. This is a pretty significant change, so, let's talk about it. Speaking for myself, I actually think either way would be okay, but I prefer the game names the new way, without the sponsorships. It makes it easier for the reader to quickly see which bowl game is which in the two tables, and I don't see a compelling need to include the sponsorships here. Of course, if the reader clicks through to an article about a bowl game, they'll see the sponsorship information there, and that's appropriate. What do other editors think? — Mudwater (Talk) 01:48, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I made the change because, as you point out, it's easier to read that way. In general I think most fans agree that the sponsorships are only there because they have to be. To fans, the Orange Bowl is the Orange Bowl. Not the Capital One Orange Bowl or the Discover Orange Bowl, or the FedEx Orange Bowl, or whatever the next sponsor may be. ESPN reads it off that way because it's in the contract. But since Wikipedia is not beholden to these sponsors, we don't need to partake in this silliness. If someone is interested in sponsorship, they can find it in more detailed pages, but not in a table meant to summarize the bowl season in a manner that's easy to read. I'd like to also make this change on previous year's bowl articles as well if others are in agreement. Ostealthy (talk) 02:19, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
So, that's two editors who say that the names of the bowl games in the tables are better the new way, without the sponsorships -- Ostealthy, who made the change, and me, who started this talk page discussion. Does anyone else have an opinion about this? — Mudwater (Talk) 13:07, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'd say keep them off; in my eyes it's not a huge deal but I suppose it does make the table a little easier to read. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 13:35, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
