Talk:1966 Florida Gators football team

Photo selection
The 1999 photo of Spurrier and the mid-1990s photo of Carr are oddly anachronistic in an article about the 1966 football season when these guys were 21 years old, not in their mid-50s. There are contemporary public domain photos of Spurrier from 1966, and I assume there are for Carr, too. I will check the 1966 and 1967 Seminole yearbooks and the UF Digital Collection for more appropriate pictures. I really hate the poor quality shot of Spurrier -- it's a user-contributed photo -- which has been repeatedly deleted from the Steve Spurrier and Florida Gators football articles. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 17:29, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree. Couldn't find good images of Spurrier and Carr from the mid-1960s.  If you can find such images, I have no objection to a swap. Cbl62 (talk) 19:46, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Treatment of team roster
The team roster, as presently formatted, makes an inefficient use of space in terms of layout and design. I would like to do the following:
 * 1. Remove the number signs (#) from the players' names, and place each player's jersey number in a parentheticals following the statement of his primary playing position.
 * 2. Remove the redundant listing of All-American and All-SEC honors from the affected players.  This makes the listing of six players disproportionately long/wide in comparison to the rest of the listed team members, and these honors are already redundantly described in detail in at least two other places within the article.
 * 3. Insert automatic adjustable-width column coding, so that the team roster effectively fills the available space within the section, with either two or three columns of player names, based on the reader's monitor screen size -- akin to what we do with the auto-width coding for references (i.e.,  ).  This will eliminate the wasted white space on the right-hand side of this section, and make more effective use of the space within the section.
 * 4. If we're going to include a team roster, it should be a complete list of all 1966 football lettermen.  Not sure how you compiled this  list, but it includes only 35 names.  Of course, the roster also needs to be sourced, and the media guide does include a supposedly complete list of all lettermen, including the years they lettered.  For 1966, I would imagine the media guide is the best list available, keeping in mind that NCAA athletes only had three years of eligibility, freshmen were still automatically ineligible, and red-shirting was far less common then than now.  Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 17:55, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I've now had a chance to compare the 2014 media guide's list of 1966 lettermen to the list you previously included. I added 14 missing 1966 lettermen per the media, and I have temporarily excluded Bobby Adams, Eddie Foster and Chip Hinton.  The media guide lists an "R. E. Foster" as a lettermen in '68, so that may be our guy.  The media guide lists no lettermen named Adams during the 1960s, and only one letterman ever named Hinton (mid-1970s).


 * On SR/College Football's roster for the '66 Gators, I have also found Thomas E. "Tommy" Glenn (listed as a '67 lettermen by the media guide; apparently appeared in at least one game in '66), and George H. "Mike" McCann (listed as a '67 and '68 lettermen; apparently appeared in at least one game in '66). If they appeared in a regular season game, they should be listed, regardless of whether they received a varsity letter or not.


 * To receive a varsity letter, they had to appear in a set number of games, with a minimum number of minutes of actual playing time, and I think that was pretty typical of most big-time college football programs (and probably still is). It may be that some of these guys were members of the team in good standing for one, two or even three seasons, but never qualified for a letter or even appeared in a regular season game.


 * It might be helpful to know what your sources were for the original roster you compiled. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 19:47, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
 * My sources were multiple, but included game summaries, the 1967 Seminole, and a full roster published on the day of the Orange Bowl. Cbl62 (talk) 19:48, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
 * BTW, I agree that all players who appeared in a game should be listed regardless of whether they received letters. I wasn't sure which players received varsity letters.  What I've done with Michigan teams is to separately list letter winner and others.  See, e.g., 1943 Michigan Wolverines football team. Cbl62 (talk) 19:57, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
 * In an ideal world, with perfect information, I would like to see player listings include: (1) name, (2) position, (3) number of games started (important in determining whether the player was a core player or an occasional player), (4) height, (5) weight, (6) home town, (7) academic year, e.g., senior, junior, and (8) jersey number (not necessarily in that order). A multiple-column format makes it difficult to display all of this information. Cbl62 (talk) 20:02, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

