Jump to content

Talk:Florida–Georgia football rivalry

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 67.194.69.67 (talk) at 00:25, 17 February 2012 (→‎Requested move 2). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Requested move

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. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was Page Moved  Ronhjones  (Talk) 22:19, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]


The World's Largest Outdoor Cocktail Party → Florida-Georgia annual classic Florida vs. Georgia Football Classic — The name "World's Largest Outdoor Coctail Party" is not only not officially sanctioned, it is officially condemned by both schools and the SEC. Furthermore, in recent years the moniker has received only passing reference (usually of a historical nature) by local media, and even less by national media. 98.71.219.134 (talk) 01:41, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Amended, per discussion below. —C.Fred (talk) 17:24, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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.
I do not consider World's Largest Outdoor Cocktail Party encyclopaedic. Even if is a colloquially used name, it's not a claim that is either verifiable or appropriate. --Labattblueboy (talk) 03:09, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

  • Regarding Cúchullain's concern about the name, the focus of the rivalry and the article is the football game. While a lot of what goes on in Jacksonville outside the game is covered in the article, it still links back to the game (or the gathering for the game). There's no coverage to, say, the baseball, basketball, or gymnastics competition between the schools. Accordingly, I think it's fine to have the word "football" in the article title, especially if that's what the City of Jacksonville calls the game. —C.Fred (talk) 23:36, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As I have now pointed out above, the "official" name of the game changes every year, depending on who's playing as the home team. This is presumably why previous editors settled on the ostensibly neutral nickname "The World's Largest Outdoor Cocktail Party". As such one can't be preferred. Additionally, the article's scope clearly goes beyond just the game itself. As such I think a descriptive title such as Florida-Georgia rivalry is much better. Because as you say the rivalry manifests itself largely in football, and not so much in other sports, Florida-Georgia football rivalry is also acceptable, but I think that's unnecessary wordage.--Cúchullain t/c 14:47, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
To me, though, a proper name suggests a stronger, more intense rivalry than anything just called the "... rivalry". Yes, the name flip-flops, but the standard in such cases for Wikipedia is to render it in alphabetical order. Accordingly, I think taking the article title to Florida–Georgia rivalry would dilute the article to the point that I would oppose such a change. —C.Fred (talk) 16:40, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with C.Fred's last comment. The official name changes yearly - should the article be renamed every season as well? Zeng8r (talk) 19:59, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think we need to move beyond our personal feelings and interpretations, and start looking at what the reliable sources and Wikipedia policies and guidelines say. The nickname "The World's Largest Outdoor Cocktail Party" would only be acceptable if it could be established as the most common name. It's not; while it returns 1,670 hits on Google News, [4] "Florida-Georgia game" returns 2,270 hits.[5] On the whole descriptive names like that are clearly the most common way of referring to the event; combining the terms "Florida Georgia game", "Florida Georgia football" and "Georgia Florida game" returns over 4000 relevant hits on Google News.[6] The sources that mention "TWLOCP" generally do so in passing. But no term besides "Florida Georgia game" is obviously the most common. As such we can go with the official name, per COMMONNAME, but here, there are two official names, meaning we would have to choose one. This brings in its own set of neutrality problems. A descriptive title avoids all of that.--Cúchullain t/c 21:28, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Each year, the name of the game changes, depending on who is the official "home" team. I think it is silly to have to change the name of the title every year to reflect word order. Furthermore, I oppose this change because is known to college football fans, such as myself, more commonly as the Cocktail Party. --Pgp688 (talk) 09:28, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
We wouldn't change it every year, we'd be picking one and stick with it. As I just showed, TWLOCP is not the most common name for the event in reliable sources, and when it is used, it's generally just a passing mention. As such it fails the WP:COMMONNAME criterion and is inappropriate as the article's title.--Cúchullain t/c 13:35, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed about not changing it every year: whatever title we picked, it'd be rendered in the Florida…Georgia form, listing the schools in alphabetic order, with a mention of the alternate form in the lead. —C.Fred (talk) 17:20, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
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. No further edits should be made to this section.


