Talk:Brett Favre/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

→

Archive 7

This is an archive of Talk:Brett Favre

Watch out for socks

Do not trust any edit summaries on the page, many of them are fake summaries by sockpuppets of banned user Starwars1955, sometimes made by accounts that try to impersonate administrators. Kusma (討論) 21:59, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I noticed that I edited right after a sock, not paying attention to the edit before me. –King Bee ^{(T • C)} 22:11, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

And a total of 72 users and anons later, I think we may be past all of this. PSUMark2006 talk | contribs 03:23, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Is it sad that that the socks keep coming back every so often? I've indef'd two more.--Wizardman 03:00, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Intro

Does his personal life really belong in the intro? I'm just saying that as you don't usually see it: I mean it's not what he known for. Trevor GH5 05:18, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Also, shouldn't Family tragedies be re-named Personal life and deal with all aspects of his personal life and not just his family tragedies? Trevor GH5 23:50, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Vicodin

Is it notable to put that Brett Favre was addicted to vicodin in the '93-'95 seasons? I've ready his auto-biography, and about one-third of it was about his addiction to vicodin. Pbroks13 16:07, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

It's already there, somewhat. From the "Beginning years..." section: "While being treated for various injuries, Brett Favre developed an addiction to painkillers. This became known when he suffered a seizure during a hospital visit. While the NFL investigated, he went public to avoid various rumors. In May 1996, he was immediately forced into treatment by the NFL and remained in rehabilitation for 46 days." Adam Weeden 19:37, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

The 'Put Ty In!' piece

Just a thought about this. I know this was an edit repeatedly added, but I'd like to suggest that the sentence that was added, as it was, was sort of a "hanging statement" that had really little else to do with the rest of the paragraph about the game.

If that was going to be used, I would suggest that it be used as a second paragraph in the 1992 season, in a larger discussion about Packer fans warming up to Favre, in a reference-able fashion. What the crowd thought of Favre's performance in his first game is less relevant than his statistics which speak for themselves; the sentence as it was felt like it was meant to "build up his legend" somehow (e.g. 'See! They thought he sucked but he sure showed them!'), which is not the point of a biographical article. Talking first about the interceptions and sacks, and ending with the game winning touchdown speaks for itself, in my opinion. Skybunny 20:10, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

That's the point, they didn't want him, and he came through, beginning of a legacy, 237 con. starts and counting, and it all started with that historic game, what he did does speak for itself, but the fact fact that he overcame the pressure at his age and against chants from his own fans that they didn't want him just adds to the legacy and it belongs were it is because it happended right at that moment and it's not a hanging statement because it has everything to do with the game, but your rewording looks good, what do you think, hopefully we can agree not to remove anything until we've properly discussed this further though, because it has a ref and is useful information, Thanks, BarryBonds800HomeRuns 20:30, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

...but your rewording looks good, what do you think, hopefully we can agree not to remove anything until we've properly discussed this further though...

I see you've already reverted my rewording in full, and although I understand what you're trying to say, please understand that most editors will not take a full reversion of what they've done as "agreeing that it looks good". The way editing in Wikipedia usually works is that edits go back and forth until there's a version that's relatively stable. You won't be able to reasonably expect that something that you write won't be changed over time; have a look at WP:OOA. That said, I'd like to ask that you put the changes I made back in, because it did take 15 minutes for me to write.

I read the "Put Ty In!" reference. Interestingly enough, that reference doesn't actually say what was claimed. Here's exactly what the piece said:

He played so badly that the Cheeseheads chanted for Ty Detmer to be put in

Which is very different from prompting the fans to chant "Put Ty In!". An exact quote has been attributed to the fans, when the claim of exactly what the fans chanted was never made. They could have chanted "Ty Detmer!" or "We Like Ty!", but this is never specified by the reference.