I have access to the 1967 Seminole the UF online digital collection. Could you provide a link to whatever source(s) you were using for jersey numbers? With the 14 added letterwinners from the media guide, and two additional players from SR/CF's stats page, we now have 16 players without jersey numbers listed. It's easy enough and more space efficient to use an asterisk or other single-character glyph to designate the 1967 letterwinners -- perhaps with a nice varsity "F" -- and a small key table at the bottom of the roster section. Similarly, academic class designations can be handled with one- or two-character symbols -- e.g., 2, 3, 4; or So., Jr., Sr. As for player height and weight, that's going to require a contemporary game program or the like to source that; if you've got one, please pony up the link. That '67 Orange Bowl roster sure sounds interesting; nowadays, they would publish the entire eligible squad. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 20:56, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't have any Florida game programs, but height, weight, and home towns are often published for many programs and are useful IMO. As for the Orange Bowl roster, it's linked in the article but can be found here. Cbl62 (talk) 22:02, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

WP:OVERLINK
I have already de-linked stadium locations in the prose; including links to the cities where the stadiums are located is overkill, and even more so when they are already linked in the season results table. I am also skeptical that we need to link Ray Graves, Steve Spurrier, Larry Smith, Richard Trapp, Bill Carr in every individual game summary, and certainly not 6 to 12 times throughout the article. If nothing else, no name should be linked more than once per major section, and treating the one-paragraph game summaries as subsections. That would leave one link per customer in the lead, season summary section, post-season honors and awards section, and team roster section. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 17:55, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I have no strong feelings either way on linking or de-linking stadium locations; was just following other tables for format. As for players being linked, my practice is to link a player no more than once per section.  As some users may come to an article solely looking for information on a particular game (e.g. the 1967 Orange Bowl), I generally re-link the first use of a player in each game section.  Sometimes, those sections start, as here, in the form of a short paragraph, but they often then grow as fans of the program are motivated to expand.  See, e.g., 1922 Vanderbilt Commodores football team. Cbl62 (talk) 19:55, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

"copied from" notice?
The addition of the "copied from" template above may not be needed or appropriate here. When I created the 1966 season article, no "text" from Florida Gators football, 1960–69 was used or copied. Cbl62 (talk) 23:11, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I just noticed that the "copied from" template specifically references my edit and asserts that I copied text from Florida Gators football, 1960–69. The allegation is inaccurate, and the "copied from" template should be removed. Cbl62 (talk) 23:50, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I have removed the template since it is inapplicable. Cbl62 (talk) 02:59, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, please accept my apologies that I did not respond sooner to your message above. There is no allegation here, just a simple statement of the obvious. Let's assume that zero percent of the main body text was copied, but let's also acknowledge that you did copy the season schedule and results table from the 1960s decade article. I have read where you (and one one or two other editors) have asserted that Wikimedia attribution is unnecessary for copy-pasting complete season schedule and results tables from one Wikipedia CFB article to another, apparently in reference to the "simple list" exception cited within the Copying within Wikipedia guideline. Here's what the relevant section of the guideline says in full:


 * "Where attribution is not needed


 * "Not everything copied from one Wikipedia page to another requires attribution. If the re-user is the sole contributor of the text at the other page, attribution is not necessary. Content rewritten in one's own words does not need attribution. However, duplicating material by other contributors that is sufficiently creative to be copyrightable under US law (as the governing law for Wikipedia), requires attribution.


 * "As guidance, none of the following are "creative expression" requiring attribution, for Wikipedia purposes:
 * "Bare references;
 * "Common expressions and idioms;
 * "Simple, non-creative lists of information (such as a list of actors in a television program by order of appearance or alphabetical order);
 * "Basic mathematical and scientific formulae;
 * "Material that will be reverted and deleted in full, with no copy kept on the public wiki. (This particularly covers vandalism, private information, offensive or disruptive comments, gibberish, BLP violations and defamation, etc, that are being deleted or redacted by an administrator.)


 * "Quotes from external sources do not need to be attributed to the original Wikipedia contributor, although any text surrounding them would be, and the original source must still be cited. However, even though attribution is not required in these cases, including a link is often useful."

The emphasis of the relevant subclause is mine.

Let's take a look at the season schedule and results table in this case:

It presents 65 separate datapoints in a particular order and manner of presentation, using standard WP:CFB graphics unique to our WikiProject including color coding that are generated by 13 separate templates, and further includes 29 separately coded wikilinks, also using distinct pipelink formatting. Given the ordered presentation of datapoints, the graphics and color coding, the coded templates employed, and the selection of wikilinks, etc., the season schedule and results table arguably is a "creative work" within the meaning of the guideline. While I certainly recognize the point may be reasonably argued otherwise (as you and others have in other talk forums), and assuming for the sake of argument that your interpretation is correct, and mine is not, please note how the guideline concludes:


 * "However, even though attribution is not required in these cases, including a link is often useful.

