Talk:Brett Favre/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

This is an archive of Talk:Brett Favre

Record Watch (after 2006 season)

Favre had several records he moved up in
1. moved into 5th all-time for games played by QB, 1 behind Marino
2. 2nd all-time for both total TDs and total points by QB (to tie Marino, needs 2 TDs)
3. Favre is 2nd for points per game (10.6), tied with Marino, PManning 1st at 12.0
4. Favre is 2nd all time career victories(147), 1 behind Elway.
5. Favre moved up in consecutive games started (ref. Packers.com)...
--Billymac00 17:36, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't get it. Tonight I post up that he has 5,000 completions. A few minutes later someone reverts the number back to the old number. Then someone else changes it back to 5,000.  ?? There was a game this evening, and he did become the first QB to ever complete 5k. And there is one game left. Lejonis 06:45, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Apologies on that. We've been having some issues here in the past week with people modifying stats back and forth, so likely someone saw that you changed it to 5,000 and didn't know they played tonight so figured it was an invalid change. It's good you brought the discussion here, where it belongs. Don't get discouraged, stuff like this happens on WikiPedia. :) Adam Weeden 11:08, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Also one thing you may want to do to avoid this probalem in the future is to update as many of the stats as you can, in as many of the places as you can. This will make people less likely to think your changes to be false and will improve the accuracy of the article. Since you only changed completions and not attempts, people will wonder how he could have completed those passes without even attempting. ;) Adam Weeden 13:00, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. I should have updated the others. That was actually my first wiki post and was sort of watching to see if took. For an hour after the game no news source mentioned the completion record - and I thought the record significant.Lejonis 23:33, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Well the media seems to be getting Brett Favre'd out. I get the feeling most of them just want him to retire already so they can talk about someone else. Adam Weeden 01:49, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

MVP Awards

Second paragraph loudly proclaims that he is the only three-time MVP in the history of the NFL. But surely that should be qualified as three-time Associated Press MVP, because:

• The league has no official MVP (is that right?)
• He only won the Pro Football Writers' MVP and Bert Bell Award twice -- both of those awards were given only to Barry Sanders in 1997 instead of the AP Sanders-Favre tie.
• Otto Graham and Johnny Unitas both got three UPI NFL MVP awards. Otto Graham received his before the AP started their awards, and it looks like the UPI awards were pretty much the only game in town at that time.

Perhaps someone can clean the wording up so it is more precise. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.34.50.109 (talk) 04:13, 5 December 2006 (UTC).

Unprotect

I'm requesting that you un protect the Brett Favre page, there are many errors in his stats, they are all off in different parts of the page and it's sort of embarrassing, this was a good page untill you protected it now stats are wrong all over, please allow me to update the stats on the page, I don't need to edit anything but his career numbers so this will be a acurate page, I'm also requesting you unprotect it alltogether, it's very unnessary, you can edit Dan Marino and Joe Montana, but not Brett Favre, that makes no sense, please unprotect the Brett Favre page, there are to many errors, or at least let me update the stats.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.245.121.12 (talk • contribs)

This article gets vandalized many times in one day. What stats are off? If you think they're off you can still edit them, you just need an account. Before this page was protected, people would have to revert about five edits a day.++aviper2k7++ 04:37, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree, for whatever reason, Favre is much more of a lighning rod for vandals. I'd say leave it protected at least a month after he's knocked down a couple of these records. ---Jackel 17:03, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

All of his stats are accurate. You deleting this section and placing talk messages in the incorect place gives me an uneasy feeling that you will add incorrect stats or vandalize the page with other of your friend's IPs. If you really think the stats are wrong, say so or get an account and edit the stats that are wrong.++aviper2k7++ 22:05, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

this is where wikipedia told me to put this message, so don't say it's wrong, and the stats are crap, do YOu not have an education, one place says he has 56,756 yards. At the top it says 56,463 and at the top in the side box it says he has 56,197, that's three difference numbers and you say that's accurate, where did you go to school, wikipedia told me to request the {editprotected} in the talk section and you say it's the wrong place, Brett favre being protected is making the page look laughable, your so off, it's says his career recors is 143-88, that's adds up to 231, he's has started in 234 consecutive games as a quarterback and his record is 144-90 and you think I'm going to put incorrect stats, he's my favorite player and I want his page stats to be correct on all accounts, this page is embarrasing right now, he can't have three different numbers of stats scattered around the page, it should be correct all over the page, I don't care about the dialog and biography, I just want the stats correct and for your info, the stats under Favre continues to close in on several NFL career records, I typed all that, that's why it's there and the Playoff records under the career stats, I typed all that months ago, so don't say I'm going to put incorrect info, most the stat info on the page was originated by me before the page was protected. Please unprotect the page so I can fix the stats, you have my word I won't put incorrect info, I'm to much of a Brett fan and I also added all the stats to the Morten Andersen page if you want to check it, I didn't put false stats on his page, I just want wikipedia to be a credited website. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.245.122.216 (talk • contribs)

Please follow talk page guidelines, thank you. If you think the stats are wrong, you can create an account and edit them. The protect is for countless vandalisms, not to prevent you from editing. You can edit the page by registering an account, a process that takes less than a minute.++aviper2k7++ 01:01, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

I fixed the stats at the top. These were due to not updating the current stats. The career wins is accurate. He did not start 3 games in his career, but as a starting quarterback has 234.++aviper2k7++ 01:14, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

IP adress, please reply below this, do not delete this talk page. I fixed the stat, I believe it is accurate now. Please stop saying that I "no nothing" and I did not go to school. Please keep some sort of civility.++aviper2k7++ 02:23, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

You don't know nothing about Brett Favre, his record was 143-90 correct, but he won the game this Sunday 30-19 against san francisco, that's 144-90, not 143-91, and if you went to school you would know that and please take off the Brett is on pace crap after the stats, that looks stupid, I'm not cutting you down and trying to degrade you, I'm just frustrated because I'm giving you acurate info and you are ignoring it and you won't let me fix it. Go to http://www.packers.com/history/record_book/individual_records/favre_watch/ and you will see he is at 144 wins, I'm sorry if I offended you before, but I want to work with you and make this site as accurate as can be, that will make wikipedia look good, so lets start from scratch, Thanks.