I'd like to ask that my changes be put back in, first. Then, may I suggest wording like this (using my changes as a starting point):

Favre fumbled four times and was sacked six times during the course of the game, a performance poor enough that the crowd chanted for Favre to be removed in favor of the other Packers backup quarterback, Ty Detmer. However, with 1:07 left...

Please consider... Skybunny 21:00, 25 July 2007 (UTC

Looks good Skybunny, Thanks, --BarryBonds800HomeRuns 22:29, 25 July 2007 (UTC)BarryBonds800HomeRunsBarryBonds800HomeRuns 22:29, 25 July 2007 (UTC)-- 22:29

BarryBonds800HomeRuns is clearly Starwars1955

As such, I am going to revert all of his edits. –King Bee ^{(τ • γ)} 15:06, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Please don't... I'll elaborate on your talkpage.--Isotope23 ^talk 15:07, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Citing sources regarding record ranks and statistics

There was a recent move to take, in the 'playoffs statistics' section, all references and put them at the end of an assertion. By Wikipedia standards, I do not believe this is appropriate, because when I checked the references in question, they do not explicitly say everything claimed.

See Wikipedia:Citing sources#Footnotes:

The Sun is pretty big,[1] however the Moon is not so big.[2] (correct)

(rather than...)

The Sun is pretty big, however the Moon is not so big.[1][2] (not correct)

This guideline suggests that references be placed immediately after each individual claim made.

If I look an individual playoffs statistics entry, I might expect to see this:

Career Playoff Record: 11-9[1] (20 Career Playoff Games[2] - Dan Marino had 18[3]; Elway, 22[4]; Montana, 23[5]) Second all-time in career playoff interceptions thrown[6] with 26[7] (Jim Kelly, 28[8])

...unless there is one source that provides all of this information, in which case one source at the end might be appropriate. I don't think the packers.com reference by itself says all of these things, nor does the Fox Sports reference which has occasionally showed up here. Both do say what Favre's own numbers are, but not his rank, nor the numbers of his competitors. There is a 'Farvewatch' reference which does tend to provide information at that level of detail, but it doesn't seem to address playoff statistics...so here we are. Skybunny 15:11, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

I am all about your second example; that is exactly how you should cite sources on Wikipedia. Don't just toss them all in at the end. –King Bee ^{(τ • γ)} 15:24, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Pro football reference has a list of every quarterback to play the game and I've went through them all, I've went through all the quarterbacks and all the ranks are correct, Jow Montana has every on of the playoff records listed, just not the interceptions, they are definatly fact, go to the link that is on the playoff stats (ref number 3) and go down just a little bit, there is a catagory playoffs just a little bit down before you get to 2006 season, and it has all the information I provided when I created the playoff stats section a year ago, the rankings for the playoff stats, but what I was telling Isotope23 is that you have to go to the very bottom of the page to get the actual stat numbers, where on foxsports, it takes you right to the playoff stats and you have an option to click on his regular season stats, Thanks, --BarryBonds800HomeRuns 17:38, 26 July 2007 (UTC)BarryBonds800HomeRunsBarryBonds800HomeRuns 17:38, 26 July 2007 (UTC)--

I would still reiterate that packers.com and nfl.com are more accurate sources than foxsport.com. Even if they are not as easy to navigate, I'd rather have the more correct data source than one that is pretty since we are essentially already presenting the data here and just using the website as a citation. I would also suggest that aggregating data for rankings from a site would constitute originial research. If someone else is not publishing these rankings, we should not be either... even if they are 100% factually accurate.--Isotope23 ^talk 17:44, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

...and I should add I agree with Skybunny, the optimal way to list this would be:

• Second all-time in career playoff interceptions thrown with 26^{Favre cite} (Jim Kelly is the leader with 28^{Kelly cite})--Isotope23 ^talk 17:50, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

The number 3 link we have on there does have the rankings, the nfl.com number 3 link that's on there, just check, it's just a little bit down the page under playoffs, right above 2006 season, check for you self, it's a direct reference, the playoff numbers are further down the page though. Thanks, --BarryBonds800HomeRuns 17:53, 26 July 2007 (UTC)BarryBonds800HomeRunsBarryBonds800HomeRuns 17:53, 26 July 2007 (UTC)--

