Talk:Georgia Tech Yellow Jackets football

Some comments on your GA nomination
I'm not here to grant or reject your GA status, but consider this a quick peer review before the reviewer comes by. Overall, a nicely written article that manages to avoid sounding completely like a recruitment brochure.↔NMajdan &bull;talk 17:32, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Some paragraphs are too short. In my opinion, any paragraph with three or less sentences should either be expanded or combined with another paragraph. ✅
 * Per WP:DASH, scores and records should be separated with an en dash (–), not a hyphen. ✅
 * Along the same lines, use a non-breaking space with you have a non-numeric element following a numeric element. For instance, instead of saying "he ran for 187 yards in the game," you would say "he ran for 187&amp;nbsp;yards yards in that game."
 * The TOC is getting a little long. You may want to consider consolidating some sections a little bit. Maybe get rid of the subsections under "Post-Collegiate Accolades." ✅
 * Per WP:HEAD, only capitalize the first letter of the first word and any proper nouns in the section headings. Thus "Coaching in Dodd's Shadow: 1967-1986" becomes "Coaching in Dodd's shadow: 1967-1986." ✅
 * Not quite done. "Home Stadium," "Team Achievements," "Bowl History," etc.↔NMajdan &bull;talk 04:24, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
 * What kind of dashes should be used on Georgia Tech Yellow Jackets football? Right now we have "Nicknames -" etc. —Disavian (talk/contribs) 22:23, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Good question. Looking at WP:DASH, I would say en dash as well. That page says en dashes are used in lists, which is what I would consider that.↔NMajdan &bull;talk 04:24, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
 * How's that look? Haven't done the non-breaking spaces yet. —Disavian (talk/contribs) 17:00, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Ah, I seem to have missed some section headers. Nice catch. —Disavian (talk/contribs) 00:49, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

GA Review
The article prose is well-written and very complete. Quite an interesting read. It's short on reference citations in a couple of minor areas, but overall I think it still meets the GA criteria. The article appears to be stable, other than some minor anonymous vandalism, and it doesn't look like there's any major edit warring, despite the current football season in progress. the images all meet the criteria as well. So this article will be listed as a Good Article. Good work!

One area that could be improved, besides the minor missing references, might be the listing of items under 'individual achievements' at the end. It's getting kind of long and perhaps some of this information could be moved to separately-linked list pages?

Cheers! Dr. Cash 04:22, 1 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree with the brevity remark. Maybe we can use asterisk*/dollar sign$ to denote more in the HUGE set of lists we've got in the individual achievements section.  It's becoming less about the program and more about the individuals.  So we'll work it down in the next few days to a more concise and informative section. --Excaliburhorn 17:06, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Would it help to make some of the longer lists (ex: All-Americans) collapsible? —Disavian (talk/contribs) 19:21, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I went ahead and added  to the two largest tables on the page. —Disavian (talk/contribs) 04:04, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Discussion on All-time Lists

 * For previous discussion on the topic, see Talk:Georgia Tech Yellow Jackets and User talk:72.0.36.36.

I think I have expressed my concerns several times and have come up with a multitude of arguments against the All-Time Lists. Here's a synopsis of my arguments against them:
 * 1) They are only noteworthy to the above-average Tech fan. Because they are not national awards or even nationally publicized, I don't find them very informative.
 * 2) They lack historical perspective. They cut out every player from Bobby Ross forward and Bobby Dodd back.  The All-Era lists and Athlon do remedy this.  I just think that Heisman finalists, All-Americans, and national recognized award winners are more important to the GT football program than fan opinion polls.
 * 3) They add a lot of a dead space to the article without much prose. In general, they just don't look good.  Better formatting is a must if we are to keep them in the article.
 * 4) I've yet to see a similar list in any of the other Atlantic Coast Conference or Southeastern Conference teams articles.
 * 5) Individual achievements should not overshadow the team achievements, which is becoming a problem in the article. Look how many lists and tables are down in that section versus the rest of the article.

