This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

University of Connecticut (inactive) This article is within the scope of WikiProject University of Connecticut, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.University of ConnecticutWikipedia:WikiProject University of ConnecticutTemplate:WikiProject University of ConnecticutUniversity of Connecticut College basketball High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject College basketball, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of college basketball 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 basketballWikipedia:WikiProject College basketballTemplate:WikiProject College basketballcollege basketball High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Connecticut High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Connecticut, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Connecticut 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.ConnecticutWikipedia:WikiProject ConnecticutTemplate:WikiProject ConnecticutConnecticut High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 15 January 2019 and 28 February 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Wadetempeasu1.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 11:53, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The image Image:ConnecticutHuskies.png 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. --03:20, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that on its own this team-sheet may not meet notability guidelines.  ' Olowe2011 ^Talk 12:05, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep : As part of the wikiproject college basketball, all season pages are relevant and should be kept. Mjs32193 (talk) 15:29, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't be in favor of trying to merge 100-odd season articles into the main program article; that would make the main article way too long. UConn basketball seasons in general receive extensive coverage from multiple independent secondary sources, but I'll admit I'm not as familiar with pre-World War II seasons. I may have some sources that could be added, let me look into this. –Grondemar 15:39, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like User:Mjs32193 beat me to the punch and added the main source I wanted to add (the Ken Davis book). I oppose merge due to listing all of the season results in the main article being undue weight within the main article, and believe we should keep the season articles as they both meet WP:NSEASONS and WP:GNG. –Grondemar 23:57, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I would try however to keep schedule formats consistent throughout the years....see current team yearly formats for examples....Pvmoutside (talk) 19:35, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It has been a month and all comments seem to be in agreement to keep and do not merge. For further discussion on this topic please visit my talk page. Mjs32193 (talk) 20:51, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Can somebody with more copyright savvy than me update the UConn wordmark logo to the current Husky head?

We are using an old logo that is no longer in use: https://www.sportslogos.net/logos/list_by_team/884/UConn_Huskies/ 2601:19C:5100:3C00:44B2:1BC3:EA6E:C4F2 (talk) 15:32, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

According to that source, the wordmark currently in the article is currently in use. It's listed as being used 2013 to present. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 21:17, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Arthurix WP:MOS is the style manual for all English Wikipedia articles. Wikipedia editors follow it for editing articles. MOS:HASH says "Avoid using the # symbol (known as the number sign, hash sign, pound sign, or octothorpe) when referring to numbers or rankings. Instead write number, No. or Nos." It does not say except for sports rankings. If you disagree with MOS:HASH you can start a discussion in MOS to have that rule changed. Other pages violating MOS:HASH is not a reason to revert an edit that follows MOS:HASH. Please do not revert war. The use of #1 or #2 in ranking clearly violates MOS:HASH no matter what some other pages do.

You quote the language "Where more than one style or format is acceptable under the MoS, one should be used consistently within an article and should not be changed without good reason". That is a correct statement. However the use of #1 or #2 is clearly *not* acceptable under the language of MOS:HASH ""Avoid using the # symbol... when referring to ... rankings". That sentence supports leaving the terms as either "number 1" or "No. 1".

Kaltenmeyer (talk) 16:23, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that in no way am I intending a revert war; but as with the comic book example in MOS:HASH, college basketball ranking is similar in their use of the pound sign for rankings in text. Adding 'number' in place of it brings in nearly 500 more characters to this article and harms readability. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arthurix (talk • contribs) 18:19, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Added to Wikipedia:Third opinion Kaltenmeyer (talk) 22:30, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I changed # to the shorter No. (which follows the rule of MOS:HASH) instead of the word number. I have never seen the number of characters be an exception to MOS. This will use less characters and will be compliant with MOS:HASH. Also comic books are a recognized exception to MOS:HASH. Sports rankings are not an exception recognized by MOS:HASH at this time. Kaltenmeyer (talk) 22:55, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Response to third opinion request:

Declining for now: A prerequisite for requesting a third opinion, as noted in the listing instructions, is that there has been thorough discussion of the dispute. At this time I do not see evidence that there has yet been a significant discussion. If and when that changes, if there are still only two involved editors, you are welcome to re-file. Otherwise, you are welcome to pursue other forms of dispute resolution. Cheers. DonIago (talk) 01:29, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]