Proposed merge w/ Okefenokee Oar

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
The result was merge into Florida vs. Georgia Football Classic, which now has a section on the trophy. -Jhortman (talk) 02:09, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Okefenokee Oar article is basically a repeat of some of the info from this one. The trophy is clearly not notable enough for a stand-alone article anyway, imo, and a few paragraphs about it here would cover it appropriately. What does anybody else think? Zeng8r (talk) 23:22, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge. Given the short two-year history of the Okefenokee Oar, and its relatively insignificant place in the Florida-Georgia rivalry, the separate contents of the Okefenokee Oar should be merged into a section of the larger Florida-Georgia Football Classic article. The stand-alone article serves no purpose apart from providing an interesting aside to the main rivalry article. Merge. Merge now. Do it. Please. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 23:38, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge. That article makes it look like UF leads the series 2-0. --96.32.181.73 (talk) 23:48, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • DO NOT Merge. There is a distinct separation between college football rivalry trophies and the football games series themselves. There are Wiki pages dedicated to Little Brown Jug, Paul Bunyan's Axe, Floyd of Rosedale, even the Land of Lincoln trophy instituted in 2009. If the existing Wiki page referencing the FL-GA Football Classic is no longer worthy of its own page for some reason, then focus this discussion on the merits of pages dedicated to annual football contests, not on the Okefenokee Oar page.Davemaul (talk) 00:19, 1 November 2010 (UTC) --[reply]
comment Most of those other trophies have been around for decades, and their names are synonymous with the rivalry itself. On the other hand, I've yet to hear or read anybody call the FL-GA game the "Battle for the Okefenokee Oar" or something to that effect. In fact, I haven't seen this trophy shown nor heard it mentioned in any television or print coverage of the last two games. It's probably been mentioned by somebody, somewhere, but I follow these things pretty closely and haven't noticed it, so it can't have been mentioned much.
But putting aside the notability issue, just what can an article about the trophy say that hasn't already been said in the main series article? As of right now, it's a quick rehash of the history of the series with a vague, one sentence description of the actual physical trophy. That's it. The description could be expanded and merged into a new section of the main series article along with some explanation of who instituted the trophy and maybe a picture of the thing. Seems like an easy decision. Zeng8r (talk) 00:52, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge. The article contains nothing that can't be described here. It's not a well-known or well-established tradition, and our article is incorrect in saying it's presented to "the winning team". It's not; its presented to the student body of whichever school won the game. See this article from The Florida Times-Union.--Cúchullain t/c 01:00, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I've added a note about the Okefenokee Oar to this article. It contains probably all that can be said about the Okefenokee Oar. I found exactly two articles on Google News mentioning it, and nothing indicating whether it was even presented this year or not.--Cúchullain t/c 17:29, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, now that the Oar has its own little section in the main article, can the stand-alone article be deleted? Zeng8r (talk) 14:44, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Zen, propose it be deleted at AfD, and let's get rid of it. FYI, the lone proponent and creator of this article may have a COI. Someone of the same last name was shown in a photo of the Oar [7]. He was very adamant about saving the Oar article the last time it was proposed for AfD. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 14:49, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
done. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Okefenokee Oar (2nd nomination)
Yeah, I sense that he's taking this personally, when it's really just business. Zeng8r (talk) 15:12, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.


History dispute

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
The compromise reached is now reflected in the article -Jhortman (talk) 17:13, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

We need to somehow reach a consensus on how to describe the naming dispute at the heart of the disagreement between Georgia and Florida in a NPOV. Simply reverting my edits to the previous version is not good enough, because the previous version isn't historically accurate, and it presents the argument in such a way as to favor the Florida version of events. The idea is to merely lay out the historically-accurate facts, not to cause them to be slanted in favor of one argument or the other. My argument for my new revision of the page is below. All of the following data and sources are taken from the History of the University of Florida page. (Some of these sources there are ambiguously cited, as well, though I intend to update that page to provide clearer citations soon. I have linked to the sources themselves for clarity)

