Talk:Florida–Georgia football rivalry/Archive 1

Bias

This page clearly has an anti-Florida bias. All of the statements are slanted as showing that Gator fans are worse, claiming to own the series and that the worst Georgia does is poke from of Florida's clothing, which is not true. That is clear bias. I'm not arguing Spurrier, because, well, you can't; he's just a dick. Also, the article clearly speaks that calling it a "neutral site" is a little wrong because of its location close to Florida, even though seats are divided 50-50. This has an anti-Florida bias Bsd987 14:23, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Aw come on now - this page strayed wayyyy too far into the realm of football records and other stuff only quasi-related to the WLOCP. Maybe there should be a page that speaks to the rivalry itself if there isn't already. My opinion of the WLOCP is that it should focus more on what happens outside, which is largely in response to what happens or happened inside the stadium. I restored the jeanshorts vs we own Georgia paragraph since that's what I always saw happening (other than binge drinking and great tailgates). Can you not agree that is what it's about?

That's original research and unverifiable. I'll give you a day to find me a source or to tell me a source that agrees with your sentence or else I myself will remove it. I didn't remove it originally, but I will. Find a book or website or magazine article or something. Bsd987 03:24, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Here you go - http://antiorange.dawgtoons.com/modules.php?op=modload&name=Sections&file=index&req=viewarticle&artid=61&page=1

NOte that this is from the perspective of a GATOR fan.

See also: http://www.gatorswearjeanshorts.com. Thank you in advance!

Dude, you don't have to be a dick ("Thank you in advance!"). You claimed that you had seen it; that is a first-hand citation that is original research. That is why I disputed it. Bsd987 19:17, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Fixed.

Fixed, again.

Neutral site

Isn't this game also the only REGULAR season college game played in neutral territory? GZUS96 12:40, 12 Novemeber 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, no; off the top of my head Texas-OU (aka, the Red River Shootout) is always played in Dallas. I'm sure there are a couple of others. AUTiger ʃ ^talk/_work 01:15, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, I checked it out and looks as if (aka, the Red River Shootout) has not always been played in neutral territory and it looks as if it will not be played in Dallas for too long as both clubs want it played at each others venues alternating each year between the two. Also when I looked at the dates of the games it looks as if the game each year that is refered to being (aka, the Red River Shootout) is not always a regular season game some years it has been an invitational post season game. But, none the less the Georgia-Florida game is not as I thought the only regular season game played on neutral territory. Thanks.GZUS96 23:28ct 16 Nov 2006

I'm not sure what your point is - UGA-UF has not always been played in Jacksonville either - see 1994 and 1995 - and OU-UT was last played anywhere outside Dallas in 1913. There has been talk of UF-UGA being moved back to campus too. Btw, where did you get any information about UT-OU not being played in the regular season? My understanding is the rivalry has always been a regular game since they were both charter members of the old Southwest Conference. AUTiger ʃ ^talk/_work 16:11, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

I'd say it's one of a handful of major games played at neutral sites, but it's not the only one. A good argument could be built that Army-Navy is the most famous game played in a neutral location (Philadelphia). —C.Fred (talk) 14:14, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Memorable games

I've got some reservations about this section. Chiefly, memorable according to whom? I'll concede that "Run, Lindsay, run" is probably in sports lore and an easy addition, as is Spurrier running up the score between the hedges. But by what criteria are the other games included? I'd rather discuss before just axing the section outright, but if nobody stands up for the section and the selection of the games, I will cut it. —C.Fred (talk) 00:16, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

By and large, I created the section from articles online discussing the WLOCP game. Most articles all talk about the above games, and others. It could be fixed up and have fewer sub-sections (leaving one paragraph to each game's more notorious outcomes) with links to articles talking about how they were memorable games, I suppose. --WTStoffs 19:11, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

I think the section is great. These should be games that fans of both schools tend to remember, for good or bad. I added a couple more (one victory for each, to be fair) and rewrote some of the other recaps to make them more even-handed. Did I successfully hide my hatred of all things black and red (which, by the way, burns like a million suns)? Zeng8r 16:23, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

"Run"

Re: recent edit undo - Tho admittedly it's not exactly what was said, "Run Lindsay Run" is what that evil, evil play and game have been called for a long time. Kinda like "Play it again, Sam", which was never actually spoken in Casablanca. If you dare, do a google search for "run lindsay run" and see what you get. I get a sick feeling in the pit of my stomach, you'll get a bunch of references to that CENSORED play. Zeng8r 20:25, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Logos on the article

The Florida and Georgia logos were recently added to the article. However, no fair-use rationale has been provided at the logos' image pages. Accordingly, per the nonfree images policy, the logos should be deleted from the article.

The anonymous editor who replaced them indicated this is general practice. I disagree. A quick scan revealed only one rivalry (Florida-Florida State rivalry) where the logos are in use, the rest use a logo specifically for the rivalry should be used (e.g. Iron Bowl) or a published work about the rivalry (e.g. Clean, Old-Fashioned Hate).

