Talk:Florida–Georgia football rivalry

message: :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.
*Support (after amending ). I can agree with the concept of the move. It should be moved to the most official title possible, and per the city of Jacksonville, it's the Florida vs. Georgia Football Classic. —C.Fred (talk) 01:58, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Survey

message: 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)
replies: text: ~ Richmond96 T • C 22:26, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  2012: New column 

message: 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)
replies: text: I agree.Cúchullain t/c 20:33, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: I agree with both Cúchullain and Dirtlawyer1 for the reasons both of them state. -Jhortman (talk) 20:11, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Inclusion of 2012 game in "Notable Games" section 

message: 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)
replies: text: Would a logo with the two teams' logos next to each other be acceptable?  (i.e. .)  Ben S. Henderson (talk) 00:06, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rivalry logo 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Cumulative series record 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Name of article 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title: Other notable games

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  General tone of memorable games 

message: 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:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120402035222/http://web.gatorzone.com/football/media/2011/media_guide.pdf to http://web.gatorzone.com/football/media/2011/media_guide.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120402035222/http://web.gatorzone.com/football/media/2011/media_guide.pdf to http://web.gatorzone.com/football/media/2011/media_guide.pdf
*Added archive http://www.webcitation.org/5yxZ7ROzm?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.la84foundation.org%2FSportsLibrary%2FCFHSN%2FCFHSNv06%2FCFHSNv06n2g.pdf to http://www.la84foundation.org/SportsLibrary/CFHSN/CFHSNv06/CFHSNv06n2g.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:10, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: 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:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111016061317/http://www.georgiadogs.com/sports/m-footbl/spec-rel/2011-football-media-guide.html to http://www.georgiadogs.com/sports/m-footbl/spec-rel/2011-football-media-guide.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150707055319/http://cfbdatawarehouse.com/data/active/f/florida/opponents_records.php?teamid=1265 to http://cfbdatawarehouse.com/data/active/f/florida/opponents_records.php?teamid=1265
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111016061317/http://www.georgiadogs.com/sports/m-footbl/spec-rel/2011-football-media-guide.html to http://www.georgiadogs.com/sports/m-footbl/spec-rel/2011-football-media-guide.html
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.la84foundation.org/SportsLibrary/CFHSN/CFHSNv06/CFHSNv06n2g.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:47, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: 73.137.128.193 (talk) 01:27, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 26 October 2017 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Title needs to change 

message: Georgia-Florida football rivalry 2601:CA:8500:2E70:1936:FFF9:2E30:3A6C (talk) 18:20, 28 October 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Not done: page move requests should be made at Wikipedia:Requested moves. Elli (talk | contribs) 21:17, 28 October 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Correct name of the game