Jump to content

Talk:Peyton Manning

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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 68.183.182.214 (talk) at 05:34, 4 October 2007. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Advertising Section

I think that this section needs to be changed in some way. While the Saturday Night Live and Indy 500 are very important and need to stay in the article, I don't really see how they belong in the advertising section and there is no other section where they would fit. I would suggest changing the name of the section or creating a new section. What are your thoughts on this? Let me know. WildFan48 16:44, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps "Media appearances" or something? Kurt Weber 15:31, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I see that it has been changed to "Manning in popular culture." That should be a fitting title for the section.WildFan48 19:20, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This page isn't complete... the fact that he owns almost every single pro bowl passing record should be included

Cooper Manning

How much information should this article have on Cooper Manning? I see that he doesn't have his own article. Does his career really have a place here? I think it is useful to establish that all three brothers and Archie played high-level football, but I'm just not sure we need to go on and on about his injuries. It was referenced three times or so before I started editing. Should we get it down to one and if so ... where should we insert it? I would say the early years section. Juan Miguel Fangio| ►Chat  02:23, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would say it should be very basic info. Where he played and what position, and how his career was cut short. Not much more needed than that I don't think.►Chris Nelson 02:28, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just a quick note. Edit warring is harmful to the project. Please check Three Revert Rule.

1st change

revert 1

revert to change 2

revert 2

revert to change 3

revert 3

revert to change 4

revert 4

revert to change 5

...and I stopped counting. I have requested page protection. Regards, Navou banter 02:40, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You would.►Chris Nelson 02:44, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Full protection

I've full protected this article for a week and issued a couple of user blocks for three revert rule violation. Please settle differences through dispute resolution before someone registers this among Wikipedia's lamest edit wars. Really, is it so important what Peyton Manning's college team was called? Take a breather and best wishes. DurovaCharge! 04:05, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • A week might be a bit long... especially considering half the references disappeared from the article during... whatever happened while I was asleep, and the season is gearing up so there will be some news/interest on Manning. Since there's an arbcom case on these guys maybe we can just get an injunction to keep them off this article? I dunno. --W.marsh 13:23, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Resolving disputes

When the guys who decided it'd be a wonderful idea to get the page fully protected return, I'd appreciate it if the following things be discussed. It looks like we're stuck with a week-long protection anyway, so there's no point in doing anything else.

I think the awards can just be kept in Peyton's own article. It doesn't make any sense for it to need to be in a separate article where nobody would be able to find it. Now, I made the re-direct before I knew that this article was fully protected, so I couldn't add the information anywhere. What I'm gonna try to do about this right now is userfy Manning's article and then ask an admin to make the change for me.

As for Favre and Vick, I'll just do those directly momentarily, after I take care of Manning's situation. Ksy92003(talk) 05:18, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, thanks. That was my major problem with this whole deal. The other two edit disputes (CBS vs. PFR, UT vs. Tennessee Football) are minor. Dlong 05:35, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
First, can't we just use both CBS and PFR? And second, I think it should link to Tennessee Football... it's like piping Indianapolis Colts to National Football League; links should be piped to the most specific form possible, which in this case would be linking to Tennessee to Tennessee Football as opposed to University of Tennessee because the football team is more specific than the school. Ksy92003(talk) 05:48, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
that userfied version should not be put on lists until it's made more official. Enigmaman 19:37, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have no clue what you are trying to say. Dlong 02:01, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
mainly this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:National_Football_League_first_overall_draft_picks

04:47, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

I'd like to make an edit...

{{editprotected}}

The edit I'm asking to make is kinda a long one. What I did was userfied the article as it previously was, and implemented my edits. Could somebody please copy User:Ksy92003/Peyton Manning into Peyton Manning for me? Thanks. Ksy92003(talk) 05:24, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Cheers. --MZMcBride 15:51, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you so much, MZMcBride. Ksy92003(talk) 19:45, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Awards spin off.