  • In 1903, the Florida legislature officially transferred the name "the University of Florida" to Florida Agricultural College. 1
    • At this time, there was no longer a Florida Agricultural college... it was the University of Florida, in name if nothing else.
    • The official name of this school was not the "University of Florida at Lake City." This was a moniker given to it in future years to distinguish it from the 1905-era U of F.
  • In 1905, the Buckman Bill was passed, and per the strict wording of the Bill, all institutions of higher education in the state were abolished, and four new institutions were created same link, page 41, Florida timeline, UFL official timeline:
    • The University of the State of Florida, a (white) men's school
    • Florida State College for Women, a (white) women's school
    • Florida Agricultural and Mechanical College, for African-Americans
    • A school for the deaf & blind
  • In practice, the students and faculty of the "old" U of F were transferred to the "new" U of F, along with all of the white men from the other schools that had been consolidated. All of the women from the "old" schools were transferred to FSC, etc.
    • All white men from all the old schools, including the "old University of Florida," were transferred to the new "State University of Florida."
  • The current Florida athletic department does not recognize any records from the 1903-1904 school that was known as the "University of Florida," because the new university had not been created yet, and it does not regard the 1903-'04 entity as a "predecessor institution" to its own.
  • Georgia does count the 1904 game. (I cannot find a sourced reason, though the "same name, mostly the same faculty, and same President" thing seems to be the obvious reason why. Since I can find no source, though, I will not include anything other than the fact that Georgia counts the win and UF does not.

