Jump to content

Talk:Florida–Georgia football rivalry

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

Requested move

[edit]
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

[edit]
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

[edit]
  • 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.

Requested move 2

[edit]
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: moved. (non-admin closure) Jenks24 (talk) 04:55, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]


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"[7] The City of Jacksonville itself doesn't always use it, and it's not really even treated as official.[8] 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.[9], 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]
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

[edit]
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 [10]. 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

[edit]
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.


2012: New column

[edit]

Since all three columns are now full, where will the 2012 matchup result be put? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Benhen1997 (talk • contribs) 22:11, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

 Fixed ~ Richmond96 T • C 22:26, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Streaks

[edit]

I don't think this edit does much for the article. The "periods of dominance" seem arbitrary (and largely contingent on Georgia wins). 1964 to 1970 was a "period", really? And why start the current "period" at 2007? This is original research, as anyone can parse these numbers how they like. For example, you could argue that there's been relative parity over the last 10 years, as the record since 2003 has the Gators going only 6-4, and one of those was an overtime field goal. I say either we need a source that specifically lays out the streaks, or we keep it as simple as possible and don't try to define "periods".--Cúchullain t/c 14:12, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I completely agree with you, Cúchullain. I didn't really have a chance to fully explain my thinking in the edit summary, but my primary position is that there should not be a discussion of "streaks" in the series at all. But then, I figured somebody would object if I took out the mention of it completely, so I chose to go other route and cover the series as a whole, since the entire series has been defined by prolonged periods of dominance by one team or another (in the W/L column, at least). As for the randomness of the time periods, if consensus is to include a discussion of the "streakiness" of the series, then I would propose that a breakdown of that "streakiness" by wins instead of strict date separations is actually more appropriate. It's not really important that the Gators' win streak lasted from 1951-1963, for example, it's more important to the "streak" discussion that they had a 10-2 period of dominance. Likewise, from that perspective, 1964-1970 was a "period," because it's a series of games that was equally split 3-3-1 between the teams (which is a historical aberration). The period, in this case, is not really based on dates, but rather on results.
I didn't consider the paragraph original research or synthesis because I was strictly reporting wins and losses, rather than providing analysis or discussion as to "why" the streaks occurred. The dates I chose were specifically chosen to highlight the "streaks," though, so perhaps that crosses the line into synthesis. I mean, it's an objective fact that each team has had sustained periods of success in the series... it's just a question of where you draw the line for comparison in recent years.
Ultimately, though, I'm not married to the idea of including the discussion of it. In fact, I'd vote to remove all discussion of "streaks" completely. I don't really see the inherent value of including any of it. -Jhortman (talk) 15:22, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
As I say, for a lot of this, anyone can parse the numbers differently. You could just as easily start the Gators' streak in 1949, or continue it to 1965. Or define 1950-1969 as a period that had no particular dominance. In each case you'd drawing your own conclusions from the raw information that don't appear in any source.
I think the point of the discussion originally was to point out that while Georgia led the series, at the time of writing Florida had dominated since 1990, though Georgia had dominated in the 2 decades before that. I don't know that that's so important now, and it does smack a bit of recentism. It would be cool to find a source talking about FL-GA streaks or periods, but if not we might could just remove it all.Cúchullain t/c 16:59, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
My vote is to cut the paragraph entirely. This link [11] could provide a reference for the series streaks, but there's no real way to describe the last 6-8 years of the series without being non-NPOV or smacking of recentism. And I don't think the "streaky" nature of the series really contributes to making the article more encyclopedic. Whether to include it or not is a grey area, but I think the article's better off without it. -Jhortman (talk) 18:09, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Inclusion of 2012 game in "Notable Games" section

[edit]

Unless there is a clear, indisputable argument for the inclusion of the 2012 game in the "Notable Games" section, I don't think it should be listed. Every year (and particularly last year), the winning side wants to include that year's game because of recentism bias, and we should be careful to avoid that trap. I see no convincing reason that this year's game should be considered particularly notable when compared against the history of the entire series. "Notable games" should be chosen after an appropriate cooling-down period with the perspective of history in mind, and I don't think that's the case just three days after this game has occurred. -Jhortman (talk) 19:13, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree.Cúchullain t/c 20:33, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Include it, both teams were in the BCS top 10 which doesn't happen very often — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.90.216.96 (talk) 21:22, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's actually become pretty regular for both teams to be ranked, and at any rate I see no evidence that the sources made a big deal about this game being huge in terms of the series.--Cúchullain t/c 14:28, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Roger that. Having compiled the list of the most notable games in the series that became the basis of which games were included in the article, I can tell you that we have omitted more interesting Georgia victories than 2012. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 16:13, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with both Cúchullain and Dirtlawyer1 for the reasons both of them state. -Jhortman (talk) 20:11, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