The fundamental matter is this: justified use of nonfree images is not rationalized at the images' pages (Image:Florida_Gators_logo.gif and Image:Georgia-logo4.gif). Without a fair-use rationale, the images cannot be used in the article.

I'll give 24 hours for fair use to be rationalized, either here or at the images' pages, before I personally delete the images again. I will not stand in the way of other editors deleting the images, though. (And I reserve the right to find a far more attractive presentation than the current one.) —C.Fred (talk) 12:37, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:FLGAHallofFame.jpg

Image:FLGAHallofFame.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 06:09, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Georgia-logo4.gif

Image:Georgia-logo4.gif is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 09:53, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Series

Why does this article say Georgia leads the series Florida has dominated it? Prob some UGA that thinks 1 win every 20 years gives them series!--UFtebowharvin 00:17, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Ummm.. because the article is about the entire series and not just the last 20 years? Just a reminder, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a internet fan board. AUTiger » talk 01:13, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

No what i'm saying that florida leads the series and that the page says that georgia leads 46-37 which is wrong!--UFtebowharvin 18:26, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

You are mistaken or misinformed; UGA has the series lead. It's discussed in one of the listed references; or perhaps you should go review the Florida media guide. AUTiger » talk 18:52, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't know why the old scores on here any way?--UFtebowharvin 05:50, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

All rivalry pages have previous results, check Red River Shootout.--JMay from tampa bay 06:00, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Memorable Games

Regarding the celebration after Georgia's first touchdown in the 2007 game, Coach Mark Richt stated in an interview on 680 The Fan that he intended only for the players on the field to draw a celebration penalty, but that his players interpreted his exhortation to mean that the entire team should celebrate. Perhaps this clarification should be added. I don't know how to make a reference to a radio broadcast, though. Paul M. Parks (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 17:30, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

On a side note, are the '75, '84, '85, and '02 games that memorable? It seems like when talking about the series, the biggest moments are '66 (motly because of Spurrier's hatred for the Dawgs and gamesmanship once he became coach), Run Lindsey Run, 4th and dumb, the 1993 timeout, half a hundred, and the celebration are probably the most brought up games when commentators talk about the series. I can see how those other 4 games are important, but I don't think they are that memorable. Of course, I was only born in '81... --WTStoffs (talk) 22:17, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Of course, I was only born in '81...

And there you go, young 'un... :) Zeng8r (talk) 00:02, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

2008

It may be a bit early to decide if the '08 game will be recalled as "memorable", but I think that it will. Just like the '84 and '85 games serve as a call and response, the '07 and '08 games will forever be linked in UF/UGA lore. Just look how often last years' game was mentioned in the media coverage; pre-, during, and post-game. Zeng8r (talk) 18:26, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Will the '08 game be memorable on its own, though? I can see where a paragraph at the end of the section on the '07 game would be warranted, but I'm not sure that the '08 game is "stand-alone" notable. —C.Fred (talk) 18:32, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

I see your point, tho none of the other games are mentioned in that way. Zeng8r (talk) 18:35, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Just because the game is the most recent does not make it memorable. At most there should be a sentence at the end of the 2007 game paragraph that states that UF blew UGA out in the next game, possibly in retaliation for the celebration. Allsomeheadybrah (talk) 19:56, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

The more I look into it, the more obvious its notablility:

• "Biggest Florida-Georgia game ever" [1]

• "Florida and Georgia meet for the 76th time in Jacksonville this Saturday in what is one of the most important meetings in recent memory. This will be the first time both teams are ranked in the top 10 of the Associated Press poll since 1999 and only the second time since 1984. The winner of this game will take a significant step towards winning the SEC East and possibly a national championship bid." [2]

• "Florida's 49-10 win over Georgia was one of the most important in the school's recent history." [3]

• "The game is one of the rivalry's most important matchups and one of series' most highly anticipated." [4]

• "This is slated to be one of the biggest, most important Florida-Georgia games I can recall in recent years, certainly in my lifetime." [5]

• "Strictly from the Georgia perspective, this is the Bulldogs’ biggest game with Florida in almost 20 years." [6]

• "...the revenge-minded Gators thumped the Bulldogs 49-10 Saturday in one of the most anticipated matchups in the history of this storied rivalry." [7]

It needs its own game summary, imo. Zeng8r (talk) 02:39, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Of course all of the press will say its the biggest in history, its their job to over exaggerate games. Just because it is the most recent does not make it notable. There have been plenty of times these teams have met with the SEC east on the line. If UF goes on to win the National Title then I would consider this game memorable, but I think we just need to wait a few months and see what happens before we list it with those other great games. Allsomeheadybrah (talk) 04:08, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