I have re-edited the article with all of these items mentioned, and some of the initial information I entered has been removed in the name of trying to stick to well-sourced statements for something so controversial. I look forward to discussing this issue with anyone interested. Jhortman (talk) 03:25, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Disregard the "my new revision" link above. Apparently the edit conflict I encountered with Dirtlawyer1 blew away all the new edits I had made. I'm working on re-doing the new version and will post a link to it when done. Jhortman (talk) 03:38, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
UPDATE - The correct link to my proposed revision is here (if it's not the current version of the page). I apologize for the confusion. Jhortman (talk) 03:54, 13 July 2011
Jhortman, you're barking up the wrong tree, my friend. You're talking to the primary author of the history section of the "Florida Gators football" article, the "Andrew Sledd" article, and one of the two primary authors of the compromise language that you have taken it upon yourself to alter. All of this seems to have been done to re-slant the article in order to favor UGA's inclusion of the 1904 game. Let's review the historical facts of the University of Florida's "founding":
  • The State of Florida was admitted to the Union in 1845.
  • The Florida Legislature authorized the founding of two seminaries of higher learning, one located east of the Suwannee River, the other west of the river.
  • The East Florida Seminary opened in Ocala in 1853.
  • The West Florida Seminary opened in Tallahasee in 1857.
  • The East Florida Seminary closed at the outset of the Civil War in 1861; it reopened in Gainesville in 1866.
  • Separate and apart from the history of the two seminaries authorized in 1851, Florida Agricultural College was chartered as a new land grant school to be opened in Lake City pursuant to the federal Morrill Acts in 1884.
  • The Florida Legislature authorizes the West Florida Seminary to expand itself to four constituent colleges, and use the name "University of Florida," in 1885. In practice, the expansion only includes a new medical college, which ultimately becomes independent and fails, leaving only the West Florida Seminary, as the liberal arts college of the "university," in existence.
  • As one of a series of faltering and politically disjointed steps to reform the state's higher education "system," the legislature revoked the authority of Florida State College (the renamed West Florida Seminary) to call itself the "University of Florida" in 1903.
  • The legislature authorizes the Florida Agricultural College to use the name "University of Florida," which it assumes from the fall of 1903 to the spring of 1905. Florida Agricultural College and the old University of Florida in Lake City were the same entity, with a simple name change authorized by the legislature.
  • The Florida Agricultural College fielded a football team in 1902; the renamed University of Florida in Lake City fielded a football team in 1903 and 1904. The FAC/UF colors were blue and white.
  • The East Florida Seminary fielded a football team in 1903 and 1904; its colors are orange and black.
  • Andrew Sledd was appointed president of the old University of Florida in Lake City by its board of trustees in 1904; Sledd replaced over half of the existing faculty, after requiring faculty members to reapply for their jobs.
  • With the full political backing of Gov. Broward, the 1905 legislature enacted the Buckman Act that legally abolished all pre-existing state-supported institutions, including Florida State College in Tallahassee, the University of Florida in Lake City, the East Florida Seminary in Gainesville, the St. Petersburg Normal and Industrial School in St. Petersburg, and the South Florida Military Academy in Bartow. The assets and academic programs of the latter four coeducational colleges were consolidated into the new single-sex University of the State of Florida.
  • The president of the old University of Florida in Lake City, Andrew Sledd, was forced to reapply to the new Board of Control to become the president of the new University of the State of Florida, and only received the appointment after Gov. Broward threw his support to Sledd. Sledd was not treated as the de facto president of the new institution until the appointment.
  • In addition to a new name, the new university had a new charter, a new governing body (the Board of Control), a newly constructed campus in Gainesville (started in 1905 and opened in September 1906), a new organizational structure, new academic programs, a faculty that was approximately one-third different from the old University of Florida in Lake City, new school colors, a new alma mater, a student body that was over half different and was not coeducational, and new sports teams. From the standpoint of corporate law, the old University of Florida (1903–1905) and the new University of the State of Florida (1905–present) were and are different corporate entities.
  • The new university had a football team, with a new coach, in the fall of 1905, but Sledd canceled the season with no games having been played when several of the players failed to satisfy his academic eligibility standards.
  • The new University of the State of Florida operated on the Lake City campus of the old University of Florida for two semesters (fall 1905 and spring 1906), before all personal property assets and two-thirds of the faculty were transferred to Gainesville in the fall of 1906.
  • The new university fielded a football team in the fall of 1906. The team had its second new coach in two years, Jack Forsythe, who was formerly the coach of Florida State College before the Buckman Act. The team also had new colors----orange and blue. Only one member of the 1905 team that did not play any games was also a member of the 1906 team. No members of the 1904 University of Florida team were members of the 1906 University of the State of Florida team.
  • The University of the State of Florida officially shortened its name to the University of Florida in 1909.
  • From 1905 to 1932, the modern University of Florida used 1905 on its seal as its official founding date; only after president John Tigert petitioned the state attorney general to use the founding date of the East Florida Seminary, the oldest of the university's four predecessor institutions, did the university alter the founding date to 1853 on its seal.