Bottom line: If nothing else, other editors created these tables and it is a simple matter to acknowledge their contribution through proper attribution, as the last sentence of the guideline section recognizes. And while I readily acknowledge that this case is a judgment call, there are many, many other CFB articles that are not close calls for the application of the guideline/policy, and text and other content has been willy-nilly copy-pasted from one CFB article to another with no attribution or even a hint of basic understanding of the guideline/policy by those editors doing the work in many cases. It may seem pedantic to you, but -- in my opinion -- we really need to be setting the example for how this is supposed to be done properly without trying to rationalize it. That's my 2 cents worth. That said, I would be happy to specifically acknowledge that the only content copied was the season schedule and results table in the "copied" template on the article talk page. Hopefully, that will be a satisfactory compromise for you. Thanks. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 10:19, 4 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Response to Dirtlawyer's very long post above:
 * (1) Your prior edit actually did include an allegation that I had copied text created by you or others. Your post specifically stated: "Text from this version of Florida Gators football, 1960–69 was copied or moved into 1966 Florida Gators football team with this edit [by cbl62] on August 3, 2015." (emphasis added) The allegation was false. If there is any text that you actually believe has been copied, please identify it.  If there is no such text (there isn't), please withdraw the allegation.
 * (2) The schedule chart sets forth a handful of data points for each game. Wikipedians generally don't compile these data points by researching primary sources on each individual game; rather, they typically draw these facts fairly easily from other readily-accessible secondary sources, e.g., SR/College Football here, College Football Data Warehouse here, the Florida Media Guide here at p. 110, and databaseFootball here.  In this case, the 1966 article appropriately cites the Media Guide as the "principal source" for the schedule chart.
 * (3) The schedule chart in the 1966 Florida season article has different formatting in a number of respects. You say that we need to be "setting an example" rather than trying to "rationalize" things. In fact, I do try to reflect the presence of copied content in my edit summaries.  E.g., this and this.  Even though it is not required, I even do this when the only content copied is the schedule table.  E.g., this and this.  I also did so on the 1966 Florida article when I copied a hidden scoring summary for the Florida State game.  See this.
 * I've said all I want to say about this and will now move on to more productive subjects. Hopefully, you agree. Cbl62 (talk) 16:58, 4 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Okay, now I have a better idea why you were/are so indignant: you have focused on the word choice of the template which employed the specific word text. My choice of words in my edit summary was a little more carefully phrased: "add 'split from' template to provide attribution history of prior editor contributions to Florida Gators football, 1960–69, now copied to this article as of 3 August 2015, 17:38 (UTC)."  I believe my edit summary accurately reflects the situation, and there is certainly no "allegation" of plagiarism, etc., as you seem to have inferred.  Recognizing your issue, I have tweaked the imprecise language of the template to reflect its potential application to "Text and/or other creative content", in order to more accurately reflect the scope and intent of the underlying guideline.


 * As for the sources used to compile the schedule and results table, yes, there are multiple reasonably reliable third-party CFB statistics sites that include the core data: (1) game date, (2) opponent, (3) game score, and (4) usually symbolic representations for "home" and "away". Sports-Reference.com does not include the stadium name, city/state of the stadium, television coverage or attendance, but includes AP Poll rankings for some years.  College Football Data Warehouse (by far, in my opinion, the most accurate and reliable CFB stats site) does not include poll rankings, stadium name, television coverage or attendance, but does include the city where the game was played.  The Florida media guide includes dates, opponents, scores, home and away symbols, AP Poll rankings, and television coverage, but does not include stadium names, stadium city/state or attendance.  My point is that virtually none of these tables were compiled from a single source, and in fact represent a compilation from multiple secondary and primary sources, and often include a smattering of original research and assumptions, too (e.g., old-time game locations and stadium names inferred from "home", "away" and "neutral").  This was the point I was making in an earlier template talk page discussion regarding inline references for schedule and results tables: most of these tables, as they presently exist in other CFB articles, are completely unreferenced, and there is no single source that provides all of the datapoints for most teams and years.  And, yes, those datapoints should be referenced.  But I digress.


