Talk:Georgia Tech Yellow Jackets football

message: I'm not here to grant or reject your GA status, but consider this a quick peer review before the reviewer comes by. 
*Some paragraphs are too short. In my opinion, any paragraph with three or less sentences should either be expanded or combined with another paragraph. 
*Per WP:DASH, scores and records should be separated with an en dash (–), not a hyphen. 
*Along the same lines, use a non-breaking space with you have a non-numeric element following a numeric element. For instance, instead of saying "he ran for 187 yards in the game," you would say "he ran for 187 yards yards in that game."
*The TOC is getting a little long. You may want to consider consolidating some sections a little bit. Maybe get rid of the subsections under "Post-Collegiate Accolades." 
*Per WP:HEAD, only capitalize the first letter of the first word and any proper nouns in the section headings. Thus "Coaching in Dodd's Shadow: 1967-1986" becomes "Coaching in Dodd's shadow: 1967-1986." 
**Not quite done. "Home Stadium," "Team Achievements," "Bowl History," etc.↔NMajdan•talk 04:24, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What kind of dashes should be used on Georgia Tech Yellow Jackets football#Traditions? Right now we have "Nicknames -" etc. —Disavian (talk/contribs) 22:23, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Good question. Looking at WP:DASH, I would say en dash as well. That page says en dashes are used in lists, which is what I would consider that.↔NMajdan•talk 04:24, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: How's that look? Haven't done the non-breaking spaces yet. —Disavian (talk/contribs) 17:00, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Ah, I seem to have missed some section headers. Nice catch. —Disavian (talk/contribs) 00:49, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Some comments on your GA nomination 

message: The article prose is well-written and very complete. Quite an interesting read. It's short on reference citations in a couple of minor areas, but overall I think it still meets the GA criteria. The article appears to be stable, other than some minor anonymous vandalism, and it doesn't look like there's any major edit warring, despite the current football season in progress. the images all meet the criteria as well. So this article will be listed as a Good Article. Good work!
One area that could be improved, besides the minor missing references, might be the listing of items under 'individual achievements' at the end. It's getting kind of long and perhaps some of this information could be moved to separately-linked list pages?
Cheers! Dr. Cash 04:22, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with the brevity remark.  Maybe we can use asterisk*/dollar sign$ to denote more in the HUGE set of lists we've got in the individual achievements section.  It's becoming less about the program and more about the individuals.  So we'll work it down in the next few days to a more concise and informative section. --Excaliburhorn 17:06, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Would it help to make some of the longer lists (ex: All-Americans) collapsible? —Disavian (talk/contribs) 19:21, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

text: I went ahead and added class="collapsible collapsed" to the two largest tables on the page. —Disavian (talk/contribs) 04:04, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: GA Review