In short, yes, the University of Florida in Lake City was a "predecessor" institution of the modern University of Florida; in fact, it was one of four predecessor institutions of the modern University of Florida. (Please see the explanatory footnotes in the Andrew Sledd and Albert Murphree articles.) Pursuant to the Buckman Act, the legal existence of those four predecessors ended with its passage, and the new single-sex Florida Female College and the new University of the State of Florida came into being. Ultimately, the campuses of all four of the new university's predecessor institutions were abandoned. You can argue until you're blue (or red) in the face that the old University of Florida in Lake City was and is the same institution as the University of the State of Florida, but, from a legal standpoint (and I am a practicing Florida and Georgia lawyer), they were and are separate and distinct corporate entities.
I have restored the pre-existing language of the history section which you have unilaterally and without consensus altered. The burden is on you to obtain a new consensus to change it; the pre-existing consensus was to neutrally present Florida's reasons for excluding the 1904 game and Georgia's reasons for including it. The idea was to present both sides of the argument. Your changes have effectively altered that compromise balance by slanting the argument in favor of UGA's reasons for including the 1904 game in the series record. There is a legitimate dispute and your edits alter the consensus language to favor one side of that dispute. If you want to present UGA's logic for including the 1904 game in a separate paragraph, please feel free to do so, but please include footnotes for reliable and verifiable sources for UGA's logic for inclusion. Please also note that UGA sports blogs, like all blogs, are generally not considered reliable sources.
Thanks. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 05:10, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't appreciate your condescending tone. The simple fact that you authored an article doesn't automatically make you right, and I've been editing Wikipedia just as long as you have. In fact, if the "compromise" to which you refer is the 1904 section above, then I participated in that discussion, as well, as you'll see if you read that section.
My comment about "Georgia's side of the argument" was not reflected in any of my edits, and I was not contending that it was true... merely that it was the argument that I assumed UGA used to justify counting the game. And I specifically stated that I couldn't find sources for that argument, which is why I didn't mention it in my proposed revision. (And where did I mention blogs of any kind at any time? You seem to be projecting your enmity for some other editor upon me.)
And speaking of that revision, for all your bluster and pomposity, you actually kept most of the edits I made, making only minor changes to the content, which I'm ok with. So, ultimately, I'm ok with the article as it currently exists... and we could have gotten here without you being a jerk about it. Jhortman (talk) 14:03, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The argument about who's "right" aside, the current version is far too long and detailed for this article. There are now three paragraphs devoted to a game that Florida doesn't even count. The problem is compounded by an element of synthesis of sources to advance a point not made directly in any of the sources. The Murphree cite naturally doesn't mention the Florida-Georgia game at all. In the spirit of WP:BRD I'm going to revert the additions.--Cúchullain t/c 15:31, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I understand your point about the length of coverage on the topic. The 3 paragraphs were relatively short paragraphs, however, and it is a controversial topic between the two schools. I think that length is necessary to explain the facts of the situation adequately. In fact, I think Dirtlawyer1 and I had come to a version acceptable to both of us, though I don't know if you or others would agree to it. Alternatively, however, we could take out all of the explanation and just say something like "The two schools do not agree on when the rivalry began. Georgia claims that the first game took place in 1904, and Florida claims the 1915 match as the first in the rivalry."
This page, IMO, would be the most appropriate venue to explain the controversy, since it directly affects this rivalry (making it less appropriate for the general Georgia Bulldogs football or Florida Gators football pages). Ultimately, though, I would support either a full explanation or taking the explanation out completely. - Jhortman (talk) 18:34, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Short paragraphs or not, half the history subsection was devoted to explaining one game that isn't even counted by one of the schools. The article is about a football rivalry; it's certainly appropriate to discuss the two schools' different takes on whether to count the game, but it's certainly not the place to get into a detailed discourse on the prehistory of the University of Florida. Interested readers can find that information at the linked History of the University of Florida or Florida Gators football articles.
I think the current wording gets the issue across just fine. If not, I'm sure we can come up with something that's more suitable without sacrificing the readability of the article as a whole.--Cúchullain t/c 19:11, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough... I think the issues that need to be addressed in the current revision are the following:
  • The "University of Florida at Lake City" is an incorrect moniker. The name of the school at that time was the "University of Florida," and the campus was in Lake City. It's like using the term "Versailles France" to refer to the country as it existed before the French Revolution... that term was neither its name, nor was it colloquially referred to by that name. The article should, likewise, be more historically accurate. (Especially since a modification of how the name is presented could imply a preference for one side's argument over another. We should just use the historically accurate name.)
  • The word "modern" in this context is not NPOV, IMO. (Or, I guess, maybe not "NPOV-enough.") It would be more neutral to use the term "new" or the 1905 date to distinguish the University of Florida that was created in 1905.
  • The links on "University of Florida at Lake City" and "Florida Agricultural College" lead to the same article, so only one of those terms needs to be linked.
I have created a proposed new section based on these changes here. (Diff here.) I appreciate your comments. - Jhortman (talk) 20:17, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
In response to comments above----