 * The guideline/policy refers to text, content, creative content, material, and creative expression at various points; the template refers to "text," but does not define or restrict its instructions to main body text. The CFB schedule and results tables obviously include text (written words), but not the main body text of the article.  Having thrashed this out, I will replace the template (with amended language) on the article talk page, together with an edit summary to recognize only the schedule and results table was copied.  Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 18:32, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
 * You just can't bring yourself to admit that your original post (accusing me of copying from the decade article) was false and apologize for it. Instead, you blame "the word choice of the 'template'" (a template you employed and posted). A disappointing response. And, no, you may not post further accusations that the schedule table was copied -- as noted above, it was drawn from multiple sources and even has different formatting in a number of respects.  If I had simply copied the old table, I would have noted that in the edit summary, as I do when I copy-and-paste a schedule table. Please, let's move on to more productive efforts.  Cbl62 (talk) 05:02, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Cbl, I've tried to be gentle with you in this discussion. I really have. It's pretty clear from the over-sensitivity shown above as well as several snappish comments from you in other talk page discussions that our on-wiki working relationship has broken down in the aftermath of the WP:CFB dust-up over the mass creation of unsourced single-season CFB articles. I sincerely regret that. When we were on the same page in the past, I thought we were pretty effective advocates for uniform formatting, sensible notability and article suitability standards, as well as most other CFB issues of common interest. If that's been lost, I will regret it, but you've been a prickly SOB every chance you've had since then. Including now.

Four days ago, I popped the complete text from original 1966 season schedule and results table from the Florida Gators football, 1960–69 article (see here) and the text of the 1966 season schedule and results table from the 1966 Florida Gators football team article (see here) into my DeltaView software and generated a blackline comparison of the two tables. (I'm sure your firm has the same or similar blackline software.) The DeltaView blackline is pretty telling: the texts of the two tables are identical in every respect except (1) the game dates were changed from numeric to standard American MDY dates, and (2) "at" and "vs." were manually inserted for the away and neutral site games (apparently because the "away" and "neutral" optional parameters were not present in the original table text). Other than that, every alphanumeric character, every code character, every optional parameter, every wikilink, every pipelink, every abbreviation, and every keyed space are identical in every respect.

The blackline might be conclusive by itself, but every Florida Gators season schedule table is different in a number of material respects from most other CFB season schedule tables, including, but not limited to the following:


 * As of August 3, 2015, every Gators season schedule table was still using HTML ndashes (" & ndash; ");
 * As of August 3, 2015, every Gators season schedule table was still using complete U.S. state names (e.g., "Florida") for game locations, rather than U.S. postal codes (e.g., "FL");
 * As of August 3, 2015, every Gators season schedule table was using the "gamename" optional parameter for a wikilink to "Homecoming," but omitted any links to rivalry game articles in favor of placing those rivalry links in the "See also" section of the article;
 * As of August 3, 2015, every Gators season schedule table from 1906 to 1999, had the optional parameters for "home", "away" and "homecoming" removed from the individual "CFB Schedule Entry" templates used to create the season schedule table;
 * And perhaps most telling of all was the customized AP Poll explanatory text that appeared at the bottom of the 1966 season schedule table:
 * "AP Poll released prior to game; from 1962 to 1967, AP only ranked the top ten teams."
 * That exact verbatim sentence appears in only two articles among the four million on the English language Wikipedia, and nowhere else.

I also took the time to look at the articles you created during the 30-day period during which you created the new 1966 Florida Gators article (July 19, 2015 through August 18, 2015). During those 30 days, you were remarkably productive and created 155 new articles, including 17 that included season schedule and results tables. Here are some interesting notes from those 155 new articles:


 * Not one of your newly created articles included a single example of a hard-coded HTML ndash (" & ndash; ") like those used in the 1966 season schedule table, including the 17 articles with season schedule tables;
 * Not one of the 17 season schedule tables in your newly created articles used complete state names for game locations like those used in the 1966 season schedule table -- every one of those 17 season schedule tables used U.S. postal codes instead;
 * Not one of the 17 season schedule tables included an example of a "Homecoming" link in the "gamename" parameter; and
 * Not one of the 17 season schedule tables included the explanatory note "AP Poll released prior to game; from 1962 to 1967, AP only ranked the top ten teams," which is only used in one other Wikipedia article.

