Jump to content

Template talk:1934 Southeastern Conference football standings

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

Source, correction for Gators 1934 SEC record

[edit]

@Sullivan9211, Billcasey905, and Patriarca12: Guys, what was the primary source for this 1934 SEC standings table? If not linked within the table itself, at least one reliable source should have been identified in the edit history, on the talk page, or in hidden text notes on the template page per WP:RS and WP:V. In a case on point, I cannot verify the source for Florida's SEC record for the 1934 season, which is apparently incorrect: the Gators defeated Auburn and Georgia Tech, lost to Tulane and Georgia, and tied Ole Miss, for an SEC record of 2–2–1. Were these table numbers simply compiled from a review of the individual team records? If so, that's problematic. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 08:42, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Dirtlawyer1: When I made any changes to the 1934 SEC standings I used the following websites: http://www.shrpsports.com/cf/stand.htm, cfbdatawarehouse.com and gatorzone.com. Sorry if I didn't site the websites which I should have don. Sullivan9211 (talk) 11:38, 16 August 2015 (CDT)

  • @Sullivan9211: Thanks. No reason to apologize; you were following the common practice. Apparently none of our conference season templates have any visible sources. I would suggest that it would be a worthwhile endeavor to add linked references to all of these templates for ease of future verification/correction. For an example of one way how that can be done, see Template:Footer USA Swimming 1968 Summer Olympics. Alternatively, we can include the source link(s) in the edit summaries or on the talk page.
FYI, I just checked the 1934 SEC standings on Shrpsorts.com, and confirmed that the Gators' 2–1–1 SEC record in 1934 is a typo. It should read "2–2–1". Errors are not uncommon among the older records of these sites, and even normally reliable sources like College Football Data Warehouse and Sports-Reference.com have errors. In this case, however, it looks the source has it right, and we transcribed it wrong. And that's Exhibit A why we should leave a paper trail back to our sources. Cheers. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 17:32, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]