1. Jhortman is correct when he writes that the "University of Florida at Lake City" is not a historically accurate name; it is, in fact, a term of art concocted by University of Florida historians to distinguish among the West Florida Seminary/Florida University/University of Florida in Tallahassee (1885–1903), the Florida Agricultural College/University of Florida in Lake City (1884–1905), and the University of the State of Florida/University of Florida in Gainesville (1905–present). However phrased, some effort needs to be made to distinguish among these animals; the multiple uses of the same name is what has created the confusion for many.

2. Not sure why the adjective "modern" is any more or less "NPOV" than "new" or "old." "Modern" is the same term that we have used in all of the other University of Florida articles where it has been necessary to detail this history.

3. Agreed that redundant links should generally be avoided per established WP linking policy.

4. If the history is going to be recited, and we can't get the necessary detail into a sufficiently brief body text paragraph, the details can be pushed into an explanatory footnote, as we have done in other University of Florida articles.

5. Subject to tweaking to address points 1 and 3 above, I could live with the existing body text explanation.

That's all I've got. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 21:11, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think we can work with this. Let's hammer it out in the user space before making a bunch of changes to the article.

1. "University of Florida at Lake City" (or "University of Florida in Lake City") ought to be an acceptable term for that school; the forms appear in several books on Florida history that I've seen. But it may not properly highlight the confusion, which is the result of Georgia playing an entity called the University of Florida, which was a major predecessor of the modern University of Florida. 2. "Modern" is preferable to "new" here; a school founded in 1905 isn't "new" any more, but it's modern in the sense of "the version that exists now". 3. You're right about the links. We'll sort out the wording, and come up with something that satisfies all.Cúchullain t/c 22:04, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good. I follow your reasoning on using the word "modern" instead of "new," and I'm willing to go along with that. I do still think it's important to separate the terms "University of Florida" and "Lake City," though, as has been already discussed. - Jhortman (talk) 23:18, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I can agree with that. Calling it "University of Florida at Lake City" distinguishes it from the modern UF in Gainesville, but it doesn't clarify at all why there's confusion, which results from the fact that there were two formally distinct but related schools that had the same name, and both had football teams that played Georgia. I'll take a stab at this tomorrow when I get a chance.Cúchullain t/c 00:38, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't seen any activity on this front over the last week, so I created a proposed version based on the changes we discussed in my sandbox here. (Diff is here.) Any thoughts? - Jhortman (talk) 17:50, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

IMPORTANT UPDATE: PLEASE READ - No one has commented on this talk page in 2 weeks, nor has anyone commented in the last week on my proposed compromise update (diff here). If there are no additional comments within the next 7 days (by August 4, 2011), I will assume we have reached a consensus, and will replace the current section in question with my compromise section. I am not trying to hijack the compromise process... it just seems to me that we've agreed on all the points that were in dispute, but the article just hasn't been updated to reflect that agreement. - Jhortman (talk) 02:20, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I got sidetracked. I don't believe that your proposed version as it stands is an improvement over what's in the article currently. I'll try some work on it if I get a chance later, but again, I don't think it's much clearer than what we've got.Cúchullain t/c 12:09, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that my changes aren't significantly different from the current version, other than a cursory change in the "Lake City" terminology. I feel confident that you could probably do a better job, but I just didn't want the conversation to get lost. I'll wait for your version. - Jhortman (talk) 16:05, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I took a stab at it on your sandbox page.--Cúchullain t/c 15:36, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This version works for me. It reflects all of the issues we discussed. -Jhortman (talk) 12:45, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
JH, do want to drop the agreed-to revised text into the article? I'd like to get started on the footnotes . . . . Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 20:43, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I just inserted the compromise text. Sorry if I blew away any footnotes you'd already created in the old section, Dirtlawyer1. I guess we can consider this discussion closed/resolved at this point. -Jhortman (talk) 03:27, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Cocktail Party

Should it be noted that many fans continue to refer to the game as The World's Largest Outdoor Cocktail Party?--74.167.7.205 (talk) 03:31, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It is already so noted in the introductory paragraph, and there is also a fairly extensive discussion in the "Nicknames and trophies" section.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Dirtlawyer1 (talk • contribs)
Yes, I'm not sure what more could possibly be added.--Cúchullain t/c 12:36, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

why can we not include the cumulative series record in the table

why can we not include the cumulative series record in the table? other rivalry pages such as georgia-auburn and missouri-kansas have the series record in the results table — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.32.129.220 (talk) 04:21, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

For one, it's just not necessary. The article already includes the total series record according to both Georgia and Florida. Also, the fact that the schools don't agree on the record means that we have to include both, which looks bad while adding little by way of useful information to the article.Cúchullain t/c 17:00, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
but it does add useful information to the article, in that the reader can see what the series record was at some point in the past. for example, one can clearly see that the dawgs led the series 44(43) - 22 - 2 after the 1989 game, and similarly for others. as the article is w/o my edits, the reader only sees the current records. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.32.129.220 (talk) 01:59, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I do not see the necessity of including this statistic. This is an encyclopedia article, not a collection of raw sports statistics. I'd like to hear more opinions before this is reinstated.--Cúchullain t/c 21:59, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
the progression of the series record is important to the encyclopedic-ness of the series. but whatever — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.32.129.220 (talk) 22:08, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]


To the anonymous IP user who continues to make changes to the rivalry series record table (and other non-consensus changes in support of UGA's claimed 1904 win), please knock it off. You have no consensus to make these changes; in fact, you have no support other than yourself. Here's why your changes should not be implemented:

1. The addition of the Florida-vs-Georgia double cumulative series record is confusing to readers and it looks like crap.