No, you don't have to spill out a ref to Favre and the other person, because the number 3 cit or reference spills that out, who he's second and third behind, it's all there, just check the number 3 ref that's on there, go down a little, it's under playoffs right above 2006 season, it spills it all out, Thanks, --BarryBonds800HomeRuns 17:57, 26 July 2007 (UTC)BarryBonds800HomeRunsBarryBonds800HomeRuns 17:57, 26 July 2007 (UTC)--

Barry...I found that what the packers.com reference says is somewhere in the middle. For instance...it does talk about playoff touchdowns, and that Montana has more (and even how many). But, what it doesn't say is that Favre is second in playoff interceptions, or that Jim Kelly has 28 of them. I have updated the section appropriately to reflect what packers.com says, and what it doesn't. If you want to re-add ranks or numbers for other pieces, references that go elsewhere will be required. Thanks, Skybunny 18:12, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

I think it looks pretty good and that has elimated an WP:OR because it says exactly what the source material says.--Isotope23 ^talk 18:17, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Go to http://www.profootballhof.com/hof/member.jsp?player_id=112 and click on career highlights and under post season records is your answer on the interceptions, on the pass completions go to Joe montana's profootballhof career highlights, it's there, for the career attemps, go to both Joe Montana's and Dan Marino's profootballhof pages under career highlights, the numbers and ranks are all there under post season records, the numbers are factual, what are you asking for 3 links to each stat, because the numbers are facts and you can look it up with the info I just provided, if the problem is that you question there credibility, will now you have it with the info above, if you want 2 to 3 references to each playoff stat, let me know what you guys are asking for, Thanks --BarryBonds800HomeRuns 18:29, 26 July 2007 (UTC)BarryBonds800HomeRuns--BarryBonds800HomeRuns 18:29, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

I'll see if I can better explain this on your talkpage BarryBonds800HomeRuns.--Isotope23 ^talk 18:32, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

I that case it would go the same for all the records and milestones, like second all time passing yards 57,500, the ref takes us to pfr.com and it says he ranks seconds, but it doesn't say on that page behind Marino at 61,361, you have to click on another page for that info, but the refs still there cause we know it's fact, and then second all time pass attempts at 8,223, the ref takes us to nfl.com to confirm that, but nowhere does it sau second all time there or that Marino is first with 8,358, buts it still there, and why, because it's fact and all profootballreference and profootballhof confirms it, but all that info is not on the reference we provide, well the same goes for this, the numbers are fact and brett's packers page and profootballhof confirms all this, so are we going to tear this whole page up or are we going to let the info stay because it's all fact and not original research, we would have to tear the whole records and milestones section up if you do what your doing with playoff stats section, what's the point it's all fact and I have all the links to prove it, Thanks, --BarryBonds800HomeRuns 18:50, 26 July 2007 (UTC)BarryBonds800HomeRunsBarryBonds800HomeRuns 18:50, 26 July 2007 (UTC)--

Barry -- dead on correct about the passing yards, and you found a legitimate problem. I found a reference which does say what the statement does. Have a look at where the reference goes now. Does it perhaps make more sense what my objection was, now - do you like the new reference better? The point is that Wikipedia isn't about "facts" (and for the record, continuing to harp on "what is fact" is not likely to make friends, because Wikipedia's policies say that "facts" are not the point). It's about what can be verified with references. Have a read over WP:V: The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. "Verifiable" in this context means that any reader should be able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source. Editors should provide a reliable source for quotations and for any material that is challenged or is likely to be challenged, or it may be removed. Skybunny 19:06, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

we would have to tear the whole records and milestones section up if you do what your doing with playoff stats section