I invite you to find the same amount of press "overexaggeration", both pre- and post-game, for the FLA-UGA battles in '07,'06, '05, '04, '03, '02, etc. etc. Between the events of the previous year and the championship implications, this year's contest was surely important enough to be mentioned in the article... even if your team lost. (For the record, I added or expanded several Georgia wins on the list last year.) Zeng8r (talk) 12:31, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Article Title

Shouldn't this article be moved to the official title for the game? WLOCP is a cool name, but it is not official in any manner except that its use is officially condemned by both schools. The World's Largest Outdoor Cocktail Party should be a redirect, not the name of the article. I'm not very good with altering redirects and article titles, but if someone who reads this agrees and has more wikipedia editing experience than myself, please change the article.Failureofafriend (talk) 11:23, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose. The one benefit of using WLOCP as the article title is that it's neutral. To choose one of the official game names would be to have some implicit bias toward one of the terms. To use both names as the article title would be cumbersome. As a result, I oppose any prospective move. —C.Fred (talk) 14:10, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

I am a Georgia fan and I would personally see no bias in referring to the game as the "Florida-Georgia Football Classic" as that is the style of the majority of the logos seen at the game. Florida comes first in alphabetical order. Placing it first in the title is no more biased than when it is placed first in the article. What is the Wikipedia policy on using nicknames in the place of official names? When the nickname is officially condemned and not allowed to be used by media outlets with SEC contracts (ESPN and CBS)? I respect your differing opinion, and I will not change the article myself.Failureofafriend (talk) 21:42, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Clean, Old-Fashioned Hate is not officially used by either school in the UGa-GaTech rivalry. It is not disallowed like TWLOCP, but if one wanted to change the title of this article they could make an argument for that one as well. Both articles use the very common nickname given for the game by the fans. --WTStoffs (talk) 00:04, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose The game is referred to by this moniker every year by sports columnists and analysts--even if the SEC and both schools don't want to call the game by this. --WTStoffs (talk) 04:46, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
• Support I live in Jacksonville and I very rarely hear the game referred to as this. ~Richmond96 t • c 02:44, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

1942 game?

An anonymous editor is alleging that Florida fielded a club team in 1942, and that the 1942 contest is not recognized by either UF or the NCAA. Are there any sources to back this claim up? —C.Fred (talk) 20:38, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

The offical UF sports website says that Florida fielded a 3-7 team in 1942. The fall of 1943 was football-less due to the war. Zeng8r (talk) 23:45, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

But wasn't this a scrub sort of team due to the draft for WWII? I've heard that this particular game is the primary reason that Florida fans have an everlasting hate for Georgia. A.S. Williams (talk) 01:54, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

I just added more material and made the title less POV, as I never found the game refered to as "The Beatdown" in any source. Zeng8r (talk) 00:38, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Beatdown appears to be a modern (c. 1990) slang word; it certainly wouldn't be a historical title of the game. —C.Fred (talk) 00:42, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

FYI, what the anonymous IP editor may have been trying to express was the point that the Gators had already shipped almost all of their 1-A upper-classmen off to war by September 1942, but Wally Butts was able to keep his entire team in school by enrolling them in ROTC and thus gaining draft deferments. Unlike Butt's Dawgs, few other SEC teams were playing with a full deck in 1942, and by 1943 over half of the conference did not even field a team at all, including the Gators. Nevertheless, the Gators did field a varsity team in 1942, and the Dawgs did beat the hell out of Tom Lieb's freshmen, scrubs and 4-F's. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 20:19, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Move

I have moved the article to "Florida–Georgia/Georgia–Florida Game". A nickname should only be used if it is more common and more familiar to the reader. That isn't the case here. In the spirit of keeping both official names in the title I came up with this compromise; the rest will be solved by redirects and explanation within the article. Cheers.--Cúchullain ^t/c 14:10, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Um, what? There was a discussion on the talk page about this a while back with two opposed and nobody in favor of making this change. I didn't throw in my opinion at the time, but I also think it's a bad idea. Besides the new title being terribly awkward, "WLOCP" is still what a large majority of the fanbases call this game, the consternation of university presidents notwithstanding.

There was no reason and no consensus to rename/move this article. I'm guessing a consensus builds pretty quickly to change it back to the way it was. Zeng8r (talk) 16:30, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Based on the prior discussion and absence of further discussion before the move, I've restored the old title. —C.Fred (talk) 16:35, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

The "World's Largest Cocktail Party" is not the most common name for this event; this is easily verifed by a Google search for World's Largest Outdoor Cocktail Party vs Florida-Georgia, or to weed out the chaff, "Florida Georgia"+game or "Florida-Georgia+game"&aq=f&oq=&aqi=g2 "Florida-Georgia game". By COMMONNAME, the unofficial nickname should only be used if it is used more commonly in the reliable sources the article is based on. In this case it is not, so some change is required.--Cúchullain ^t/c 21:26, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Looking at the other articles in Category:College football rivalries, most articles use a descriptive name rather than a title, such as Maryland – Penn State rivalry or Harvard–Yale football rivalry. This is probably the way to go here; the article could be titled Florida–Georgia (football?) rivalry, and cover all the same content without argument about the official title of the game itself or the prominence of the unofficial nickname.--Cúchullain ^t/c 21:37, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