It is a violation of NPOV to include only the logo which has "Florida" at the top, especially when the actual placement of that logo at the game site is to alternate the "Florida"-at-top version with the other version which has "Georgia" at top. Therefore I suggest that an image containing both versions of the logo be used in the infobox. And that the current image be removed until a suitable replacement can be found. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.90.216.96 (talk) 03:17, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Would a logo with the two teams' logos next to each other be acceptable? (i.e. [12].)
Ben S. Henderson (talk) 00:06, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Cumulative series record

[edit]

For IP user 71.90.216.96, here's the archive link to the previous talk page discussion regarding why we have removed the added column with cumulative series record: Talk:Florida–Georgia football rivalry/Archive 1#why can we not include the cumulative series record in the table. Thanks. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 05:18, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't see a reason for that material before, and I still don't. This isn't a list of statistics.--Cúchullain t/c 17:23, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Name of article

[edit]

Why does this article get to be named Florida-Georgia when Georgia-Florida is an equally-used term? Jami430 (talk) 23:29, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Because F comes before G alphabetically. In many other articles about similar rivalries, the teams are listed alphabetically. It's the easiest, fairest, and most consistent way to do it. —C.Fred (talk) 23:35, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If they are used equally, then how do you justify using GA-FLA over FLA-GA? ~ Richmond96 T • C 01:57, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Being from Jacksonville and familiar with the sources, I'd seriously question the notion that "Georgia-Florida" is as common as "Florida-Georgia". Additionally, one of the benefits of have a descriptive title like "Florida-Georgia football rivalry" is that we don't privilege one variant over others, we just fall back on a descriptive name that will be recognizable to all readers.--Cúchullain t/c 14:36, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Other notable games

[edit]

Just expanded the games which were apparently the work of collaboration. So, let me instead post my additions and to-be additions here for vote/discussion/whatever:

  • 1920 game. One of UGA's greatest teams; biggest margin of victory other than '42
  • 1929 game. Already mentioned in brief; expanded.
  • 1930 game. Already mentioned in brief; expanded.
  • 1937 game. Gators only win of the 30s. Tiger Mayberry punts. Goal posts torn down.
  • 1941 game: Frank Sinkwich dominates despite a broken jaw. Makes a field goal which was UGA's first since the day Lynn Bomar was injured.
  • 1952 game. Gators first bowl season, game which really turns the tide for Florida.
  • 1967 game. Richard Trapp defeats Georgia.

Other possibilities: '27, '51, '54, '69, '78 Cake (talk) 05:13, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a little concerned about adding so many "memorable" games to the article. They really should stand out in the series, either because 1) the game set the tone for the series in a certain era, and/or 2) the game made a big (nationally-noted) impact on the season for one or both of the teams, and/or 3) something truly remarkable that happened in the game. It doesn't seem to me that some of these newly written entries and the proposed entries listed above meet that criteria. This should be a very selective section, imo. Otherwise, we might as well include in a game summary for single meeting, which would be neither practical nor readable. Zeng8r (talk) 17:08, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I understand not every game deserves mention. My goal was to include notable ones not mentioned for lack of study or for lack of Dawg editors (Gator fan myself). At least in my opinion, 1920 and 1952 both fit criteria (1). 1929, 1930, and 1937 (and 1967) represent criteria (2) as upsets. 1941 and 1967 represent criteria (and 1937, if tearing down the posts count) (3). Cake (talk) 01:17, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • @MisterCake: It would be helpful if you would explain why you think each of these added games is noteworthy in the history of the Florida-Georgia rivalry . . . Frankly, I don't think individual performances are a good reason to add a game (e.g., 1937, 1941, 1967), unless they have some significance to the series history. We also tried to balance the games by era, as well as those that were most important to each team's history. At this rate, we're well on our way to adding another 25 or 30 games to the article. At that point, this is no longer a "highlights" section, but an attempt to add every article every editor can find a post-game newspaper account. I think we need a little more discussion before radical expansion. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 17:06, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I really felt I had in the article and above. Balance by era is one reason for the 1920 game and 1927 as a footnote in the above list. Need some account of 'the drought.' Anyway, '37 and '67 were quite important to the Gators if we judge by how often they are brought up and how they were upsets; '41 quite important to the Dawgs if we judge by how often they bring it up for the broken jaw and field goal. That's aside from "great game in X's career". '37 and '52 are as meaningful as any for representing eras (compare this). I've added all for which I'd be an advocate. The "other possibilities" were ones I was ambivalent about and felt need discussion. Cake (talk) 17:26, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