That's actually starting to look like a really good idea, if the error you found is representative of what's in the section. I'm putting a tag on the section for peer review. Skybunny 19:10, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Agreed, it would be beneficial to go through this whole section and make sure everything is up to policy.--Isotope23 ^talk 19:13, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

I've started a lynch mob, not my intentions, the page looks great and better than ever, check my 19:30 addition, I added a link to the career intecptions thrown regular and post season and added links to the leaderboards for TDs Attempts and Yards, you were adding the same refs twice Skybunny, the page looks great lets not destroy it, my 19:30 edit fixed what the compaint, and as for the fox sports playoff stats link, I'm going on record now that I'm letting it go and I won't try to add it again, if someone else wants to fine, but I don't think it's very useful and the number 3 ref and profootballreference has the same info, Thanks --BarryBonds800HomeRuns 19:41, 26 July 2007 (UTC)BarryBonds800HomeRunsBarryBonds800HomeRuns 19:41, 26 July 2007 (UTC)--

Could you please explain to me, Barry, why you reverted my changes to the playoff record section with this edit? The number '732' appears nowhere in that page associated with the name Joe Montana, to give only one example. You are continuing to claim things that references aren't saying, and reverted my edit wholesale to do so. I am trying to understand why, and why my edits were reverted. Skybunny 19:46, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Because Profootballhof and Brett Favre's packers page (reference # 3) proves those 2 stats, they list what Montana and Marino playoff numbers and rankings are all-time, it didn't prove the interception list, I had to find a ref for the interceptions, the other two are proven fact, the int wasn't, and now I've found out he's tied for second in that category with terry bradshaw, now that I have a source for that, the other 2 already have sources, only the interceptions didn't, you have to check my talk page where I discussed this with Isotope23, Thanks, --BarryBonds800HomeRuns 19:53, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Okay...except that using only the packers.com reference (which is what your reversion did) has nothing to do with any profootballhof.com reference, and the packers.com reference alone is not sufficient. Asserting on the talk page that "a reference exists at this other location" is not really meeting the burden of proof for keeping something in an article. If there's a reference at profootballhof.com that verifies something on the page, please put it in the article, and another editor can decide if it's reasonable. If it isn't, they'll remove it. If it is, voila! The article's been updated with a good reference.

you have to check my talk page where I discussed this with Isotope23... I'm sorry...it's just that no editor in general is going to know to do that. If I am editing an article, I expect the relevant discussion to edits made to go on on the talk page for that article. Since I didn't see any discussion of why my changes were reverted, I asked here.

the other two are proven fact... I'd like to ask: please refrain from giving reasons for why something belongs in an article as "it is proven fact", or "it's true". The only standard that matters on Wikipedia is whether a fact is properly referenced. I realize that asking this may sound kind of...unreasonable...but telling a fellow editor that something belongs in an article "because it's true" almost always comes off as challenging and will put another editor on the defensive. I'd like to suggest language like "the reference I added should state that". From there, an editor can evaluate whether that's right or not. Best regards, Skybunny 21:42, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

You are not a administrator Skybunny and please don't get upset with or lecture me, administrator Isotope23 took care of it and added the links to profootballhof for marino and montana, so now it's fixed and they are proven fact and Isotope23 has added the refs, I've been very nice and I didn't mean to offend you and I'm sorry if I made a mistake, if I have please advise Isotope23 to explain what I did in regards to responding to you post, but user Isotope23 has added the refs because like I said it's proven fact, we just hadn't added the refs yet, Thanks, --BarryBonds800HomeRuns 21:53, 26 July 2007 (UTC)BarryBonds800HomeRunBarryBonds800HomeRuns 21:53, 26 July 2007 (UTC)--

I've responded at your talkpage.--Isotope23 ^talk 23:53, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

I seriously apologize if any of my remarks have come off as non good faith, that wasn't my intention, but I thought Skybunny was upset with me over something that user Isotope23 already fixed, but I've worked great with Skybunny in the past, and will continue to do so, Thanks, --BarryBonds800HomeRuns 01:38, 27 July 2007 (UTC)BarryBonds800HomeRunsBarryBonds800HomeRuns 01:38, 27 July 2007 (UTC)--