Please read through WP:TALK. For one thing, I am trying to get the stats right also. am not ignoring you, I am trying to get the stats right. It's very hard to get accurate stats, and you did not help the process by deleting the talk page and insisting the Favre page which is vandalized several times in a day should be unprotected. I ask that you do not delete this talk page any more. The stats are hard to keep accurate because some things are changed after a game and some things aren't. The stats were only a game off in a couple of places and you dub this article awful. I am letting you fix it. It's Wikipedia, anyone can edit an article. I did not protect this page. All you have to do is register an account which takes less than a minute. You not registering an account makes me wonder if you really want to edit the Favre page.++aviper2k7++ 05:41, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

I didn't delete the page, the talk page had a ton of stuff earlier, now it hardly has anything, I didn't delete all that stuff, the stats are easy for me I follow Favre and any page that isn't accurate isn't very good, I could fix that. I don't mind if you fix it though, the only thing wrong is consecutive starts at the top and the side top it says 233, it's 234 and 254 with playoffs and it's also wrong in the records and milestones section, also under records and milestones, delete all that would finish the season at current pace junk like you did with the career wins, other than that the page looks great now, thanks for updating. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.245.123.105 (talk • contribs)

Ok, whoever just changed all the stats back to the old incorrect stats need to be banned from Wikipedia, they are vandalising this page with INCORRECT information. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.245.120.219 (talk • contribs)

Why is it so hard for you to create an account, wait 4 days for it to be eligible to edit semi-protected articles (like this one) and contribute? You could be doing that instead of all the comments here denigrating the work of people like me and aviper who are trying to do our best, but let's face it, the article is huge. So in closing, if you want something changed, register and change it, please. Adam Weeden 15:35, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

No 4.245.120, you need to be banned from Wikipedia if anyone. You are vandalizing the talk page and blanking this page. The stats haven't changed since I edited them yesterday. Please stop vandalizing this talk page and comment in the correct place and sign your comments by placing four ~~~~ marks next to your comment.++aviper2k7++ 22:29, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Image

The discussion was getting pretty long, so I archived the old talk which wasn't being discussed. I think this article needs an image. If you browse "Brett Favre" on flickr, you'll find a bunch of results. I was thinking about emailing one of the users with a Brett Favre photo and asking if they'd release the image to Wikipedia. this seems like a nice one. I'm not sure how the copyrights work with players in uniform. I believe you have to get "express written consent from the NFL" or something if you want to include a player in a uniform or logo. If anyone knows anything about this, please respond. If we're allowed this, then I will email some of those Flickr users. I found an image of Favre of him golfing that doesn't include a team logo. I think emailing and getting permission would grant Wikipedia copyrights. Please respond.++aviper2k7++ 00:56, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

I prefer the first one. I don't know what the NFL's policy is on showing players in uniform, however. Try contacting the user on flickr, see what's up. --King Bee 19:14, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

I still like the idea of contacting the Flickr users to see if they'll GFDL their images. I'm a big fan of the image we have now, but I think with some more, we could try to get this article as a GA... and then as an FA! –King Bee ^{(talk • contribs)} 06:45, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

It's close to being GA, but not now because of the edit wars going on. A peer review would be very helpful. I can't review it because I edit this page frequently and would have a biased opinion and in return that wouldn't be much help. I'm kind of afraid (to be honest) to ask the people to release their images. They probably have a reason for their current image status. But feel free to email a person King Bee ;) ++aviper2k7++ 06:49, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Recent Changes by Anonymous User

You gave no reason for the removal of the progress of the almost" records so they have been added back in. Do not remove them again without discussing it in here first. If you don't like them, tough. If we as a group decide they're not appropriate, then they can be removed. I also added some fact requests for some new stats you added, please provide the references for those. Adam Weeden 16:21, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Tough yourself, you don't know what you doing Adam, your obviously stupid, you keep changing the stats at the top and there are false you idiot, and what he's on pace to do is irrelivant, quit vandalising this page with incorrect info you idiot, your ruing this page, now quit it or be removed.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.245.121.193 (talk • contribs)

Please refrain from making personal attacks. --King Bee 19:09, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Please stop calling people idiots. "Your" not being a good Wikipedian. You do not control this article. We make decisions based on a group. There's only three games left, the on pace thing is going to be removed in a couple weeks anyways.++aviper2k7++ 20:57, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Your page looks stupid and illeterate, you don't see CREDITABLE websites cluttered with Brett's on pace crap. Grow up, your obviously a bunch of dum kids.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.245.120.144 (talk • contribs)

I think this is starting to get a bit Childish - perhaps it might be time for re-semi-protection. --Rehnn83 22:11, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Time for you to shut up and mind your own business aviper2k7 is a minor, so your right it's getting childish, but semi-protection isn't the answer, I'm putting valid info on here and stupid minors are making this page look like crap, it's really a shame.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.245.120.144 (talk • contribs)

Please do not remove the references again. Doing so will break the three revert rule which could be grounds for a suspension for a short period of time. Also, please refrain from personal attacks, this is also against the rules. Please do not vandalize my talk page either. And please sign "your" posts by adding ~~~~ at the end of your post.++aviper2k7++ 23:50, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

For ongoing reverts, without any care for the opinions of other editors, I have reported 4.245.120.144 for violation of the 3 Revert Rule. Adam Weeden 15:51, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Good idea, but this user is editing under multiple IP addresses. We might not be out of the woods yet. --King Bee 16:19, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Too negative

This articles seems to be written in a negative point of view, for example in the Atlanta section "His most notable accomplishments, aside from going 0 for 5 passing with two interceptions that year, were missing the team photo".....Coasttocoast 00:30, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Seems like a good section to clean up. I'm on it.++aviper2k7++ 00:53, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

On Current Pace Issue

I think the page looks awful with the current pace stuff, I have to agree, it's very incorrect,innapropriate, and unneeded, What he is on pace to do is not what he will do and it's just cluttering the page with a lot of dialog that no one will read because it's to much to read and it not even fact, it's speculation, lets just celebrate his factual numbers, that's what people want to see and be impressed by, no credible Brett Favre page like espn or nfl.com would put such nonsence on there Brett Favre pages, just the stats and factual numbers and if this is to be a credible page, it should be the same, but this page will be better because it includes a extended biography on his life before getting to the records and milestones, so lets get rid of the on pace stuff, it weekens the page and the whole records and milestones section. starwars1955

I Disapprove, but if you wish we can put it to a vote. Each one of us gets one vote. And by each one of us I mean each individual registered user. Adam Weeden 02:27, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, ESPN might mention on sportscenter that bonds is on pace to hit so many homers, but not on there espn home pages of Bonds and Tomlinson, they just put recent news, career stats, and biography, what you are on pace to do is not what you will do and no credible website would put that, they would put only correct information, not what might be. People don't visit the site to find out if he's going to break records this year, they visit it to learn things about Brett Favre that the don't know, creditble stats, mature people don't care what someone is on pace to do, and I think other users should be running this page and not kids, please wikipedia users, bote below on whether or not to keep the current pace dialog on here or now, I don't think people care because no one is voting but the people that have been fighting me on this, I think you need to work on a page that needs it and let a Favre fan take care of this page, but please put below if you approve or dissaprove. Starwars1955

Brett Favre isn't retiring.