General tone of memorable games

[edit]

The actual text is stereotypic poor football sportswriting. It should be edited vigorously, netting one word for every at present 11 or 12 words. 127W111 (talk) 12:07, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, for the most part. The writing can be a little more colorful in an article about college football than it should in an article about a historical political event, for example. But, yeah, it's laid on a little too thick in some places here. Also, as I and others mentioned a long time ago in the discussion above, there are too many games listed in the memorable games section. I'll help with the revisions later today. Zeng8r (talk) 13:15, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I just did some pruning and revising in that section. I hope @Cake isn't upset; I know he did some deep research in adding some of the older games, but for some of them, I just didn't get the sense that they were notable / memorable enough to stand among other, clearly legendary games. I'm not totally convinced on a couple more entries, but I let them stand for now. Zeng8r (talk) 14:43, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I've done some more editing for essay-like writing in this section. The subheadings for each game were particularly un-encyclopedic (see "fourth and dumb"). Coalah (talk) 15:59, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That's definitely not an improvement, imo. "Unencyclopedic" as you may consider them to be, the section titles are very short descriptions that make it easier for readers to find a specific game that they're interested in without knowing the exact year it took place and/or cited nicknames for particular games. "Fourth and dumb" is a particularly (in)famous example of a nickname that's specifically referenced in that subsection. I'm inclined to revert the changes but I'll wait for other interested editors to chime in. Zeng8r (talk) 22:44, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
My edit was definitely dramatic, most of the names were fine and could stay. And fair point about the nicknames that have citations for their notability. But other section titles that read as un-encylopedic (to me, at least) were not sourced, and appeared to be inventions by the author. "75 and oh!" and "Rip, strip, and grip" do not appear to be taken from the existing sources (the section for the latter game has no sources at all, in fact) and, as @127W111 mentioned, read more as sports editorial writing than anything. Coalah (talk) 14:22, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
As I said, the section titles make it possible for readers to find the particular game they're seeking. I'm planning on restoring some and tweaking others, but they all need a short description in addition to just the year. Zeng8r (talk) 12:29, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That sounds good to me. I apologize for being drastic in removing ALL of the section titles just because a few that could’ve been modified, definitely a bit much on my part. Coalah (talk) 12:31, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Florida–Georgia football rivalry. 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:

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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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) 03:10, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Florida–Georgia football rivalry. 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:

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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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) 19:47, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 26 October 2017

[edit]
73.137.128.193 (talk) 01:27, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The rivalry is actually called The Georgia - Florida game. Its not Florida - Georgia game. Everybody including CBS network who broadcasts the game have said it's The Georgia - Florida game and not the other way around

 Not done As a standard on Wikipedia, we name the sports rivalries in alphabetical order, regardless of what others call it. Corky Buzz by the Hornet's Nest 01:34, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

history of stadiums the Georgia-Florida football game was played

[edit]

The only stadium listed as where the game has been playing is TIAA Bank Field, Jacksonville. That stadium opened in 1995. Clearly the game was played in other stadiums before 1995. Might be nice, if someone researched this and found out where the game was played prior to 1995 and posted that info.

Title needs to change

[edit]

This historic rivalry is historically named after the team who has the winning record. The name should therefore be Georgia-Florida. 2601:CA:4400:CC80:A152:DA79:514D:39F3 (talk) 03:46, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Correct name of the game

[edit]

Georgia-Florida football rivalry 2601:CA:8500:2E70:1936:FFF9:2E30:3A6C (talk) 18:20, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: page move requests should be made at Wikipedia:Requested moves. Elli (talk | contribs) 21:17, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Florida–Georgia_football_rivalry&oldid=1246923637"