message: :For previous discussion on the topic, see Talk:Georgia Tech Yellow Jackets#All-Time Football Team and User talk:72.0.36.36.
I think I have expressed my concerns several times and have come up with a multitude of arguments against the All-Time Lists.  Here's a synopsis of my arguments against them:
:1) They are only noteworthy to the above-average Tech fan.  Because they are not national awards or even nationally publicized, I don't find them very informative.
:2) They lack historical perspective.  They cut out every player from Bobby Ross forward and Bobby Dodd back.  The All-Era lists and Athlon do remedy this.  I just think that Heisman finalists, All-Americans, and national recognized award winners are more important to the GT football program than fan opinion polls.
:3) They add a lot of a dead space to the article without much prose.  In general, they just don't look good.  Better formatting is a must if we are to keep them in the article.
:4) I've yet to see a similar list in any of the other Atlantic Coast Conference or Southeastern Conference teams articles.
:5) Individual achievements should not overshadow the team achievements, which is becoming a problem in the article.  Look how many lists and tables are down in that section versus the rest of the article.
I'm pretty sure we'll come to a compromise but the way it looks right now is garbage and we need to either cut out the All-Time lists or reformat them to increase the article's brevity and style.--Excaliburhorn 17:34, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. In addition, I have copyvio concerns given that the lists are relatively arbitrary, and don't have clearly defined criteria for inclusion. Further, the primary coverage of individual athletes should occur in List of Georgia Institute of Technology athletes. —Disavian (talk/contribs) 19:21, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No.  Those lists are unencyclopedic ... why are they there again? --B 00:06, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It seems that some anon keeps adding them back and threatening to take action against their removal as vandalism. (A quick browse through the history shows this.) And although it seems that the established, core editors of this article and related articles seem to be in agreement that they're superfluous and arbitrary, I view it as a good move that they're attempting to back this assessment with some outside consensus. I do a lot of editing on some other Georgia Tech-related articles and have worked on improving a lot of them to GA and FA status, so I was asked to toss in my two cents (Canadian, since it's worth more ;)) about this. I agree that the lists don't really add anything to the article, and if anything, they detract from the quality as they interject a lot of information without context. Also, as even demonstrated by this dispute about their inclusion, they would likely be a breeding ground for edit wars regarding what additional lists should be included and who should be on them. They do seem quite arbitrary, and somewhat redundant as if the people on the list had any outside notability, they would be on the List of Georgia Institute of Technology athletes. Further, this is an article about GT football, not a list. That said, the majority of the article should be devoted to prose and should not have large sections devoted to lists of anything. Keeping that in mind, I also agree with the idea to make the Heisman finalist and All-American lists collapsible. LaMenta3 03:04, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Additional discussion on the subject as anon has re-added material.  The question: What do these lists add to the article? Answer: They tell us who were the Georgia Tech fanbase's favorite players at each position in 1991.  I think my response is simply, why would anyone outside of Georgia Tech care who the Georgia Tech fanbase thought was good?  People outside of Georgia Tech want to know how Georgia Tech's program tangibly stacks up against other programs via number of All-Americans, Heisman Trophy vote recipients, or more importantly conference/national titles.  Fan polls are good fun but the way that they are currently being presented simply don't add anything to the article but obscure/almost irrelevant trivia.--Excaliburhorn 23:06, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Discussion on All-time Lists

message: For those unfamiliar with the current dispute, we are arguing over the inclusion of three "All-time lists", as seen in this diff. To firmly establish consensus, once and for all, we will do a straw poll. I'm quite aware that "voting is evil", but remember that "...participants on article talk pages do sometimes start polls for gauging opinion, and focusing a long or unruly conversation on a specific question at hand." Also note that "if you believe that users are ignoring a consensus, a survey cannot force those users to accept your proposed consensus -- although a survey might assist users in understanding the balance of opinions." It appears we have only two options here, though if someone can think of another option that might accommodate both sides, please feel free to bring it up. To clarify everyone's opinions here, can each person post their current feeling about the list situation, below?  One comment per line, thanks. —Disavian (talk/contribs) 01:44, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We're just trying to clean up a Georgia Tech article.  These All-time lists have become some sort of extension of yourself and us removing them is NOT an attack on you.  We're just keeping the GT articles concise and free of unoriginal content.  You need to contribute more original work to Wikipedia rather than just All-time lists produced by media outlets.  Do some real research and sourcing.  Wikipedia needs that more than random All-time lists.  Reflect on what each section of the GT football article brings to the table.  History, Home Stadium, Rivalries, Traditions - self explanatory, backbone of the article.  Team achievements - List of the universally accepted team achievements and brief summaries of consensus greatest seasons all-time.  Individual achievements - Players that were recognized nationally during their time on the Flats, found in multiple outlets, universally accepted as important to the GT Football program.  An All-Time list voted on by GT fans does nothing for the notability of the GT football program like a quarterback being named All-American or being a Heisman finalist.  --Excaliburhorn 01:38, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Straw poll 