I'm pretty sure we'll come to a compromise but the way it looks right now is garbage and we need to either cut out the All-Time lists or reformat them to increase the article's brevity and style.--Excaliburhorn 17:34, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree. In addition, I have copyvio concerns given that the lists are relatively arbitrary, and don't have clearly defined criteria for inclusion. Further, the primary coverage of individual athletes should occur in List of Georgia Institute of Technology athletes. —Disavian (talk/contribs) 19:21, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
 * No. Those lists are unencyclopedic ... why are they there again? -- B  00:06, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
 * It seems that some anon keeps adding them back and threatening to take action against their removal as vandalism. (A quick browse through the history shows this.) And although it seems that the established, core editors of this article and related articles seem to be in agreement that they're superfluous and arbitrary, I view it as a good move that they're attempting to back this assessment with some outside consensus. I do a lot of editing on some other Georgia Tech-related articles and have worked on improving a lot of them to GA and FA status, so I was asked to toss in my two cents (Canadian, since it's worth more ;)) about this. I agree that the lists don't really add anything to the article, and if anything, they detract from the quality as they interject a lot of information without context. Also, as even demonstrated by this dispute about their inclusion, they would likely be a breeding ground for edit wars regarding what additional lists should be included and who should be on them. They do seem quite arbitrary, and somewhat redundant as if the people on the list had any outside notability, they would be on the List of Georgia Institute of Technology athletes. Further, this is an article about GT football, not a list. That said, the majority of the article should be devoted to prose and should not have large sections devoted to lists of anything. Keeping that in mind, I also agree with the idea to make the Heisman finalist and All-American lists collapsible. LaMenta3 03:04, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Additional discussion on the subject as anon has re-added material. The question: What do these lists add to the article? Answer: They tell us who were the Georgia Tech fanbase's favorite players at each position in 1991.  I think my response is simply, why would anyone outside of Georgia Tech care who the Georgia Tech fanbase thought was good?  People outside of Georgia Tech want to know how Georgia Tech's program tangibly stacks up against other programs via number of All-Americans, Heisman Trophy vote recipients, or more importantly conference/national titles.  Fan polls are good fun but the way that they are currently being presented simply don't add anything to the article but obscure/almost irrelevant trivia.--Excaliburhorn 23:06, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Removal of copyvio material
I just realized that a couple of the lists that have been added are definite and obvious copyvios and I have thus removed them (Georgia Tech's All-Time Football Team and Georgia Tech's All-Time Roster). This is notice that re-adding these lists demonstrates willful copyright violation and will be treated as such. LaMenta3 03:14, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
 * They aren't a copyvio ... they are worthless and unencyclopedic, but not a copyright violation. -- B 11:46, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
 * The ones that I removed were the creations of a fan and of a sports publication and were copied right out. It's like copying the "Top 40 under 40" business leaders list from some financial magazine -- it might be just a list, but the organization and selection of items is original to the magazine and a creative work of those who created it (and therefore somewhat arbitrary). This is opposed to a list of people who won a recognized award (like the Heisman) because that is a mere listing of fact. The other one that I left (all-era teams) didn't seem to be a copyvio as I did a little poking around and apparently that was something that is recognized/organized by the school and thus more of a listing of fact than a creative, arbitrary list. It seems to have been removed by another editor who believes that it is in fact also a copyvio, so you'll have to take that up with him. I still don't believe that the all-era list has encyclopedic merit, but I left it until a consensus could be made about it. LaMenta3 13:09, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't question that the lists are creative and subject to copyright. But not all use of copyrighted material is a copyright violation - I believe that they would qualify for fair use, although under Wikipedia's Non-free content policy as they do not substantially enhance the reader's understanding of the topic, they do not meet our standards. At any rate, it's moot as we all agree they should be removed. -- B  13:52, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
 * That's what I was getting at. I should never try to form a coherent argument before noon. It results in failure of epic proportions. ;) LaMenta3 14:12, 2 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I request arbitration. Your copyvio assertion is a false allegation. The all-time team is for use in such things and is not copywrite protected, as per Ga Tech Sports Information Departement, as long as it is attributed. The notice that readding lists is also false and a violation of Wiki rules . . . this is nothing but aan inside job to censor a list 2 people do not like. I request arbitration by UNBIASED authority.


 * User "B" is at leadt honest when he/she posts---:They aren't a copyvio ... they are worthless and unencyclopedic, but not a copyright violation. -- B  11:46, 2 October 2007 (UTC) This is bullying bua few people who have an agenda which is not in keeping with Wikie rules as I read them. Futhermore, the van poll was organized by the school and therefore that is why it is in the GA tech midia guide.


 * Where I agree, LaMenta3, your failure constitutes a threat to me and my right to participate in Wikipedia. I wish to have an unbiased person look.


 * Finally, the only reason anyone objects to the all-time team is because they don't like the content. The other excuses of "unencycopedic" and "copyvio" were obvios shams to censor content that does not list Calvin Johnson, et al. However, it seems that few here understand the nature of awards, be it all-time teams, all era teams, Heisman trophies, all conference, etc. What this is constitutes bullying by a couple of people and misuse of power, and abuse of power. I will stand up and fight for my right to post what I wish, as long as it follows rules. Allegations of copyvio are lies. Assertions of somehting being "unecyclopedic" is not accurate and to a high degree opinion.