Before you respond again, I urge you to review the points above. Personally, given your indignant response, I choose to believe that you simply forgot where you got the original table -- which would be very easy to do when you created 155 new articles in a very short period of time. That said, based on the blackline and the unusual and even unique characteristics of the Gators season tables, it is obvious that the 1966 table datapoints were not "drawn from multiple sources" and newly assembled as suggested above; the table was copy-pasted with minor changes to the dates and the manual insertion of "at" and "vs." Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 09:43, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Dirtlawyer - I respond in three parts to your comments above.
 * (1) Text. This is where the discussion and my ire began.  Your post asserted that I had copied "text" from the decade article.  I did not do so, and you have not taken me up on my invitation to identify any copied text.  Presumably, your "blacklining" software referenced above showed there was no copied text, and, in fact, there is none.  Had you simply apologized for this oversight (which I believe was accidental, rather than intentional on your part), everything would have been copascetic.  (An apology can be an enormously powerful act.)  For whatever reason, you chose instead to justify your post (apologizing only for not replying sooner to my comments) and re-directed your allegations on a standardized schedule chart.
 * (2) Schedule chart. It is not surprising that the great majority of the data is identical, as the template coding is standard and the entries are factual data points. There are, however, differences.  Even so, and having reviewed the comparison, it does appear that the schedule chart was derived more heavily from the old decade chart than from other sources.  As stated above, I do not believe such a simple chart containing widely-published data points on a football game is "creative content" requiring attribution.  Nevertheless, I have no objection to your posting the following: "Some data and/or entries from this article's 'Schedule and results' table were copied from Florida Gators football, 1960–69."  If that addresses your concerns, I have no objection whatsoever to your posting that.  It would, of course, be a pleasant surprise if you were to combine that with a retraction of your earlier accusation about copying text.
 * (3) "Our on-wiki working relationship". You reference a breakdown.  My concerns expressed on this talk page were not personal.  I simply take issue, understandably I believe, when I am wrongly accused of copying someone else's text.  We work the same "beat", so to speak, and so we come across each other frequently.  You are generally a solid contributor, indeed among the best in the college football project, and we agree on the vast majority of issues of importance in our area of joint contribution.  Occasionally, we disagree, and you can be a fairly stubborn person (perhaps me too).  That's all fine.  This discussion is now longer than most Wikipeda articles; imagine what we could have accomplished applying this energy to writing and improving articles.  Onward! Cbl62 (talk) 16:55, 5 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Cbl62: ". . . you have not taken me up on my invitation to identify any copied text. . . . and, in fact, there is none."


 * Question in direct response: Did you write the 17-word sentence, "AP Poll released prior to game; from 1962 to 1967, AP only ranked the top ten teams"?


 * Template:Copied was intended to be generic, and its use is not limited to main body text; the template used the single word "text," which you read as "main body text". Nor is the applicable guideline so limited, as I explained above.  I was surprised when you responded with suggestions that I had made "allegations" and "accusations" after I added the generic connect-the-dots attribution template to the article talk page.  Nor did my edit summary mention main body text.  In keeping with the broader language of the guideline, my edit summary referenced "prior editor contributions . . . copied to this article."  In any event, the 17-word sentence above is certainly "text" within the word's ordinary meaning.


 * I might also add that this article was not singled out; see, e.g.,, and the eight related article talk pages linked from there. My intention was to create several examples of proper attribution, using the generic talk page template, to which I could refer other editors when such discussions arose.  Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 18:09, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
 * You're a class act, chief!  Cbl62 (talk) 20:59, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Cbl. I've always thought the same of you and your work.  But in this particular case, I think you have over-reacted in a very personal way and missed the point.  Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 01:28, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
 * We disagree but let's move on and not waste any more brain cells on this. Cbl62 (talk) 01:51, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on 1966 Florida Gators football team. 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/20151208143532/http://web.gatorzone.com/football/media/2015/media_guide.pdf to http://web.gatorzone.com/football/media/2015/media_guide.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20151208143532/http://web.gatorzone.com/football/media/2015/media_guide.pdf to http://web.gatorzone.com/football/media/2015/media_guide.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) 09:17, 15 June 2017 (UTC)