Jump to content

Talk:Florida–LSU football rivalry

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

Untitled

[edit]

It's been almost two years since the Original Research warning was posted to the page. There are still no sources provided for any of the 10 notable games, and each is written from an LSU fan's non-neutral point of view (to put it kindly). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.251.92.43 (talk) 21:12, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I just removed all of it. Strange that it was written by an "LSU fan" that almost exclusively edited Florida football articles. Lizard (talk) 21:34, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Might have been better to use the <!--- --> tags. A rivalry article without a notable games section is awfully paltry, so I will try to come back later and put some work into accounting for at least a few. Cake (talk) 22:29, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nice work. I didn't have this on my watchlist for some reason so I only just noticed. The 2007 game was, in my opinion, the highlight of the Miles era. Lizard (talk) 21:48, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

2016 game

[edit]

@Jpp858: The section heading above may be misleading, because there might not even be a 2016 game. Why, then, would a football game that has not yet and may not ever take place be included on a list of notable football games? If the game ends up being cancelled, it should be noted in the results table and perhaps mentioned briefly in the main text of the article. If it's played later on, then we could determine its notability after that. There is absolutely no need nor reason to add it now. Wikipedia is not a newspaper - wait to see what happens and add it later if appropriate. Zeng8r (talk) 23:46, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

To be consistent, I went ahead and removed the 2016 game again for now, although I bet it'll be added again later. As I argued much more extensively at Talk:Florida–Tennessee football rivalry, these sorts of lists are supposed to be very exclusive, and it's just too early to know a game's long-term impact right after the final whistle. Best to wait until the season is over and then decide. Zeng8r (talk) 14:11, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I contemplated removing it myself, but I didn't know how well that would go over since I'm an admitted LSU fan. Lizard (talk) 17:27, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
After some thought, I think we might as well leave it in. It was a great game that came down to the final play, and it clinched the East for the Gators. Plus it had many national storylines besides the game itself, such as the drama surrounding the rescheduling and Fournette's pregame shove. Both of which aren't even currently mentioned. Lizard (talk) 19:04, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I still think it's too early to add 2016. It's true that the game was played late enough in the season that some of its consequences are already obvious, but there's still plenty of football left, and the full impact won't be known until the season wraps up. If the consensus is to include the entry now, we'll have to work to keep it as neutral as possible and keep a close eye on it to make sure that it stays that way. Already been some anonymous IP fans getting a little overexcited. Zeng8r (talk) 16:39, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

results table

[edit]

The results table needs some work. First of all, I don't like the convention of using "No." instead of # for rankings, but that's the consensus in the Wikipedia manual of style, so that's what should be used here. A bigger problem is that the color coding for game winners disappeared somehow in the changing back and forth between No. and #. Actually, the blue and purple cell colors weren't great choices in the first place, imo - they're too similar, and somebody with vision issues or a lousy screen might not be able to see the difference. I'd keep the blue background for Florida wins and maybe go with yellow (with purple text?) for LSU. I'm not much of a table expert, though, so I hope somebody else has the time and skills to fix things up. --Zeng8r (talk) 15:50, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like the table doesn't recognize winners when "No." is used. Thus it's only colored when an unranked team wins. This is something that'll have to be fixed on Template:Sports rivalry series table, something that's out of my expertise. And I agree that the blue and purple are too similar. Lizard (talk) 16:12, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
In that case, maybe we should use # after all. It looks better anyway, I think. Also, I've never liked that the results table template only allows for mentioning the rank of the winning team. It's a huge oversight to not include both teams' rankings, imo, but I'm sure it would be a lot of work to update everything. EDIT: Looking at the template you linked, I realized that this article (and several other rivalry articles that I've worked on) use the compact version of the table. Other versions have a place for the losing team's ranking, which is much better. Zeng8r (talk) 16:18, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I did the bold thing and tried to improve the results table. I dunno how to replace "tie" with the actual team names, and I'm very open to switching the LSU table colors if somebody can find a better fit, so there's still work to be done... --Zeng8r (talk) 01:45, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@CollegeRivalry: One must be careful of sticking too closely to standards - they work in most situations, but not all. Using blue and dark purple cell backgrounds in the table doesn't give enough contrast. It makes it hard to see series trends, and if I can throw out some wikipolicy, it likely doesn't meet MOS:COLOR. Substituting LSU's secondary color makes it much easier to see and understand.

Also, why should the compact form of the rivalry series table be "standard"? I think that showing the rankings of both teams (not just the winner) is very valuable information, which is why the "basic" version of the table is better. It's not perfect either, though - instead of "winners" and "losers" columns, I think it should have "home" and "visitors" columns and let the score and the color coding make it clear who won. But in any case, I have never understood why rivalry articles tend to use the version of the template that doesn't bother to list the rankings of both teams. If that's the "standard", then we need to raise our standards. Zeng8r (talk) 11:19, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Notable games, etc.

[edit]

Several editors have worked on the "notable games" section in recent months, but it's still in need of improvement and references. So is the introduction and series overview, which is too short. Rivalry articles tend to really shine when editors who are fans or are at least familiar with the football history of each school come together to bring multiple points of view and a long-term perspective to the text. Florida–Georgia football rivalry, Florida–Tennessee football rivalry, and Alabama–LSU football rivalry are pretty good examples, although the LSU-Bama article doesn't have a memorable games section. I could start the process over the next week or so, but it would be nice if other editors jump in to collaborate as well. Zeng8r (talk) 16:10, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I can pitch in the LSU point of view when I have time. The 1997 and 2007 games are definitely notable, but I'm not sure about anything before that. LSU and Florida aren't really historical rivals. Lizard (talk) 16:28, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I agree - the rivalry has never been particularly intense even though they've played almost every year since the early 1950s. My Gator football memory goes back to the 1970s but I can't come up with more additions to the "notable games" list off the top of my head. When I have some time, I'll look back into the archives; there have to have been other notable games that have been forgotten over time. Zeng8r (talk) 01:20, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Florida probably gave LSU its toughest game of the 1958 championship season. Lots of All-Americans playing in that game for both teams. It was a defensive struggle that came down to a field goal. My summary there is a bit wordy but I can trim it down for this article. Lizard (talk) 01:49, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
In '57, UF upset LSU. There's the "wristband robbery" of 1960, and Zook having the one blemish for the '03 team. Cake (talk) 02:29, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Ah yes, 2003 was my earliest memory of disliking a team for beating a team I liked. Lizard (talk) 02:32, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
LSU's first win in the series (and the first game) was over Tiger Mayberry; UF's was Dietzel's first year. Cake (talk) 02:45, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Florida–LSU football rivalry. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:10, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Florida–LSU_football_rivalry&oldid=1246930297"