 * So, I will ask that LaMenta3 be forced to explain his.her arbitrary, unsupported, inaccurate allegations and how she came into this process. Was she contacted by Davison, Excal. etc? Was she doing the bidding of bullies who do not have fairness in their judgments? This is a HIT JOB by those acting like spolied collelge students who cannot have their way, in my opinion.


 * Arbitration is requested.72.0.36.36 23:01, 4 October 2007 (UTC)


 * 72.0.36.36, I can respond to you. I don't think it has anything to do with it not having players "I" or "we" like.  I personally think the list is quite accurate in reflecting most of the best players Tech has ever fielded although it does lack EVERY player after 1991 and every player before 1952, which isn't very fair to the history of Tech football or modern players (we have had some great ones recently, you gotta admit).  There was football at Tech before Dodd and after Boss Ross.  Explain to me why not a single guy from our 1917 or 1928 National Title Teams deserves to be on this list?  Joe Guyon, Stumpy Thomason, etc.  Those are some great Tech players completely abandoned.  I think it's just very very trivial and doesn't really provide anything to the article, imho.--Excaliburhorn 23:20, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
 * This discussion just made me think of some more stuff we can add: Famous Games (I think this was in the BDS article already) and perfect/undefeated seasons.--Excaliburhorn 23:24, 4 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Your issue is not for me to decide. If the fans voted and had the oppotunity to vote for Guyon, etc, which they did. (See ballot, A-JC, and chose to vote for someone else contempory, that was theri choice. Fan votes are often used by newspapers, schools, etc to pick an all-time team. Even pro teams do it and have do so this year. The point is they are a fair representation of the reults of the poll. I may even agree to some extent, but if a poll is is 1991, it cannot, by definition include players that were in high school. History is what it is. The poll is ahistorical. Recent events do not alter it. I think reasonable people can disgree as to the meaning of any poll, or any photo, or any prose. Reasonable people cannot agree when powerful folks demand their way, denying said rights of the minority. The rights as Wiki defines them allows me to post as long as it is by the rules. I have proven the objections are not rule-related but content related. The rules allow for lists, fair use of lists, etc. Lists are common in Wiki articles, especially in sports. Heck get the SID to do a new poll, is there an anniverary coming up? SO, I cannot explain why certain guys are not on the list except they didn't get the votes. Had the unnivesary seen a problem they would not publish it in the Media Guide, which purpose is, by the way, to bring attention tothe program . . . that is why MGs are published, so the content can be seen. MGs are not really for public viewing---they are not for sale at bookstores, typically, the contecnt is there for media (hint: internet is media) for dissiminate.72.0.36.36 23:44, 4 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I wonder who really voted on the list and how many people voted because that may be why the results are so skewed towards Bobby Dodd's players. Plus, I'd argue that the only reason the lists are still in the media guide have little to do with the media and more to do with donors who were at Tech/played for Tech in those years and still receive media guides (aka the big donors).  It also includes some guys who never received national awards but were fan favorites (eg. Lavette, Curry).  So we've addressed points 1 and 2 with the list.  I'm not going to be satisfied with #1 and I think that's the main problem with the lists.  What about points 3-5?--Excaliburhorn 23:58, 4 October 2007 (UTC)


 * 72.0.36.36, I take particular exception to your accusation that my actions were not made in good faith. I came upon this article due to my involvement in WP:TECH, but I really hadn't had any previous discussion about this content dispute with anyone. (I mostly stick to non-athletics articles.) If you'd read my discussion with B above, you'd have realized that I conceded that my characterization of "copyvio" was inaccurate in this case, though still not wholly incorrect. While the inclusion of these lists in the article could constitute fair use (and therefore not be a copyvio), the information does not contribute significantly to the understanding of the article's content in their current form strongly violates WP:NFC. I don't believe I ever asserted that the information itself was unencyclopedic (setting aside what anyone else has said), however I strongly believe that it is inappropriate for inclusion in this article, and the form is inappropriate for inclusion in ANY article.


 * Let me be clear in stating that this is NOT about censorship. I repeat, this is NOT about censorship. Your characterization of this issue as such is pejorative and inappropriate. I, nor anyone else, is trying to hide this information, cover it up, or pretend it does not exist. THAT would be censorship. Nor is this intended as a threat to you or your ability to participate in Wikipedia, and neither is it a "hit job" by "spoiled college students". I really don't know where all that came from, and I recommend that you be more civil in your future dealings with editors. What this is about is the appropriateness of the placement and form of the information. We already have a List of Georgia Institute of Technology athletes that includes most, if not all, of the people included on the lists you are so fond of. That list is linked from this article. If you believe that All-Time/All-Era/All-Whatever designations are so notable, then those designations can be put in their appropriate places on the athletes list.