I agree with the Cooch. I never hear WLOCP anymore on TV or radio--have not heard it for years. There's a whole generation that don't even know what WLOCP means anymore. And it has no official sanction. Needs to be moved. That "neutrality" argument is bunk, too, given that other rivalry games don't have such "neutral" listings, and yet the Wheels of Wikipedia keep on turning. I'm not saying that there's consensus for a move yet, but don't portray the microscopic participation in the above discussion as meaning that there is consensus for WLOCP. 98.71.219.134 (talk) 01:34, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

2009

I really don't think that this year's game should be included in the "memorable games" section. No big stats, no amazing plays, no comebacks, nothing. Even if it should stay, the current write-up is seriously skewed with a Gator slant and needs to be rewritten. So between the otability and neutral point of view issues, I think it's best to remove it and only put it back when/if a consensus comes together to include it (and, if needed, a more even-handed version is written). Zeng8r (talk) 00:46, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

I agree. Other than gimmicks with uniforms and some standard rivalry hi-jinks the game was not particularly memorable. 68.153.29.23 (talk) 00:32, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Orphaned references in Florida vs. Georgia Football Classic

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Florida vs. Georgia Football Classic's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "mcewen":

• From Buford Long: Tom McEwen, The Gators: A Story of Florida Football, The Strode Publishers, Huntsville, Alabama, pp. 180–181, 210–211 (1974).
• From Royce Goodbread: Tom McEwen, The Gators: A Story of Florida Football, The Strode Publishers, Huntsville, Alabama, pp. 86–103 (1974).
• From Clyde Crabtree: Tom McEwen, The Gators: A Story of Florida Football, The Strode Publishers, Huntsville, Alabama, pp. 82–103 (1974).

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 21:02, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

1904

Regarding how we should include the 1904 game: the University of Georgia regards the 1904 game they played against a "Florida" team as the start of the Florida-Georgia football rivalry; the University of Florida does not. To clarify, the modern "University of Florida" did not exist in 1904. The modern university began in 1905 when the state merged four institutions in different cities to create a white men's-only university. One of the colleges that was merged into the university was the Florida Agricultural College in Lake City, which confusingly was given the name "University of Florida" in 1903. It was the Lake City school that fielded the football team that played Georgia in 1904. The University of Florida does not include games played by the Lake City institution in its official team record. (On the same note, the University of Florida also took on male students from Florida State, including its football team, as that school became a white women's college).--Cúchullain ^t/c 22:34, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

I added sources to clear this up.--Cúchullain ^t/c 19:53, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure that I understand the issue that you're raising. Are you merely discussing how the 1904 game should be handled, or are you contending that the 1904 game should be excluded from the article completely? If it's the former, I agree that the issue has been adequately resolved now, with the references and explanations that have been added. If you think the 1904 game should be expunged completely, though, then I would disagree with that. Jhortman (talk) 23:51, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

I was discussing how we should handle talking about the 1904 game. We obviously can't exclude it, but we can't include it without explaining that Florida doesn't include it and why. I think we've covered the issue fairly at this point.--Cúchullain ^t/c 02:06, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Cooch, we do need to include 1904 game in the text, but we still need to better explain the logic of why Florida does not include the historical records of the pre-1906 East Florida Seminary and Florida Agricultural College/University of Florida at Lake City in those of the Florida Gators. I'm working on an explanatory footnote for the trivia mavens and for those readers who actually want to understand the evolution of the university's predecessor institutions, their abolition by the Buckman Act, and the founding of the modern university in 1905. Different charters, different academic programs, different governing bodies, different school colors, different mascot, and after a single school year in Lake City, a new campus. For the first four years of its existence, the new university even had a distinctly different name, the "University of the State of Florida." Nor does the Florida athletic department claim the wins of the FAC/UFLC football teams over Stetson and Florida State College. And, as you know, the university consistently used 1905 as it founding date until the late 1930s, when John Tigert petitioned the Board of Control and the state attorney general to use its East Florida Seminary predecessor's 1853 founding date on the university's seal. In short, these were not the same universities or the same football teams, which is the crux of the argument over whether or not the 1904 game should be included in the all-time series record. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 20:05, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