2. Notwithstanding the inclusion of a cumulative series record in the Minnesota-Michigan State and Auburn-Georgia rivalry, the inclusion of cumulative series records in the rivalry series records tables is neither accepted practice; the vast majority of CFB rivalry articles do not include the cumulative series records in the table. In fact, the inclusion of cumulative win-loss records in rivalry series and individual team season records tables is contrary to the well-established and consensus formatting of the Wikipedia College Football Project (WP:CFB). The consensus is to place the emphasis on the core data: (a) game date, (b) winning team, (c) game location, and (d) final score. Frankly, it is just a matter of time until the series record tables of the Minn-MSU and AU-UGA rivalry articles are standardized to comport with the established project-wide consensus.

3. It "legitimizes" UGA's claim to the 1904 win as part of the series record, when in fact Florida does not recognize it, and the strong majority of third-party sources don't recognize it, either. The 1904 game is acknowledged as a point of historical contention and is explained in the text, text that was itself the subject of extensive negotiation to establish a consensus as to how to treat the 1904 game.

4. In the absence of a new consensus, you cannot unilaterally make the change, and engaging in an edit war in the face of the established consensus is going to get you blocked.

You're entitled to your opinion, but you;re not entitled to be a consensus of one. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 22:50, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

C. Fred----please see my comment above regarding the established WP:CFB consensus not to include cumulative win-loss records in either season record tables or rivalry series record tables. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 22:50, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
w/e, i guess i should now concentrate my efforts on removing the series records on the articles where they already exist — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.32.129.220 (talk) 23:08, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
What you should do is try to work out a consensus on the talk page when your edits are challenged, rather than edit warring.Cúchullain t/c 14:04, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Cúchullain and Dirtlawyer1 that a "running total" of the series in the results table is unnecessary, in addition to just plain looking poor in terms of formatting. Since I'm a Georgia partisan (and have participated significantly in discussions regarding this article in the past), there seems to so far be much more of a consensus on the side of the status quo. -Jhortman (talk) 05:22, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

what happened to the infobox section that lists each team's victories by year?

if i remember correctly, there was once an infobox section, or another box that looks like the infobox, that has the teams "Georgia" and "Florida" and under those headings, lists the years they won, with a final heading at the bottom listing the ties. this is found on other rivalry pages such as georgia-auburn, florida-florida state, miami-florida state, etc. but why was it removed, or why does this article not have it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.32.129.220 (talk • contribs)

Not sure if you realize it, but wikipedia autosigns comments, so your attempt to look like a curious third party has been foiled. You might want to read the relevant guidelines to avoid future problems. Nice try, tho.
For what it's worth, I agree that the running total in unnecessary for the reasons already stated above by others. Zeng8r (talk) 05:49, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't believe the unregistered editor is talking about any sort of running total, he/she is talking about the infobox sections that frequently appear in rivalry articles that have the team names as section headers and a list of the years that team won for each heading. Examples are found in the rivalry articles he/she cited. Basically, it looks something like this
Florida               Georgia
2002 2003 2005 2006   2004 2007 2011
2008 2009 2010

Ties
...

but of course it lists the complete history of the series. --l a t i s h r e d o n e (previously User:All in) 20:47, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Latish, the list of infobox wins by team was deleted because the infobox list completely duplicated the chronological game list embodied in the more complete series record table. There is absolutely no need to have TWO lists of the same games in the same rivalry series in the same article. The new "Template:Infobox college sports rivalry" omits the list of games entirely. The old infobox format becomes cumbersome and can stretch half way down the length of the page when it includes more than a handful of games. Bottom line: the infobox game list is redundant when the article includes a proper series record table. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 00:09, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the infobox listing of wins by year is redundant. -Jhortman (talk) 05:31, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Photo

I've put in a photo request regarding the infobox image. It's time to update; the current version is from 2010.--Cúchullain t/c 17:54, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Name, again