 * My argument for this is sound. The only lists of players that are included in this article are those that are of external notability -- All-American, Heisman, etc. We have not included a list of all of the football players named to the GT Sports Hall of Fame in this article because that designation is not externally notable, but that designation is placed next to each player's entry on the athlete's list, where it is both relevant AND encyclopedic because it establishes the player's notability. All-Whatever designations would have their place THERE, not here. Doing this would avoid the problems of WP:NFC because you would not be directly copying the lists, the information would be fully relevant to the entry in which it is placed, and since you know exactly where all of the information came from, there should be no problem with appropriate sourcing. LaMenta3 02:24, 5 October 2007 (UTC)


 * LaMenta3. I have requested arbitration on this issue. When there is a gang mentality, as I saw it, and a broken deal, as I saw it, when someone else comes in, whom I do not know, and parrots the complaints of those in the gang, I have every right to be suspicious and every right to express that. If you view that as uncivil, then fine. Well can let a neutral person(s) decide that. I found the process here really uncivil, with the constant reverts and now, even with a straw poll AFTER I have requested arbitration. I will, in fact, be more civil to editors in the future because I am becoming aware that there is accountability to editors. You have responsibilities that I think were abused here. You and others may disagree but I was offended and hurt and threatened. I was told a revert would be a willful violation of copyvio. Editors are not to threaten, if Wiki rules are to be believed. You did changes your view, however, the threat remained. In the atmosphere that exists here the threat was taken seriously. Because of the actions of editors, I had seen the lengths that editors here will go to to get their way. So, I will take yours and others' advice. I will not post for a cooling down period. I will await an answer from the arbitration committee. I will make my case and you yours. This is not about the list, other than the mischaracterization of it, it is about abuse of editor status in my view.72.0.36.36 01:40, 6 October 2007 (UTC)


 * If you want some form of mediation, then go file a request for it. Merely stating that you "want arbitration" won't achieve anything as you have to go to them; they don't come to you just because you keep throwing the word around on the talk page. I am sorry that you have perceived my actions as threatening, as I most certainly did not mean them to be that way. I have been nothing but civil to you in this discourse, and I have even proposed a solution which I believe is more than equitable given that it preserves 100% of the information that you're trying to contribute. That said, I don't understand why you even believe any form of arbitration is necessary at this point. This whole spat came out of your wanting to have the information in the encyclopedia, and I'm more than willing to help you do that in a way that is appropriate per Wikipedia's free content guidelines. The only real incivility I'm seeing is coming from you, and it seems that the editors here have been quite patient and have even attempted to help you better understand the guidelines that govern the content of these sorts of articles. That's really no way to treat people who really have tried to help since you brought the question of why the content can't be included as-is, nor is it even any way to treat people who you perceive as being uncivil toward you. LaMenta3 06:13, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Straw poll
For those unfamiliar with the current dispute, we are arguing over the inclusion of three "All-time lists", as seen in this diff. To firmly establish consensus, once and for all, we will do a straw poll. I'm quite aware that "voting is evil", but remember that "...participants on article talk pages do sometimes start polls for gauging opinion, and focusing a long or unruly conversation on a specific question at hand." Also note that "if you believe that users are ignoring a consensus, a survey cannot force those users to accept your proposed consensus -- although a survey might assist users in understanding the balance of opinions." It appears we have only two options here, though if someone can think of another option that might accommodate both sides, please feel free to bring it up. To clarify everyone's opinions here, can each person post their current feeling about the list situation, below? One comment per line, thanks. —Disavian (talk/contribs) 01:44, 5 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Remove them; they violate WP:NFC and are unencyclopedic. —Disavian (talk/contribs) 01:44, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Remove, clean up article, add more prose and sources, refocus efforts on more productive issues. --Excaliburhorn 02:47, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Remove, unencyclopedic. MaxVeers 14:39, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Remove and put the designations in the appropriate places in the athletes list as per my proposal above. LaMenta3 20:30, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

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

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

All-Americans?
I counted (twice) 49, not 48, on the list in the article. I went ahead and made edits reflecting this. If I'm mistaken, please correct me. Strikehold (talk) 10:24, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
 * You are correct. Looks like Durant Brooks was added but the count wasn't added to. --Excaliburhorn (talk) 18:07, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Nice catch. —Disavian (talk/contribs) 03:11, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

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

Image copyright problem with Image:Bobby Dodd 1952.jpg
The image Image:Bobby Dodd 1952.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check


 * That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
 * That this article is linked to from the image description page.

The following images also have this problem:


 * Image:GeorgiaTechYellowJackets.png
 * Image:Div04.gif

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Media copyright questions. --20:56, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Image deletion discussion
Relevant deletion discussion at .--GrapedApe (talk) 17:12, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

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

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