2010

As the only OT game in the series and with all dramatic back-and-forth emotions throughout, it's pretty clear that this year's game belongs in the "memorable games" section. I've heard many commentators call it an "instant classic" or something similar, and there were many such mentions in print as well. Let's let the emotions settle down and bit, then work together to write a good summary. Zeng8r (talk) 10:46, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm inclined to agree. In a sense, everybody right now knows that the game is a classic. A little time will give a little perspective to let us write a good, neutral summary and a little time for some secondary sources to appear about the game—and it's later when people may need to be reminded that this game was a classic. —C.Fred (talk) 14:05, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Many sports articles are afflicted by recentism. Were we to add the 2010 match, we'd be implying that over the last ten or eleven decades, four of the fourteen matches noted as "memorable games" occurred in the last eight years, with three occurring in the last 4 years. I don't know that that's really accurate. On another note, the whole section really needs better sourcing.--Cúchullain ^t/c 17:30, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Sources, I've got, including hard copies of every book listed in the bibliography of the Florida Gators football article. Before we start willy-nilly adding games and content, may I suggest that we come up with a list of 12 to 15 of the most notable Florida-Georgia games? Some selections are obvious because they were "firsts" (first game played, first game played in Jacksonville), others because of the scores (highest score for each team, highest winning margin for each team, the two ties), and then the truly interesting games because of highlights and outcome.

I'm sure every Dawgs or Gators fan has his own list of most notable games, but I here are my suggestions: (1) 1915 (first game); (2) 1928 (Gators' first win, ending 8-game losing streak); (3) 1930 (0-0 tie); (4) 1933 (first game played in Fairfield Stadium/Gator Bowl/Jacksonville Municipal Stadium); (5) 1942 (Dawgs' 75-0 high score); (6) 1949 (Gators' upset led by Chuck Hunsinger's 171 yards and 3 touchdowns); (7) 1952 (Gators' 30-0 blowout led by Rick Casares, J. Papa Hall and Doug Dickey); (8) 1958 (19th ranked Gators edge Dawgs 7-6, to cap 4-game winning streak); (9) 1964 (unranked Dawgs upset Spurrier and 9th ranked Gators; (10) 1966 (Dawgs spoil Gators SEC title hopes and Spurrier's Heisman season); (11) 1967 (first televised game); (12) 1970 (Youngblood wins the game for the Gators); (13) 1975 (Dawgs spoil Gators' SEC title hopes); (14) 1976 (Dawgs spoil Gators' SEC title hopes, again); (15) 1980 ("Run, Lindsay, run!"); (16) 1984 (Bell-Nattiel show); (17) 1985 (Dawgs upset top-ranked Gators); and (18) 1995 ("half-a-hundred," or "the Evil Genius' revenge"). Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 19:58, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

The first game was in 1904 --96.32.181.73 (talk) 04:37, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Also I would include the 2007 game in that list, as the Dawgs incur the two excessive celebration penalties after the first touchdown but carry the momentum from the celebration to win the game. It was also one of the higher-scoring games and the only rivalry game Florida lost that year, according to coach Meyer. --96.32.181.73 (talk) 04:40, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Georgia counts the 1904 game; the article explains why Florida does not. I think Dirtlawyer has done a good job explaining why particular games are notable; it's funny that he doesn't include any of the 2000s games, while the article currently has 3 (and potentially 4). I agree with the anon, though, that if any of the 2000s games are notable, the 2007 "Gator Stomp" is it, not in terms of "firsts" but in terms of its notoriety in the media.--Cúchullain ^t/c 11:48, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

I don't know about including so many games from so long ago. It's only been since the mid-60s that both programs have been (occasionally) good at the same time, which is why most of the current collection is heavy on contests from more recent decades. I agree that perhaps recentism is too much of an issue in listing so many relatively recent games. But on the other hand, trying to dig up facts about pre-WW2 football games would not only be difficult, but the resulting info wouldn't be very useful to readers. Zeng8r (talk) 19:07, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

It shouldn't matter if it's difficult or not, this isn't supposed to be a list of games that are notable plus easy to find out about; it's just a list of notable games. And I don't think older games are any less useful to readers than anything else that's in there now. It would be much more useful for a reader wanting to know how the series began to read about the first game(s) than to read about the fairly typical 1993 or 2002 games.--Cúchullain ^t/c 19:31, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

The 1928, 1942 and 1949 games are all very well documented. You are familiar with the great 8–1 Gators team of 1928, right? More to the point, none of these notable game blurbs need to be full-blown game summaries. They should state the reason for the game's notability in two to four sentences. We don't need more trivia and fancruft in these rivalry articles. IMHO, we should try to convey a sense of the history and flavor of the rivalry, without doing a play-by-play for every game listed. As for the particular games I mentioned, the 1949 upset was one of the most important athletic events to happen at Florida prior to the 1952 Gator Bowl. It was a huge deal to an entire generation of Florida alumni, and probably meant more to the fans than SEC championships do now. It was the "Run, Lindsay, run!" of its era. We should not limit ourselves to games within living memory, even if reaching back requires us to do a little homework. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 19:45, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Intro