It does violate the Wikipedia NOR policy. Starwars1955

Can we stop the edit wars until this is settled? I'm not sure which way my opinion lands, but breaking the three-revert rule isn't the way to go. PsyMar 08:10, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Cite for the fact that Favre *really* isn't retiring:

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2007/football/nfl/02/02/bc.fbn.packers.favre.ap/index.html?cnn=yes

Vote for projections remaining until end of season. (Approve or Disapprove)

Vote by Adam Weeden: Disapprove. I was for it before, especially considering it originated with me, but in light of the WP:NOT article I have no choice but to objectively file it under extrapolation, which WP has noted as not applicable here. It saddens me to repent this way, but I suppose if I let emotions cloud my judgment I'd be a poor Wikipedian. As long as no one can provide a compelling argument of why this does not violate WP:NOT's section on being a "crystal ball" I will remove all projections. Let's wait a 2-3 days for such arguments to surface before removing it, otherwise if one does surface this is going to turn into a giant revert war again. Adam Weeden 16:02, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Starwars1955: Disapprove for reasons I stated above.

To Starwars1955: if you alter or remove votes here one more time your vote will be disqualified, and you will be recommended for a ban. This is a BLATANT disregard for WP rules. Adam Weeden 16:02, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Strong Approve, ESPN does it all the time on Sportscenter and announcers do it all the time during games. Favre's pace adds to the article and Favre may not play next year. His pace takes into account his averages during the season and it is not harming anything being there for two weeks. And besides, just because NFL.com might not do it, it doesn't mean it is unencyclopedic and a bad idea. The great part about the pace thing is that it is sourced. And people DO want to see if Favre is going to break the records or not. They wouldn't be reading the section if they didn't want to find out.++aviper2k7++ 04:40, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

PsyMar: Disapprove due to WP:NOR. 08:19, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Vote? Outside view: Wikipedia is WP:NOT a crystal ball. An unmaintained/undermaintained article should be frozen at the beginning of the season. A well-maintained article can have stats updated game by game and list records actually broken. If someone in authority (like Favre himself or his coach) says, "Favre will not play next year" or "Favre is considering not playing next year", that's an encyclopedic statement (provided it is sourced). But Wikipedia is not ESPN and it's not SportsCenter - we shouldn't be in the business of guessing what records he might break or whether he might retire. I have no interest (or knowledge) of the issue ... I only noticed it because I have been checking up on everything in the Falcons category [1] since some vandalism earlier this week. BigDT 15:34, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Your concise and compelling argument is appreciated. I had not seen that specific (crystal ball) statement before, and it appears as if the calculations being done are, in fact, extrapolation. I have no choice, if I wish to remain objective, but to concede that while I like the projections, they do appear to not be WP appropriate in light of the WP:NOT article. Thank you for injecting some solid logic into this discussion and not taking the route that others have taken of assuming that their way is right, regardless of why. Adam Weeden 16:01, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

That's right, it's a violation of the Wikipedia NOR policy, but AdamWeeden, who should be suspended for muliple updates to the page, refuses to correct the illegal update he made this morning, but now that we agree that it shouldn't be there I will change the page back without the current pace stuff, and I expect it to stay that way or suspentions should be handed out because we have vote and agreed it shouldn't be there because of the WP:NOR policy, Thanks, starwars1955

You know what's a violation of WP's policy? Editing people's votes and comments on a talk page. And thank you for confirming that 4.245.121.177 (and associated IPs) and starwars1955 are the same person by forgetting to sign in when you posted this comment, thus proving you're further violating WP's policy when you do things like this: [2]. Adam Weeden 02:52, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Disapprove, for other reasons. Upon looking at the article and the discussion here, I would say that I disapprove of the projections, but I'd like to suggest a different reason it's probably not a good idea - I think an editor doing their own statistical analysis, simple or otherwise, consititutes original research, which is also against policy. Let's take the article Bobby Knight. The article says: 'As of December 17, 2006, Knight ranks second on the all-time Division I coaching wins list with 878. He needs one more win to tie Dean Smith, who currently holds the record with 879.' These are verifiable facts, not projections. Just some food for thought... Skybunny 16:23, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

I wanted to leave them there for the week. There's only two weeks left in the season, so it's not too big of an issue anymore. People can really figure out for themselves what he's going to do. I still think the projections were a good idea and based on statistics (not crystal balling), but I guess it technically is OR. I don't really care if it's up or not, I will not edit the section. The problem was a user blatently ignoring the talk page and disobeying the 3RR.++aviper2k7++ 21:38, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Mediation

First off, Starwars1955, could you please explain the edits you made to other users' comments ([3], [4] for starters) Also, were you in fact the anonymous editor who was making uncivil comments on this page? Shadow1 (talk) 21:18, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

By the way, I'm Shadow1, the mediator for the case over at the Mediation Cabal, for those of you that don't know. Shadow1 (talk) 22:12, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm not a anonymous user making uncivil comments to start off and I don't know about editing others people's comments by mistake, I apologize it won't happen again if I did do that by mistake, but Adam Weeden and aviper2k7 were in direct violation by adding the on current pace stats to the page, because it was a direct violation of Wikipedia's NOR and NOT policy's and I knew this and was fighting to get it removed and it was by a 4 - 1 disapprove vote, and now they are telling lies about me because they are bitter because there current pace stuff was removed and they should be repremended for making untrue sladerious remarks and lies about me and refusing to remove the current pace stuff after they were told it was a direct violation of Wikipedia NOR and NOT policys, so you need to be dealing with them, and also aviper2k7 was born in 1989, which would make him 17, so the fact that he is a minor should be dealt with to and aviper2k7 and Adam Weeden both have violated the 3RR rule several times the past several weeks on the Brett Favre main page and Brett Favre talk page, so please deal with that Shadow1, all I'm trying to do is put acurate stats on the Brett Favre page and make sure that Wikipedia's NOR and NOT policys are obeyed, and not take it upon myself to do what I want even though it's against the rules like user Adam Weeden and aviper2k7 have, Thanks, starwars1955