The article wasn't so long as to remove a very important portion of Manning's career and move it to an entirely different page. If the article was too long, then that'd be something different. But the article isn't long enough to move a hugely important selection of information to anywhere else. Ksy92003(talk) 18:22, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • That is a succinct portion of inofrmation. Nothing else in the article warrants it's own content and as it is a list, it is the best candidate. There is precedent for this. If you have some wiki documentation that supports this or think that the consensus established should be re-evaluated, I would gladly listen. Juan Miguel Fangio| ►Chat  18:39, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

On the other hand, that is such important information that it is the best candidate to keep on the article... it simply makes much more sense to keep all a player's career achievements on the playuer's article. For example, if I go to Peyton Manning with the purpose of seeing all that he's accomplished during his career, then won't you think that I'd want to see that? A player's career accomplishments and accolades is crucial information that is most relevant to the player, and it doesn't make sense to put t hat information in a separate place. And again, you said that you moved it according to WP:LENGTH. I contend that the article wasn't long enough to begin with to require moving the most important sections somewhere else. Ksy92003(talk) 18:46, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Many others would disagree with you. WP:LENGTH is quite clear on this, I don't want to sound condescending, so i'm not going to quote more information, but if the content is so important it actually is reasonable to assume that the information can be expunged and placed in a separate article. The Catch (American football) has been split off from Joe Montana, yet that is one of the most identifiable "moments" in his career. Saying that this information is important and saying it must stay in this article are two entirely different issues. Juan Miguel Fangio| ►Chat  19:11, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The "Catch" argument isn't a fair argument, from your view. That is a separate event that has received much notable media attention since it occured. It was a significant event that everybody was talking about when it happened. So of course it's gonna have its own separate article. Has Peyton Manning done something that gave himself (and only himself) significant attention? A significant event nationwide that needs to be branched off from Peyton's article? No, and even if he had, that's not what this is about. The article in my opinion isn't long enough to need to break off very important information. Ksy92003(talk) 19:17, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • The content is very long and there is WP:CON supporting the move as well as wiki guidelines. Your point was that this content was "too important" to move to another article. In addition to this being accepted by the community, it is a perfectly legitimate move within WP:LENGTH. You can read it however you want, but others have already been down this road. Juan Miguel Fangio| ►Chat  20:33, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Who else has "been down this road," since you claim that "others" have? I'd like to know. Ksy92003(talk) 23:01, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • This is getting very hostile. I'm sorry that you don't agree with the consensus and the fact that several other athletes have their "acocmplishments" filtered off. I'm not sure what else you would like to do. If you want to start the DR process, feel free. Juan Miguel Fangio| ►Chat  23:05, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You haven't shown me the consensus. How am I supposed to agree with something that I don't even have evidence that it even exists? Ksy92003(talk) 23:10, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Two things: one) I don't know what a "DR" is, and two) you've still yet to show me the consensus. I can't agree with something if I don't even have evidence that it exists. Ksy92003(talk) 23:12, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We aren't in the middle of a dispute that is worth going to WP:DR for. I'm just waiting for you to show me the consensus that you continue to boast about. Ksy92003(talk) 23:15, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • If you want the content to stay in these articles, then you need to explore the Dispute Resolution process. I've pointed you to plenty of information and plenty of guidelines that support this content move. I'm not going to discuss this further in a fashion that does not get us closer to solving the dispute. Let me know how you want to proceed. This article is locked and that is a bad thing. The Brett Favre and Michael Vick articles are not. I'll give you an opportunity to get the DR process started before re-instituting the changes. Juan Miguel Fangio| ►Chat  23:19, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand why you persist on ignoring me. You continue to say "There is [consensus] supporting the move." I'm waiting for you to provide that consensus. And why would I have to go to WP:DR? I don't understand why you don't see that it's perfectly reasonable to keep the career achievements in the article. Your argument that the article is "too long" is invalid because that's one man's opinion. I don't think it's anywhere near long enough to split up the awards. Ksy92003(talk) 23:27, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • This is silly and bordering on trolling. We aren't taking this to "dispute resolution" because one person is determined to be bureaucratic. There's no reason to split this article. There's no consensus for it. --W.marsh 23:37, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Wmarsh... finally, somebody agrees with me. Juan Miguel, you continue to say that there is a consensus for splitting up the article, yet you have repeatedly refused to show us that consensus. Ksy92003(talk) 23:46, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Wmarsh - Do not make accusations simply to stir the pot. I'm being very reasonable and have explained several times already - there is precedence for this. The article is really long and these "lists" should be moved. Go argue at Michael Jordan and see how far this argument gets you guys. I'm not going against consensus, I'm going with it. Juan Miguel Fangio| ►Chat  04:49, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