The current introductory sentence is awkward. It seems off to refer to the "Florida Gators of the University of Florida" (oh, those Florida Gators?) and the "Georgia Bulldogs of the University of Georgia" (like the Los Angeles Angels of Anaheim?). It reads like a press release from the Department of Redundancy Department. To the claim that no one says "University of Florida Gators" and "University of Georgia Bulldogs", I found over 400 google books hits for the former and 300 for the latter, and dozens of articles in the Florida Times-Union alone, not counting the pre-1997 archives.[8] It's not particularly uncommon (much more so than "Georgia Bulldogs of the University of Georgia").--Cúchullain ^t/c 16:41, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

I don't doubt that the full names can be legitimately used, but it seems to me that it would flow a little better from a readability standpoint if the intro sentence said: "... annual college football rivalry game between the Florida Gators and the Georgia Bulldogs." That would provide a link both to the university and athletics pages for both teams, as well. -Jhortman (talk) 12:52, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Here's the problem: in normal usage, the media, the fans and the universities do not typically refer to the "University of Florida Gators" or the "University of Georgia Bulldogs" as the names of these sports teams. Yes, I know you can find contrary examples, but "Florida Gators" and "Georgia Bulldogs" is the most common usage by far by media, fans and the universities themselves. (Just take a look at how the two athletic programs most commonly denominate their teams on their official websites.) On Wikipedia, the teams are universally referred to as the "Florida Gators" and the "Georgia Bulldogs." Wikipedia is, however, a world-wide English-language encyclopedia, and does not assume that every reader has the background knowledge of an avid American college football fan. For anyone who is British, Canadian, Australian, Irish, New Zealander, South African or other non-American English-speaker (and, for that matter, probably most Americans who aren't avid college football fans), the likelihood of them understanding the association between the University of Georgia and the Georgia Bulldogs is slim, and this fundamental relationship between the teams and the universities should be explained briefly. University-sponsored sports teams with statewide, regional and even national followings are an American phenomenon; there is nothing comparable in other English-speaking countries. Thus, the most common name of the sports teams should be connected to the universities for the fundamental understanding of the reader.

Second, linking a college football rivalry page to the related athletic programs (e.g. "Florida Gators"), and not the related football team (e.g. "Florida Gators football"), merely sidetracks the reader. Instead of linking the rivalry to the most specific related article about the team, we are leading the reader on a goose chase where he or she must seek out yet another link to find the specific football team page that provides the most relevant information. This is contrary to the established linking policy of WP:CFB, whereby the more specific link is preferred. If we're writing about the Georgia Bulldogs athletic program, we link to "Georgia Bulldogs." If we're writing about the Georgia Bulldogs football team, we link to "Georgia Bulldogs football." If we're writing about a specific Gators team from 1985, we link to "1985 Florida Gators football team." If we're writing about the 1980 national championship team, the first link should not be to the "Georgia Bulldogs" athletic program article, but to "1980 Georgia Bulldogs football team." This is fundamental policy for proper sports team linking, and a lot of devoted CFB editors have spent a lot of hours cleaning up the CFB link structure over the past two years. In other articles about Florida Gators football, we have previously resolved the need to link those articles to the general athletic program article by including the athletic program link under the "See also" section. Believe it or not, there is actually a policy-driven hierarchy and structure to these team links. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 14:07, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

The problem I have is that the introduction sentence is very redundant and doesn't flow as a result. I think it could be improved by moving, perhaps, the names of the schools to the second sentence. Rather than ping-pong with the intro, I'll ask here before making the change:

The Florida vs. Georgia Football Classic or Georgia vs. Florida Football Classic is an annual college football rivalry game played by the Florida Gators that represent the University of Florida and the Georgia Bulldogs that represent the University of Georgia. The game has been teams representing the University of Florida and University of Georgia have played eighty-eight times since 1915.

It removes the repetitions in the first sentence ("that represent," "Florida", and "Georgia" each appeared twice). As a fringe benefit, it gets the second sentence out of passive voice. Any objections? —C.Fred (talk) 15:47, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

None. It's an improvement on what I had suggested. In fact, it's so damn good, Fred, I already inserted your revised language. Cheers. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 16:37, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Still seems a little awkward to me, but if everyone else is ok with it, I'll go along. I see the logic of explaining it to people who are not native American English speakers and/or not familiar with American football terminology. -Jhortman (talk) 17:41, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

It's an improvement over the previous attempt, but it's still quite awkward, and we're still bending over backwards to get the hyperlinks in to the detriment of readability. The simplest solution is still the one that that has stood for the longest time: "University of Florida Gators and University of Georgia Bulldogs" (or, if you must, University of Florida Gators and University of Georgia Bulldogs", with the links specifically to football). As I showed above, these names are not uncommon, and will be more decipherable to the uninitiated reader. Especially in the first use; subsequent mentions can go with the short forms.