What does my age have anything to do with this? The point was you blatantly ignored the talk page adding no edit summaries. You vandalized the talk page and vandalized my user page. You also were banned and continued editing under a different IP, you pretended you were a different user in one of your edits which is sockpuppeting, and finally you personally attacked people on the talk page.++aviper2k7++ 22:49, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm sure you "accidentally" change aviper's and my votes from approve to disapprove, and your various other "accidental edits" made to remove our arguments supporting our position. It's okay though. I'm confident that it's obvious to the admins so I will waste no more time debating this with you and get back to the relevant business of making this article the best it can be. Adam Weeden 23:22, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Ok guys, let's all just step back for a second. I'm assuming that the statistics you're referring to are at [5], which, as far as I can tell, are properly-cited sources. However, I can see where Starwars is coming from, as NOT states that Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, and the stats seem a bit predictive. How about this: We add a template from Wikipedia:Current and future event templates to the section and update it as necessary. How does that sound to everyone?

Oh, and Starwars1955, I would greatly appreciate it if you would refrain from bringing Aviper's age into this issue. It's really not relevant. Shadow1 (talk) 02:15, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

The current event sounds like a good idea for the stats. There's only two games left (one tomorrow, I'm so excited) and his next season play is still up in the air. So a current event on the stats does make sense. And for the record (even though it doesn't matter) I'm a legal adult in three weeks.++aviper2k7++ 04:45, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. Adam Weeden 10:23, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Starwars1955, do you have any further comments, or should we go with my suggestion? Shadow1 (talk) 13:04, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't know what your talking about Shadow1, I answered all your questions, this issue is over, adam weeden and aviper2k7 violated the wikipedia NOR and NOT policy's and the otem was removed, the issue is over and I answered all your questions. —Preceding unsigned comment added by starwars1955 (talk • contribs)

Well, Starwars, I'm sorry that we can't come to an agreement on this. The problem with the entire thing is that Viper and Adam both want the stats, but you don't. We can't just leave it behind us; it'll hinder future editing on the article. What do you want to do? Shadow1 (talk) 00:13, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, apparently Starwars was blocked for incivility, then he left a note on his talk page saying that he was leaving the project. I guess that means this case is closed. Thanks for everyone's cooperation! Shadow1 (talk) 19:48, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Citations?

Have we decided that the separate citations on the "Second all time $STAT" thing is a bad idea? I thought that having the reference point to the particular leaderboard for each stat was a good idea, as one could click and see who was first, second, third, etc. It shouldn't just point to Favre's page at profootballreference.com. That doesn't cite that he's second, that only cites how much of "statistic X" he has. Should I put them back in? --King Bee 20:46, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

No, by going to that Favre page, below it says completions, attemps, TD's and yards, and where he ranks all-time, by clicking on any of those 4 you get the all-time leaderboard for those 4 categories, which provides you with the top 50 all-time in those 4 categories, so that page is a direct link to those leaderboards, and that's much easier because they are all there, all you have to do is go to that Brett Favre page and that info is right under his career stats before you get to his playoff stats, this is a easier and more suitible way of doing it. starwars1955

Well, I don't think it's an easier and more suitable way of doing it. I feel as though that the user should not have to click more than once to get to the information that is supposed to be verified. Who else agrees with me? --King Bee 21:05, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

In retrospect, perhaps it is okay, I guess I don't mind at all. I just wanted to know why it was removed. --King Bee 21:09, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Citation Request

This article needs a few other citations for some stats that I couldn't find on any of the available references. First one is Second all-time in career points by a quarterback, with 2,556 (Marino, 2,574), second one is Third all-time in career games by a quarterback, with 240 (Marino, 242; Tarkenton, 246) (Earl Morrall, 255 and George Blanda, 340 played more games, but most of their games were as kickers). This one may need two citations, one being a list of games by these players with those numbers, another showing that some of Earl Morrall and George Blanda's games were ONLY as kickers. Adam Weeden 13:00, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Adam Weeden, use common sense, Dan Marino had 420 td passes and 9 rush td's in his career, times 429 x 6 points per touchdown and get 2,574 points by a quarterback (1.st all time), take Favre's 413 and 13 rushing and get = 426, times that by 6 points per touchdown and get = 2,556 (2.nd all time) and there is no need for citations on the other one, but if you want them, put this web address, http://www.pro-football-reference.com/qbindex.htm it's has a list of every quarterbacks games played and stats for there career.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Starwars1955 (talk • contribs)

Firstly, you should really read up on civility. Secondly, there should be a ref (a la the ones I had for the projections) explaining that as the source of those numbers at least, though I would argue that using that logic can only be as accurate as the person who put that mentioned list into points order, since points aren't mentioned there. Did they do it by hand? Did they use a program to calculate it? Did they calculate the total TDs of EVERY QB to make sure no one had more total touchdowns? What about players such as George Blanda who were kickers AND QBs in many games? Do we only count their TDs, or are they automatically marginalized as we do no by saying "but most of their games were as kickers" (which doesn't sound very scientific in my humble opinion)? At this point we're beginning to get strangely close to the calculations of mine that you labeled as original research. Adam Weeden 21:05, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Adam you obviously don't know much about these subjects, they are accurate nfl stats, even the wikipedia dan marino page has the career points record on it, without a reference, let it go, it's pointless, I gave you you a reference for the career games by quarterbacks, so use it or don't. the point is most of earl morrall and george blanda's games were as kickers, so they racked there career games up with just kicking, and only so many of the were as quarterbacks, the point is even though they have more games as brett, they didn't have 240+ games as quarterbacks as favre, marino and tarkenton did, but they should get a shout out, because that refernce page I gave you only has two people with more games than favre, marino, and tarkenton, that's morrall and blanda, so an explanation is provided, so just link the reference page I gave you on there as a citation, that way people can see of all the nfl quarterbacks, Tarkenton, Marino and Favre top the list in games played, I know it's a long list, but it's the info true fans will want to see.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Starwars1955 (talk • contribs)