God, I don't know how I can possibly be any clearer, Juan Miguel. Where is the consensus you claim? Ksy92003(talk) 04:54, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, you don't understand. Just because a small, select group of 7 [or so] articles have something, that's not a consensus. A consensus isn't when you have a couple articles this way, and then automatically declaring that all articles have to be that way, which is what it appears to me that you're doing. You say you're going with consensus, but you don't even know what that means. I'll repeat: consensus is when a bunch of people get together to discuss what is the best way to do something, and then they pool their ideas together and fuse them all to create the best possible solution. Consensus isn't when you automatically declare that just because one article has a particular way of doing things that we do that for all articles. You continue to say that you're following consensus, when in reality you've created this consensus all on your own. Read WP:CONSENSUS first, and then hopefully you'll realize what consensus truly is. Ksy92003(talk) 07:00, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And what do you consider "often," seven times? When there are hundreds of thousands of articles all throughout Wikipedia? I wouldn't hardly call seven times "often" when you take into account how many articles there are on the entire server. But the whole time you've been arguing that you've been following consensus, yet you've failed to provide one. And your statement earlier proves that you aren't perfectly clear on what consensus is. Your point that you're following consensus is invalid because you don't have consensus. Again, I'll reiterate. Consensus isn't where you see something that's been done a certain way a couple times elsewhere and you, yourself, decides that all other articles are going to be in this format. This isn't consensus, and you've proven time and time again that you don't know what it is. Something like this requires a discussion... hey, wait... wouldn't that provide a consensus? Ksy92003(talk) 07:11, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • I am not going to say another thing on this matter unless you want to go the dispute resolution route. You can assert your opinion all you want, it does not change the facts. The facts are that WP:LENGTH and WP:SS are pretty clear on this. Moving the content to another article is completely acceptable. Again - stop talking about what i do and do not know. Stick to the content and let's take this to a neutral party. Otherwise, the article is going to stay locked for a long time and that is not a good thing. Juan Miguel Fangio| ►Chat  07:14, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You know, I don't understand you at all. You completely ignore me, and even when I try to help you my helping you better understand Wikipedia's rules (WP:CON), you just attack me. I'm not going to respond to another comment you say for as long as the awards remain in the main articles; that's the way it currently is, that's the way I think it should remain, so I don't need to ever say another thing to you until that changes. If you want to continue arguing, go ahead. It doesn't change the fact that you weren't 100% clear on WP:CON and I tried to help you understand it, yet you continue to slam me. I'm not going to respond to another of your comments for as long as the awards sections remain in their current articles. Until that time, which I don't think will be any time soon, goodbye, Juan Miguel Fangio. Ksy92003(talk) 07:21, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't about the previous discussion; I still don't want to talk about that anymore. But as far as I know, this isn't what caused the page to be fully protected in the first place, ergo, I don't think that going to WP:DR about a new issue is going to lead to an unprotection of this page. By the way, that was the first time in my life that I've ever used the word "ergo." Anyway, the previous issue between you and Chrisjnelson (talk · contribs) I believe is what led the page to be fully protected, so I think the dispute between you two needs to be resolved before the page could be unprotected. Ksy92003(talk) 07:38, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah this whole deal about a separated page for awards and stuff has nothing to do with the protection...►Chris Nelson 07:39, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think the interesting thing about this whole deal is that User:Jmfangio is quick to bring up policy (WP:DR, WP:CON) when he thinks it might get him his way, while violating it when it won't (WP:CON again, WP:3RR, WP:OWN). I think it's pretty clear here that there is no consensus to remove the awards from the article, and I really don't see the point in following WP:DR over one person's complaint, when no one else has a problem with the way the article is. Dlong 13:28, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cat remove request

{{editprotected}} Please remove Category:Career achievements of sportspeople, this category is designed for lists and not player articles. Juan Miguel Fangio| ►Chat  04:55, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

done. — Carl (CBM · talk) 11:45, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

broken records

I thought the records section was for records that was set while he was in college, etc; and not necessarily for the records which he still holds. A few of the SEC records were recently deleted from the article. Neier 20:09, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Less Cooper/More Eli

There is more on Cooper than Eli, which is way out of balance. Eli's actual name is not even mentioned nor is there a link to his page, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eli_Manning

75.182.121.86 12:28, 4 September 2007 (UTC)michelle hillison[reply]

Charity

Does any one have infor about the Peyback Foundation? This should be included in the articleMoorematthews 15:25, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Retired Number

"In 2005, Tennessee retired Manning's number (#16),[7] making him only the 3rd Tennessee player to have his number retired while still living." This is not true. Reggie White passed away prior to having his number retired. The article would be more accurate if it read something to the effect of "...making him only the 3rd Tennessee player to have his number retired for football merit." The other 4 players who have retired numbers at Tennessee died in World War 2. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 160.36.147.29 (talk) 21:55, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Personal Life

Shouldn't there be some sort of Personal section, describing his wife, etc? 68.183.182.214 05:34, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Peyton_Manning&oldid=162182855"