message: I have requested arbitration. This straw poll is inapproprate for several reasons. While a newcomer, I have certain understanding of the rules. Having researched the dispute resolution I find that the editors here have breeched their responsibilites and I cannot "assume good faith". Some editors, if not all, have engaged in what amounts to 3RR, harrassment, cyber-bullying, and darn near legal threats (by saying an revert is fair warning to willfull copyvio). Although LaMenta3 did not say she was going to sue, the threat was real. The consensus that was reached by moving the list from the GaTech Athletic site to Ga Tech football site was agreed upon. That was broken by constant reverts by editors. This is abuse of power. I have not looked into the exact hour of things, however, the intent by editors here is clear. Your way or no way. Further, Disavian and Excaliburhorn, and B, have been particularly abusive. I see what really is a mob mentality here and I find that offensive. Because there is a process in place this straw poll is meaningless. I suggest all the editors here review ALL of the dispute resolution rules and look into your hearts and self-judge your actions. There should be some time apart and should not any any collusion to come up with a "poll" that was begun after I have requested arbitration. I reject the unencyclopedic claim on its face. I think that the editors here ought to have held themselves to a higher standard that to which they behaved. The presumption should be that editors know the rules and will not collude to abuse the rules to get their own way. Were it up to me all of the editors here would be suspended for a time, as has happened on other cases. There are many violations that I will be documenting to the arbitration committee. You can look to the rules yourselves and you can easily see where i will be going. I would suggest that the editors refrain from any further abuses and what may even perceived as abuses until the resolutions comes.72.0.36.36 01:30, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We're just trying to clean up a Georgia Tech article.  These All-time lists have become some sort of extension of yourself and us removing them is NOT an attack on you.  We're just keeping the GT articles concise and free of unoriginal content.  You need to contribute more original work to Wikipedia rather than just All-time lists produced by media outlets.  Do some real research and sourcing.  Wikipedia needs that more than random All-time lists.  Reflect on what each section of the GT football article brings to the table.  History, Home Stadium, Rivalries, Traditions - self explanatory, backbone of the article.  Team achievements - List of the universally accepted team achievements and brief summaries of consensus greatest seasons all-time.  Individual achievements - Players that were recognized nationally during their time on the Flats, found in multiple outlets, universally accepted as important to the GT Football program.  An All-Time list voted on by GT fans does nothing for the notability of the GT football program like a quarterback being named All-American or being a Heisman finalist.  --Excaliburhorn 01:38, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Discussion of straw poll

message: I have expanded the lead to the article as per Wikipedia:Peer review/Georgia Tech Yellow Jackets football/archive1. It's not perfect, and I think I might have put a little too much focus on the rivalry angle, but it's better than what was there. If anyone has any ideas as to how to balance out the focus a bit more, please make changes. Lots of them. If, on the other hand, you think what I wrote is good, please tell me so as I'm very insecure! ;) LaMenta3 18:37, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Lead expansion

message: I counted (twice) 49, not 48, on the list in the article. I went ahead and made edits reflecting this. If I'm mistaken, please correct me.  Strikehold (talk) 10:24, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: You are correct.  Looks like Durant Brooks was added but the count wasn't added to. --Excaliburhorn (talk) 18:07, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

text: Nice catch. —Disavian (talk/contribs) 03:11, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: All-Americans?

message: We're missing the '56 Pitt-GT Gator Bowl and the old Michigan game with Gerald Ford.  Both relate to GT's segregationism and are pretty famous incidents in college football history.  Will look in AJC archives for old articles. --Excaliburhorn (talk) 22:00, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Note to self: Willis Ward has good info for '34 Michigan game.  It would be good to use AJC articles about the event.--Excaliburhorn (talk) 19:49, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Two missing stories

message: The image :Image:Bobby Dodd 1952.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here.  In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page.  Please check
:* That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
:* That this article is linked to from the image description page.
The following images also have this problem:
*:Image:GeorgiaTechYellowJackets.png
*:      Image:Div04.gif
This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --20:56, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Image copyright problem with Image:Bobby Dodd 1952.jpg

message: Relevant deletion discussion at Wikipedia:Files_for_deletion/2011_December_28#File:Georgia Tech.png.--GrapedApe (talk) 17:12, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Image deletion discussion

message: The article referenced by the footnote, by Cumberland U. historian G. Frank Burns, about this doesn't at all state what the article says that it does, namely that this Cumberland team was "commonfolk" off of the campus.  It says that the football program at Cumberland had been resumed and that this team, although young and inexperienced, had apparently played several other games earlier in the season, albeit hardly to the level which had tied Heisman's Clemson team 11 – 11 for the "Southern Championship" years earlier.  75.216.94.48 (talk) 02:48, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  222 - 0 

message: The second sentence of the lead says that the football team is known as the Ramblin' Wreck. It's not sourced, and I don't think it's true. The article Ramblin' Wreck says the term refers to the mascot car and to the students and alumni. Loraof (talk) 03:03, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Seeing no objection, I removed it. Loraof (talk) 14:48, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: The student body (and by extension the football team) is sometimes referred to as the Ramblin' Wreck. It's from the school song: Ramblin' Wreck from Georgia Tech https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georgia_Tech_traditions#Ramblin.27_Wreck_from_Georgia_Tech. Not that the page necessarily needs to change back, but the original sentence was accurate. JYoss (talk) 05:52, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Football team called Ramblin' Wreck?