You obviously don't know how to edit Wikipedia correctly. Sign your posts.++aviper2k7++ 21:30, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Let's not sink to that level viper. If he wants to be uncivil, that's his problem. Doing it back is only going to cause more problems. Adam Weeden 21:50, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

I remind you again, please be civil. Firstly, the fact that the Dan Marino page has it (also without a reference) proves nothing. Two wrongs don't make a right. Secondly, it's not my responsibility to compile the list you gave me into a sorted points list. I'm asking you to PROVE that what is stated is true. I follow your calculations exactly that Favre has 2,556 points, and that point is self explanatory (though I think a reference stating how that calculation was made would benefit the article for those who may not know of the simplicity of such a calculation). My point is you must prove the claim that he is second, because as you know, rushing touchdowns don't factor into his 413 or Marino's 420. What if someone way behind him in passing TDs had enough rushing TDs to give them more total? I'd be willing to bet that there is no such player, but Wikipedia is about verifiability, so unless you can verify that no one else does with a source, it has no place here. Again for men who played as kickers and QBs where do we cut it off? If Brett Favre went out and kicked a field goal next week would he be eliminated because some of his points were as a kicker? Of course not,we would just be unlikely to count those 3 points. Similarly with Blanda and Morrall, VERIFY how many points they made as kickers vs. how many they made as QBs. Be careful for those games they did both in. Adam Weeden 21:50, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

I have added the 'Unreferenced' template to the 'Records and Milestones' section. Not one, but several statistics here are unreferenced, and as such, I believe are fair game to be challenged, including the 'points by a quarterback' statistic.

(Starwars1955, from edit summary): "...all records and milesones are confirmed, return to version by aviper2k7"

This sounds fair enough; if the statistic is "confirmed" then it shouldn't be difficult to find a secondary source as outlined in Wikipedia: No original research, a policy which all of us as Wikipedia editors agree to abide by. Therefore, I have put the 'Unreferenced' tag on the section, as I see a dozen or more uncited statistics that I believe should be cited in the simple interest of proper record-keeping. I'll see what I can do about a few of them. It's my belief that getting these citations into place should improve the article quality anyway, in the spirit of Wikipedia: Citing sources. Skybunny 21:40, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

I believe I cited a bunch of these in the past, and a certain user removed them because they were "common sense" or something to that effect. I'll go find some again. –King Bee ^{(talk • contribs)} 21:46, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

In case I haven't made this clear, I'd like to thank the editors who stepped up on references in the statistics section. Reverts aside, it looks much better done now than it did even a few short hours ago. Thanks! Skybunny 01:08, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

No problemo! I'm really glad that you called out the citation request. It gave me something to do for an hour rather than study. =) –King Bee ^{(talk • contribs)} 01:13, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Star wars, please see WP:CITE. Thank you to the many people who included references to the page (here). It's kind of disheartening when someone follows Wikipedia's guidelines and policies and the page gets reverted for who knows what here. Please see WP:V and WP:CITE.++aviper2k7++ 00:20, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Starwars1955 has been blocked for 72 hours for violating the 3RR. Block ends approximately 11:40 UTC 1 January 2007. Meantime, I'm going to try spending a little time and see if I can find another ref or two for the records. Skybunny 18:36, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Cite web format

I think if we want to get this article to featured status, we should change all the web citations to the {{cite web}} format. Is this an issue or not? It really makes the citations appear a lot cleaner in the references, and maybe it's a help. Of course, it could just be a lot of wasted man hours, as this article has something like 70 references. –King Bee ^{(T • C)} 16:50, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

• I'm emphatically in favor of this. It cleans up the article text itself significantly and makes the whole article "appear" more encyclopedic (in that we aren't forcing readers to jump around across the Web to see what our sources are - all they have to do is check the References section). I'd be willing to help out with this when I get back from class later tonight. PSUMark2006 talk | contribs 17:26, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Sweet. I'll get started now. –King Bee ^{(T • C)} 19:20, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

• All right, all right. Let's start over. I'm not a fan of the fact that someone just reverted my work that I had done so far. Aviper2k7, the cite-web format is far, far cleaner than just throwing the word "ref" in there and going to town. What do you have against the cite-web format, and why don't you want to use it? –King Bee ^{(T • C)} 00:43, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

I find the Cite-Web template rather unnecessary and long, but I'll switch all of them to Cite-Web tonight. No big deal. I just wanted the citations to be consistent.++aviper2k7++ 02:06, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Look, you don't have to just concede because two people want it a certain way. I don't see why you find it unnecessary or long, but whatever. Then just ignore it, I'll have time to switch them all over today, and you won't even have to worry about it. When you add citations to the article, add them however you want; someone will come by and put them in the cite-web format for you. –King Bee ^{(T • C)} 13:27, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Embedded citations. The cite-web should be condensed; mainly because it's hard to edit if it's on separate lines. Also the post date shouldn't be linked. If I'm working with cite-web templates, I use this Reference generator when the format for the page is already cite web and it basically does everything for you. I'm going to condense them all, because the featured articles that do (not many of them do) use the template have them condensed.++aviper2k7++ 21:23, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, it's not a policy page, but whatever. I find it absolutely impossible to edit references when they're all in-line and not on multiple lines. I don't care enough to argue though, do whatever you want. –King Bee ^{(T • C)} 21:44, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Tony Smith

In the section on Atlanta there is a link to running back Tony Smith, only it points you to an Australian politician. There doesn't seem to be an article on Smith. Don't know if he merits one, but the link shouldn't point to him. Perhaps shouldn't be linked at all. I'll leave that to someone else to decide. Chwatuva 09:42, 20 December 2006 (UTC)chwatuva

5,000 Completions

This evening, Farve completed 26 passes, so he has now 5,000 completions. First QB in NFL to reach 5,000. The game is an hour over and yet the stats here say 3 games left in this year. So - I posted the 5,000. First wiki post and feel good with it. While this says semi-protected, my post seems to be sticking. Lejonis 05:47, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Firstly, WELCOME TO WIKIPEDIA! We're glad to have you here. Semi-protected just keeps anonymous and brand new (only had an account a day or two) users from editing. I know since this your edit got changed somewhat, see my response to you above. Also for a comment like this one, if it does not have an appropriate section (which it didn't), create a new section by either clicking the + sign next to edit this page, or by preceding your comment with the new section title inside of a set of double equal signs like I did above your comment. I also applaud you for signing your comment. Most new users don't, and I even forget half the time and i've been here for over a year. :) Adam Weeden 12:01, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Records and Milestones

Ahem, in searching for citations for this section, I found this website: [6]. It seems to me that the record and milestones section we have here at wikipedia was yanked, word for word, from this website. What should we do about this? –King Bee ^{(talk • contribs)} 22:22, 28 December 2006 (UTC) Sweet, merciful crap, I'm out of my mind. That's a mirror site for wikipedia. Good Goshen, I'm losing it. Please disregard my query. –King Bee ^{(talk • contribs)} 22:27, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Third all-time in career record by a quarterback

Please explain why the second

• Third all-time in career wins by starting quarterback, with 146 (Elway, 148; Marino, 147)

• Third all-time in career record by a quarterback, at 146-90 (Elway, 148-82-1; Marino, 147-93)

is a ranking.