I don't think anyone's happy with the various recent versions, I'll be reverting to the stable version if can't work out a better alternative.--Cúchullain ^t/c 13:30, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

I mean the stable version of the introduction; not the whole article, btw.

Also, the first reference to the sport shouldn't be "football". It should be either "college football" (preferable) or "American football" ("football" in subsequent references is fine). This is an international encyclopedia, and the word "football" means different things in different places. Before you say "well a lot of soccer articles just start out with 'football'", the fact that soccer fans have managed to crap up soccer articles with regionalist terminology is no reason for us to follow in their error.--Cúchullain ^t/c 13:49, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Pursuant to your suggestion, I have changed the piped "American football|football" link to "college football." I'm not making the "soccer/football" argument; I play by the "when in Rome, call it what the Romans call it" rule----but with a proper link. Hopefully, "college football" is adequate to distinguish the sport from football/soccer, since, to my knowledge, no other country has organized college football/soccer leagues on the level of the United States. Of course, we have college soccer leagues, too, but that's another story.

As for the rest of your comment regarding the double link "University of Florida Gators," I disagree whole-heartedly for the reasons stated above. The so-called "stable" version was the one you edited, and it survived for several months. IMHO, using your rollbacker button in this situation is a conflict of interest. Beyond that, I find the "University of Florida Gators" double link with "Gators" pipe-linked to the athletic program awkward and misleading to the reader. We are discussing the Florida Gators football team, not the Florida Gators athletic program. Furthermore, linking to the athletic program (i.e. "Florida Gators"), rather than the main football team article (i.e. "Florida Gators football"), is contrary to established WP:CFB precedent as well as best linking practices. As you may recall, before your "stable" edit, the previous text actually read "the Florida Gators football team of the University of Florida," which made very clear that the "Florida Gators football team of the University of Florida" was not some sort of awkwardly formal name, but just a description of the two related entities and their relationship. Another option would be "the University of Florida's Gators football team." Again, that conveys the relationship between the two entities and breaks up the double link.

I have had this same issue with you on at least one other Florida Gators football article, Cooch, and I was too busy to argue at the time. This needs to be resolved, and if we are going to have an informed discussion about it, then we probably need to take this to the WP:CFB talk page. This is not a matter of personal preference, but project-wide policy. Under WP:LINK, I refer you to the "Link specificity" section: "Always link to the article on the most specific topic appropriate to the context from which you link: it will generally contain more focused information, as well as links to more general topics." That's a clear statement of the general principle at issue. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 16:34, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

The phrasing "University of Florida Gators and University of Georgia Bulldogs" has been in the article literally since it was created in 2005 (before there were even Gators and Bulldogs articles), and the piping has been done the above way since 2007. That more than qualifies as "stable". it remains the simplest, least redundant way to link both the university and the team articles. Each of the new versions attempted over the last week have been found troublesome by at least one editor; my suggestion is to restore the version with the obvious precedent and hammer out a workable solution on the talk page, in the spirit of BRD.

As far as the project goes, I don't see that there's any project wide consistency on these things, let along subject-wide, not that projects have any special say. Nothing wrong with getting them involved in the discussion of course.Cúchullain ^t/c 22:56, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

I've just looked at 55+ of the major CFB rivalry articles, and admittedly, a lot of them are a mess. No articles attract more fancruft, NPOV abuse, unsourced material, and crappy writing than these rivalry article. That having been said, the "University of Georgia Bulldogs" construction is not unusual; there appears to be no majority method for how to link the university to the football team in the lede of CFB rivalry articles (in a majority of the individual football team articles, however, most split the team and university in some fashion to establish the relationship between the two). In a sizable minority of instances, the rivalry article ledes include only the teams or only the universities. The double-link "University of Georgia Bulldogs" construction occurs about 20% of the time. What is very clear, however, is that even most of these crappy, forgotten articles comply with the "link specificity" policy of WP:LINK; of those 38 CFB rivalry articles that linked to either related football team or athletic program articles in the lede, a majority of 28.5 link to the team pages, while only 9.5 link to the athletic program pages. And even that minority may represent a residual effect: numerous Division I football team articles have been added in the past three years.

For purposes of this rivalry article, I concede your point about the "University of Florida Gators" construction. However, the "Gators" link should be to the football team page, not the athletic program page, consistent with the "link specificity" policy. BTW, the "project-wide policy" to which I referred to above is the Wikipedia-wide "link specificity" policy. I hope you will concede that the team link is the proper one. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 01:00, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes, this is an issue the project needs to be made aware of. If they'd been on top of it this whole time and come up with some kind of consistency we wouldn't have to sort it out on individual articles over and over again. I do agree that the football articles are probably better links than the main Gators and Bulldogs articles, especially considering the strong state the football articles are now in thanks to the efforts of yourself and others. They're a good example for other articles to follow.--Cúchullain ^t/c 14:36, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