This article's current title was chosen through a move request in 2009, when it was decided to go with the "official" name, "Florida vs. Georgia Football Classic". This name is indeed used by the City of Jacksonville,[8] but there's a problem - it's used by virtually no one else. There are a total of about 8 hits total in the Google News archives for this title,[9], which isn't even always used by the city.[10] In fact, that last article is specifically about how there's no real official name. The former "World's Largest Outdoor Cocktail Party" is also not a suitable article title for the various reasons highlighted above, but we shouldn't keep the article at this seldom used, sorta-official name.
Far and away the most common way of referring to it is "Florida-Georgia" or related alternatives such as "Georgia-Florida", "Florida vs. Georgia", "Florida-Georgia Game", etc. "Florida-Georgia"+football returns over 5,000 hits on Google Books, and over 11,000 in the Google News archives.[11]. As such, I propose that a descriptive title like "Florida–Georgia football rivalry" would be more in line with how the game is referred to in the sources and more recognizable to readers. There is a strong precedent for such a title as can be seen in Category:College football rivalries in the United States.--Cúchullain t/c 21:00, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Based on that argument, I endorse a move—or at least formally opening a discussion of a requested move. —C.Fred (talk) 01:08, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support change to "Florida-Georgia football rivalry." Because it's held annually at a neutral site and has been that way for as long as most current fans have been alive, it really has only one peer: the Red River Rivalry between Oklahoma and Texas. Unfortunately, that game has an official name, but it does also use the word "rivalry," and as Cúchullain pointed out, the use of the "rivalry" term has virtually become a de facto standard here. And since the teams in those rivalry listings are typically listed in alphabetical order, Florida-Georgia would be more correct than Georgia-Florida. All the same, however, the other names should still be mentioned in the introduction section of the article, since they are still in general use. -Jhortman (talk) 02:30, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
FYI, "Florida-Georgia football rivalry" and "Georgia-Florida football rivalry" are already redirects to this article. I'm otherwise ambivalent about the article title. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 03:21, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
All right, as there has been a move discussion in the past at this article, we'd better go through a move request. I'll do that presently; please participate.--Cúchullain t/c 15:54, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 2

Florida vs. Georgia Football Classic → Florida–Georgia football rivalry – This article's current title (decided here) was selected as the "official" name, but there's a major problem: it's almost never used. There are only around 8 total hits in the Google News archives for "Florida vs. Georgia Football Classic"[12] The City of Jacksonville itself doesn't always use it, and it's not really even treated as official.[13] The former title of "World's Largest Outdoor Cocktail Party" isn't usable either, for the reasons stated in the last request. By far the most common way of referring to the game in sources is "Florida-Georgia" or a related variant such as "Georgia-Florida", "Florida vs. Georgia", "Florida-Georgia rivaly", "Florida-Georgia game", etc. "Florida-Georgia"+football returns over 5,000 hits on Google Books, and over 11,000 in the Google News archives.[14], with many more for the individual variants. As such I propose that a descriptive title like "Florida–Georgia football rivalry" is more in line with how the game is referred to in the sources, recognizable to readers, precise, and consistent with the general practice for similar articles in Category:College football rivalries in the United States, in accordance with WP:NAMINGCRITERIA.Cúchullain t/c 16:30, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • I support a move to "World's Largest Outdoor Cocktail Party", or if it is decided to not use that title, "Florida-Georgia rivalry" as an alternative. Titles should not be unnecessarily long, and since there are not separate articles describing basketball, etc. or other rivalries between Florida and Georgia, the use of the word "football" in the proposed title makes it longer than necessary. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.81.25.227 (talk) 21:57, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • I disagree with removing "football" from the page name. The Georgia-Florida football rivalry is unique when compared to the other sports in which the two universities compete because it is played in Jacksonville, and has a long history associated with that location. All other Georgia-Florida events are played at campus locations, and don't have the same celebrated history surrounding them as the football game. It might be appropriate to create a separate page titled "Florida-Georgia rivalry" that covers all athletic competitions, but that page would be separate from the football rivalry (which could be summarized there and linked to this as the main page). -Jhortman (talk) 04:06, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, use Common Names. 67.194.69.67 (talk) 00:25, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Florida–Georgia_football_rivalry&oldid=477282953"