I added in the page; What does this even mean? Is it referring to wins? If it is, then the record for career wins is right above this. If this is included, his losses are not sourced. Do the losses include the time he was in Atlanta? Is this being updated every week? Is there even a citation that proves this record? Please keep this out, it doesn't make any sense

but you responded with; (It means greatest record all time by a quarterback and it deserves a mention for goodness sake,it's a factual stats,what's your problem with it aviper2k7,and quit deleting the DeionSanders fact,vandal)

The stat is based on wins, and not winning percentage, so how is his record being ranked? If it's ranked by wins, it's already mentioned. If it's winning percentage, I don't think that's true and is unsourced. Feel free to add his record somewhere in the page with a proper source, but please stop calling me a vandal. Refer to WP:CITE and WP:V please.++aviper2k7++ 06:06, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Also of note: If it is based on winning percentage, what is the minimum number of games needed for consideration? We can't have a player play 1 game, go 1-0, get injured, and then he owns the record. This, however, shouldn't be for us to decide as that would fall close to original research. I say we remove it either way unless someone can provide a link to a ranked list of winning percentage for quarterbacks by a reliable source. Adam Weeden 12:19, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

I think you've hit the nail on the head. In the interest of simplicity, I think it's going to be easiest to leave this stat out of record comparisons, and keep to wins, which is a fairly straightforward record to maintain. Who is 'best' by win percentage depends completely upon how many minimum games are required, and that minimum is subjective. Too few, and you get 8-1 quarterbacks; too many, and there are too few players under consideration. Since there isn't a "standard", it shouldn't be included, except as a statement of fact of win percentage, (rather than who is "better" than who). Skybunny 17:33, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

GA on hold

Looks good so far. Among the things needing cleanup - the "citation needed" tags need to be sourced or the statements removed, the "Awards and honors" needs some cleanup, preferably in the prose and without trivia items like the There's Something About Mary note that's neither an award or an honor. There's a lot of other statements I could throw a tag on, so I suggest doing another sweep and sourcing a few other things that you think might be challenged. I'll be checking back. --badlydrawnjeff talk 16:54, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

The one cn tag regarding Favre's dislike of holding has an explanation for the lack of a citation, though I'll see what I can do with it. The TSAM note's gone, I'll cleanup what I can on the awards and reference a few other things. Not sure who the main article caretakers are (I'm not, I just found this), but I'll fix what I can.--Wizardman 16:47, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

I think that bit about him disliking holding the ball came from a documentary called "Favre 4 Ever", which ESPN was showing a a while back. Of course, even if someone had the DVD in front of them, would we be able to reference things from a television documentary and not have it challenged, because it can't be verified on the web? Skybunny 17:28, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

You don't have to cite things to the web, people cite books, magazines, dvds, ect., all the time.++aviper2k7++ 23:56, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

COOL! Now for Featured Article....++aviper2k7++ 18:25, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

I strongly suggest holding off on that for a bit. This is GA material, but will need a lot of work for FA, including more prose checks and a better cleanup of the awards and milestones, minimum. Good luck! --badlydrawnjeff talk 18:28, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Correct number of attempts?

Packers.com has Favre with 8,223 attempts, but PFR has him listed with 8,224 attempts. Which is it? Does anyone know? –King Bee ^{(T • C)} 21:29, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

I'd say go with NFL.com.[7] I'm pretty sure NFL.com are the ones with official stats.++aviper2k7++

I agree, but I think we need to do something about the other sources in the article pointing toward his stats; they should all be NFL.com ones, I believe. Otherwise, we have conflicting info. –King Bee ^{(T • C)} 14:23, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Citations/references

I was going to edit a link in and I noticed the Cite-Web template being used. The template was only used on about half the article. I figured that the citations should stay consistent so I went through every reference and made them basically the same. I just did a format like "[http:// site] by Jon Smith of Newspaper. Posted Date 1, Year." Wikipedia doesn't really suggest a proper format, just that it should probably attribute the author and date. I added authors to many of the links, and dated each one. Sorry for the person that went through and added the Cite-Web template; I thought it'd be a good idea to keep everything the same and I was thinking the Cite-Web template was long and confusing. More of a personal opinion issue, but it was either one or the other. Sorry for the mix-up.++aviper2k7++ 00:45, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

I was in the process of changing all the citations in the article to the cite-web format, as you can see in the above discussion and in my edit summary at the very end. We are doing this to get the article closer to featured article status, and because the cite-web template makes the references appear very clean at the end. I don't know what you find confusing about the template; there is simply a spot for url, publisher, date, accessdate, and title. There's probably a field for author as well, I haven't checked. I can understand how you might have missed the discussion above, but the next time someone is seemingly making sweeping changes to the article, check out the talk page before reverting their work. I just want to stay friendly here, since we both want the same thing in the end: a damn fine lookin' Brett Favre article. –King Bee ^{(T • C)} 01:05, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Super protection?

So, no one can edit the article for 5 days, just because of one banned user and his egregious amount of sockpuppets? –King Bee ^{(T • C)} 19:52, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

It won't be 5 days... I just don't want to see it flipping back and forth while I investigate/deal with the situation. Someone is using nicely aged WP:SOCKs to get around the semi-protection. Things will be back to normal shortly. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Isotope23 (talk • contribs) 19:57, 9 February 2007 (UTC).