UGA fall break

Does anyone have any objection to deleting the third paragraph of the "Site of game" subsection, regarding the scheduling of UGA's fall break for students? The source for this paragraph is now a dead link, the information is out of date, and it appears to be of only tangential relevance to the UGA-UF rivalry and the annual football game. Please advise if you believe this paragraph should be kept in the article. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 18:43, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

No objection from me... this is pretty tangential stuff.--Cúchullain ^t/c 22:08, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

I also agree, this is tangential and not really material to the topic. -Jhortman (talk) 01:13, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of UF Athletic Hall of Fame navbox

Concerned WP:CFB editors may want to comment on the navbox TfD here: Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2011 September 8#Template:University of Florida Athletic Hall of Fame. The nominating editor wants to delete the University of Florida Athletic Hall of Fame navbox. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 14:02, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

• Since I don't see where UF has ever gotten within a game of UGA in the cumulative record since the series started, why not just list one cumulative record with a footnote to add/subtract one from UGA's win tally? —C.Fred (talk) 22:27, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
  • I tried that and a UF-sided editor reverted it — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.32.129.220 (talk) 22:47, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

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)

During my googling for the section below, I came across this. Usable? -Jhortman (talk) 00:42, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

I don't know. It looks like they've just watermarked the official logo. By the fair use requirements I think we'd have to use the official one.--Cúchullain ^t/c 16:50, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Whoops, I used the wrong link. Same website, no watermark. -Jhortman (talk) 19:28, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

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,[9] 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,[10], which isn't even always used by the city.[11] 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.[12]. 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)

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)

• 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)

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)

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)

The old Florida-Georgia/Georgia-Florida thing again

I disagree with your assertion that the Florida-Georgia/Georgia-Florida difference is descriptive rather than taxonomical, Cúchullain, but since you're an admin and more experienced with such matters, I'll defer to your judgement as far as the lede is concerned. To avoid edit warring further down in the article, though, I want to open this discussion here.

The link in the article does state that the name rotates from year to year, and the official minutes of the Jacksonville Sports and Entertainment Board (which officially hosts the game) from 2010 and 2011 (links are Word documents) do seem to follow that format without explicitly endorsing it. In contrast, however, there are multiple examples of each school's names being used first every year in official releases and in media from each school's native territory, and both names are used concurrently in the signage in Jacksonville itself. I have listed examples below. (Florida is the home team in odd years, Georgia in even, so 2011 the "alternating name" theory should have seen the game called Florida-Georgia.)

Georgia-Florida:

• UGA official press release before the 2011 game
• UGA official game notes for 2011
• UGA official game notes for 2010
• Florida Times-Union article from the 2011 game
• Pregame article on the economic impact of the game from a Savannah media outlet from 2011
• Article on the game from a Georgia-affiliated periodical from 2010

Florida-Georgia:

• Pregame article from Tampa Bay Online from 2011
• Article on the rivalry from the Gainesville Sun in 2011
• Article on Will Muschamp from Rivals.com in 2011
• UF official Pregame and postgame notes from the 2011 game, both referring to the game as "Florida-Georgia" or "the UF/UGA series."
• UF official pregame notes from the 2007 game
• UF official pregame notes from the 2008 game (4.5 MB pdf, fair warning)
• UF oficial pregame notes from the 2010 game

Both:

• The official signage in the stadium reflects both names concurrently every year, as is seen in this picture from the 2011 game.
• Stadium picture from 2010. The background is blurred, but both versions of the logo are clearly distinguishable.
• The Florida Times-Union website (Jacksonville.com) uses both sets of terminology in different areas of their website for the 2011 game here and here.

Because of this, in the "Nicknames and trophies" section, the text should be updated to reflect that the "Florida-Georgia" and "Georgia-Florida" terminology is used concurrently by each respective side, and signage reflecting both names is present in Jacksonville itself. -Jhortman (talk) 06:29, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Gentlemen, arguing about this is silly. Of course either order is valid. Just change the beginning of the first sentence to "The Florida–Georgia / Georgia-Florida football rivalry..." (without citations) and be done with it. That'll give readers a hint of the contentiousness of the rivalry without bogging them down with a thicket of unnecessary superscripts right off the bat (or kickoff). Doesn't that work? Zeng8r (talk) 14:52, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Since the rivalry isn't properly named, what about "The rivalry between the University of Florida and University of Georgia..." —C.Fred (talk) 01:44, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

I'd object to adding more on this in the intro, as it would imply that these names are actually what the series is called, rather than a descriptive title (in the way meant by the MOS). However, I agree with Jhortman on adding more accurate material to the article body on the swapping of the names. It would probably be enough to say that some entities call put Florida first, some put Georgia first, and others (like the Florida Times-Union) rotate. Obviously we need to use only reliable sources, however.Cúchullain ^t/c 18:13, 20 February 2012 (UTC)