Thanks for the quick reply, and thanks for looking into it. –King Bee ^{(T • C)} 20:03, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Back to semi... quick 5 days eh?  :) --Isotope23 20:09, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Hi guys

I've been asked to have a look at the disputes on this page. Having looked briefly through the history and reviewed some of the accounts that seem focussed only or mainly on this page (who I would hazard correspond to the entity requesting assistance) I do have some concerns, I will mention a couple. (You will have to forgive my ignorance on the subject matter.)

Firstly there doesn't seem to have been an in-depth discussion, on a point by point basis to try and resolve the differences. Secondly the dispute of the number of "passing attempts" (I would have thought passing successes would be more interesting, but no matter) the total of the column in question does indeed match up with the number the IP address was trying to insert.

Rich Farmbrough, 10:24 10 February 2007 (GMT).

• Regarding the attempts did you actually add up the columns? From the look of it the dispute is between 2 sets of sources: NFL.com/Packers website vs the source the other editor was referring to. I'm not super familiar with this disute either and I too would like to see some actual discussion here of the changes. I reverted to the earlier version simply per WP:DENY or a rather disruptive sockpuppeteer not because I necessarily agree with the content.--Isotope23 13:20, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes I did add up the column. And I expected to get the value given, not the Anon's value, so I checked it on a spreadsheet. Rich Farmbrough, 18:38 10 February 2007 (GMT).

I have no idea what you mean about there being no discussion, but let's enumerate the changes of this banned sockpuppeteer right now.

1. The correct number of attempts; this is discussed two sections above. I think the solution is rather simple, that we go with NFL.com (since they should have the official stats) over PFR.com. Completions ("successes") are also a stat, but attempts matter as well.
2. Rewording the "consecutive" streak for seasons of 30 TD passes or more; the current revision has cleaner prose than his revision.
3. He readded the quote of "Put Ty in," which was unsourced (as the source was a dead link, and I removed the quote as I couldn't find another reference).
4. He prefers the "hanging citation" to citing every line, which as was discussed above in the citations section, looks much better.
5. Lastly, this user is banned for an inability to work well with others. His changes should not be considered.

I don't know if that's what you were looking for or what, but we did assume good faith a few months ago when this user showed up. We ganged up a bit, yes, but MrDarcy stepped in and told us to cool it. Even after that, this user continued in his ways, and Darcy was the one to take care of it.

This discussion should be over; the user who contacted you on your page is the IP of the sockpuppeteer Starwars1955. This is starting to simply get on my nerves. –King Bee ^{(T • C)} 14:10, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

While "Evasion of block" is blockable, socking is not, per se. See also comments on my talk page. Rich Farmbrough, 18:38 10 February 2007 (GMT).

I don't understand; we're reverting edits by a blocked user who is evading his block by creating sockpuppets; we're not blocking him for sockpuppetry, we're blocking him for evasion. –King Bee ^{(T • C)} 18:52, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the summary.--Isotope23 17:56, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Clarification requested

I just sent emails to ESPN.com, NFL.com, and profootballreference.com:

"I have noticed a discrepancy between statistical information on this site and information on other reputable sports web sites: Brett Favre's listed passing attempts as of the end of this season are 8,223 according to NFL.com ([8]) and Packers.com ([9]), but 8,224 according to ESPN.com ([10]) and profootballreference.com ([11]). Is there any way to confirm which statistic is correct?"

Will follow up if I hear from anyone. --PSUMark2006 talk | contribs 16:24, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Awesome. Keep us posted. –King Bee ^{(T • C)} 16:46, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Alright then. I full-protected the article to stop the edit war until we can figure out which is right.--Wizardman 01:49, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Good call. I was just about to. Frankly I'm getting a bit tired of blocking Starwars1955 socks.--Isotope23 01:53, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

For what it's worth, there's a discussion ensuing over on the talk page for WP:NOR concerning how to address conflicting sources. While the issue being discussed there is a much more contentious issue than whether Favre threw 8,223 or 8,224 attempts, it does bring up the possibility of somehow noting this discrepancy between established, reliable sources (assuming I don't get a timely response to my emails). Since I think it's been established that the NFL statistics are what we should include in the main article text, would it be possible to also add some sort of note indicating that other sites report a different number? PSUMark2006 talk | contribs 19:54, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Contentwise I'm not really involved in this dispute, but I don't see why it would be impossible to have a parenthetical statement at the end of the sentence that states (Source X lists 8224 attempts<cite>).--Isotope23 20:01, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

It is 8,224, over 5 sites confirm it, Malibu55 20:29, 12 February 2007 (UTC)malibu55

• Update: I still haven't heard back from NFL, ESPN, or PFR via email. I called the packers.com switchboard today and was routed to (I think) their web coordinator's voice mail, so I left a message asking for follow-up clarification via email. PSUMark2006 talk | contribs 17:20, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the update. Is there any way to email the Falcons franchise and ask as well? At least it's another outlet to try. That's where the discrepancy is, btw; in his number of attempts as a Falcon. –King Bee ^{(T • C)} 17:27, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

I just sent an email to the address listed on the Falcons' site. PSUMark2006 talk | contribs 17:40, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Just to add my two-pence worth - unless Mark recieves any offcial replies to the various emails (well done for doing it Mark), I'd say go with the NFL.com stats. As an aside note I can't be sure without doing research into but I'm guessing the problem could be in his first ever passing play. IIRC his first pass attempt was batted down and Farve caught it he then attempted another forward pass, is this one pass attempt, two pass attempts (or Zero beacuse of the penalty (although IIRC it is a loss-of-down penalty so the attempt would count - but would the second one)? Just my two-pence worth. --Rehnn83 Talk 21:13, 13 February 2007 (UTC)Insert: – — … ° ≈ ≠ ≤ ≥ ± − × ÷ ← → · § Sign your name: Rehnn83 Talk 21:13, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

I concur with Rehnn83. This is a statistic pertaining to an NFL player. The NFL absolutely should be the recognized authority. If it's a typo, a misprint, or a calculation error, so be it, we're not in any position to extrapolate why there is a difference (because doing so would constitute violation of WP:NOR). If I don't get a reply to any of the four emails I've now sent out (seems unlikely to me), I would propose we list the NFL.com statistic with a <ref>Sources including ESPN.com and profootballreference.com list 8,223 passing attempts.</ref> or something along those lines. Indicating a difference isn't original research, but trying to figure out why would be. PSUMark2006 talk | contribs 21:22, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

I absolutely agree with that assessment.--Isotope23 21:23, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

And I as well. Good work. –King Bee ^{(T • C)} 21:39, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Proposed source for this point:

Career Passing Attempts (8,224)*

Skybunny 23:14, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

• Minor correction - the NFL site lists 8,224 passing attempts, but 5,021 passing completions. But, yeah, that's pretty much what I was thinking about. I hope you don't mind, I've corrected accordingly and also added the link to the PFR site. PSUMark2006 talk | contribs 23:19, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Excellent! Looks great to me. Do you think this is sufficient to allow editing on Favre again, and tweak this if and when any source ever gets back to us about clarifying the stat? Skybunny 23:22, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

I think we should wait until there is resolution concerning the proposed community ban first, because otherwise we'll just be right back where we started. PSUMark2006 talk | contribs 23:25, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't think it'll matter. It's not like he's going to automatically stop editing the page.++aviper2k7++ 01:30, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

We can unlock the page, but I imagine that we will see some IP and "new user" editing happening. Still it wouldn't hurt to try it. the page can be monitored and 3RR has an exception for reverting banned users, so I don't think that is a problem. We can always upgrade to a semi-protect if need be.--Isotope23 14:23, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Ah someone already unprotected it... and looking at the userpage I've got my first abusive doppelganger: User:Isolope23. Now I feel like I've really arrived.--Isotope23 14:26, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

There are also Isetope23 (talk · contribs) and Kusmai (talk · contribs)... Kusma (討論) 14:37, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Okay, the clarifying notes have been added. PSUMark2006 talk | contribs 16:23, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

It looked like the numbers were reversed in relation to the sources, so I fixed it.--Isotope23 17:06, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Whoops...good catch. I don't know why I changed that one and not the other one. Should we have some sort of note on the yearly stats table, since the discrepancy is in his year with the Falcons? PSUMark2006 talk | contribs 17:11, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes, we absolutely should. Something similar to what we have now should be fine. –King Bee ^{(T • C)} 21:27, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

• Hold on, I'm totally confused now. NFL.com has 8,223 attempts (i.e., only 4 in Atlanta); shouldn't we be listing 8,223, and asterisking the ESPN.com and PFR stats? –King Bee ^{(T • C)} 21:33, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Response to request for clarification

From:    Gilbert, Zak
Sent:    Wednesday, February 21, 2007 4:38 PM
Subject: Favre's attempts

Regarding your recent query, Brett's official passing attempts for the year 1991 was five until a few years 
ago, when the official league statistician reviewed tape of one of his games as a rookie and determined 
that the RFK Stadium press box had mistakenly given him one too many passing attempts.
His official total is 8,223. 

***************************************************  
Zak Gilbert  
Assistant Public Relations Director  
Green Bay Packers, Inc.

Finally a response! I'm going to see if I can pass this information along to ESPN and PFR so they might consider making the appropriate changes. Does anyone have any objections to now removing the asterisked stats? And, if so, how should we reference this "official verification"? — PSUMark2006 talk | contribs 21:47, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

No objection to removing the asterisk stat... and nice job on finding that out. I'd say just leave it at 8223 cited to NFL.com. There really is no way to reference that email without running afoul of WP:NOR, but I'd leave it here as something that could be pointed out if a certain individual shows up again... ah, the sweet irony.--Isotope23 21:53, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Sweet irony aside, sweet, SWEET work, PSUMark! That is amazing. –King Bee ^{(T • C)} 21:55, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

I went ahead and fixed it.--Isotope23 21:58, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks guys. I just wish there was better contact information for the sites that have 8,224 listed - it'd be nice to clear up the inconsistency once and for all. (I never thought that I would spend so much time trying to work out a discrepancy of one passing attempt that happened 16 years ago.) — PSUMark2006 talk | contribs 22:01, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Nice work! I am a bit surprised that they responded, but hey! It's the Green Bay Packers.++aviper2k7++ 22:08, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

A class article

So...on a completely different subject...what do we need to get this article to A-class?. A peer review is obvious, but what do we need done to start talking featured article candidate? This article was granted "good article", but with no positive nor negative feedback to this end. Skybunny 05:26, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

It's hard to edit with it being locked :/ ++aviper2k7++ 05:28, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Are you sure? It's not showing up as locked for me. (Only semi-protected.) In any case, is it a fair discussion to have? Skybunny 05:30, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

I guess it's not anymore. I think someone should go through the entire article and correct some grammar. I admit, I'm not the best English student, but I spot some absent commas and some oddly placed commas where there should be a semi-colon.++aviper2k7++ 05:33, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

The article has been unprotected (we'll try to deal with sock attacks otherwise). Please go ahead and improve the article to FA status! Kusma (討論) 15:29, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

One pattern I see widespread in this article is what amounts to POV commentary. Examples:

• He clawed his way up from the seventh string to the backup job...
• Favre's college career was turned upside down on July 14, 1990...
• Favre replaced Majkowski and did not play well during most of the game...

Statements like this are not acceptable in a featured article class article. With regard to the second statement, his coach is later quoted as saying Favre was "larger than life", which is fine as long as it's referenced, but statements like the above can't stay in here when the point of reference is the encyclopedia itself. Facts have to speak for themselves; what's going on above is editorial commentary suggesting what a reader should feel. Any subjective statement like One of the defining moments of Favre's career, and arguably his greatest game ever, took place on December 22, 2003... should be backed up by references which make both assertions. They're out there; the point is, they need to be in here. Skybunny 16:20, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

I wanted to ask if maybe the line, "He is of French and Choctaw ancestry; one of his paternal grandparents was a Native American affiliated with the Choctaw," could be moved into the early years section? Just seems a little odd in the opening paragraph, which talks mainly about his career. oncamera^(t) 02:05, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Seems reasonable to me. Favre is generally known for his career more than his parentage. Skybunny 02:38, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. Do it! –King Bee ^{(T • C)} 02:43, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Alright, I moved it, but edit any grammar/structure if it needs it. oncamera^(t) 02:48, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

After an edit conflict, I added a bit to the lead. It should be 3-4 paragraphs, and should summarize the subject clearly (and give the reader a reason to read the whole thing). The lead could use a bit more work, and it should probably mention something about his father's death and the game after (possibly).++aviper2k7++ 03:05, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

I added the part about him drinking back in, seems rather notable due to the 16 part JS piece on Favre. Also, there's some redundant Wikilinks, so if you see repeating ones, take them out, or Wikilinks deemed unhelpful++aviper2k7++ 03:27, 16 February 2007 (UTC)