Milestones removed

• Most seasons with 20 or more touchdown passes: 12 (1994-2005)
• Most seasons with 30 or more touchdown passes: 8 (1994-1998, 2001, 2003-2004)

The reference here doesn't explicitly state that 12 & 18 are the records. I've removed these for now with no prejudice against them being added if a good cite is found for this being the record.--Isotope23 ^talk 20:21, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm not done going through the Milestones yet, but I'm concerned that some of them are not explicitly supported by the references; i.e. the numbers are correct, but that fact that that is the "most" of that particular benchmark by anyone in the NFL is not a claim that adequately sourced by the existing cites. In these cases, even if it is true, it should be removed until it is verified.--Isotope23 ^talk 20:30, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

• • Third all-time in career games by a quarterback, with 241(Marino, 242: Tarkenton, 246) removed because the citation there doesn't support this. These would need to be individually cited for the numbers and the standings. The current cite only cites Favre's 241. We need Marino/Tarkenton cites and a leaderboard for this to be added back.--Isotope23 ^talk 20:54, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

• Most seasons with 30 or more touchdown passes: 8 (1994-1998, 2001, 2003-2004) I don't see where the current ref states this... am I missing something?--Isotope23 ^talk 20:58, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Go to the reference and go down to where it says Touchdown producer, it's stated in the second dot, Thanks, --BarryBonds800HomeRuns 21:31, 26 July 2007 (UTC)BarryBonds800HomeRunsBarryBonds800HomeRuns 21:31, 26 July 2007 (UTC)--

I'm telling you the records and milestones are fine, I love what you did to the playoff stats Isotope23, if you want to improve the page, start with the very first line Brett Loronzo Favre was born and correct all the grammar errors on the page, that really needs attention, but my concern is stats and stats only, Thanks, --BarryBonds800HomeRuns 21:42, 26 July 2007 (UTC)BarryBonds800HomeRunsBarryBonds800HomeRuns 21:42, 26 July 2007 (UTC)--

Awards spin off

Similar to the situation with the Peyton Manning and Michael Vick articles, WP:LENGTH and WP:SS discuss what can be done when articles become "long". As there is already a category for this material (Category:Career achievements of sportspeople), it is clear that this has been discussed before and there exists WP:CON supporting the move. If someone would like to discuss why this material should not be spun off, I'm all ears. Juan Miguel Fangio| ►Chat  08:23, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

This article isn't too long. It doesn't need to be split off.++aviper2k7++ 18:44, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, as I said before WP:LENGTH and WP:SS say otherwise. It's not an obligation, but it certainly isn't "inappropriate". I fail to see how an extensive list included in this article helps. Juan Miguel Fangio| ►Chat  18:56, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

The text is 22.7KB, I have no idea where you're getting this. Please check before making false statements.++aviper2k7++ 19:00, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Article size#No need for haste.►Chris Nelson 19:06, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Jmfangio, from the discussion at Talk:Peyton Manning, has said that he has reached a consensus supporting splitting it up. However, he said that his consensus was that a couple other articles had split up, as well. WP:CONSENSUS isn't about doing something just because a couple other articles do, which is what Jmfangio continues to give as his support for having the awards split off. There is no need for them to be somewhere else, and the argument that the article is "too long" doesn't apply here; 22.7 kilobytes isn't what I'd consider long enough to remove a significant portion of the article elsewhere. Ksy92003(talk) 19:34, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

• I gotta tell you guys something, I'm about done with this discussion. Stop attacking me. Either discuss this politely or move on. If you don't have the patience to discuss matters, then this is not the website for you. WP:CON is not simply established by the fact that an article is created. However, WP:LENGTH and WP:SS are results of consensus. Several other articles have been created by several other editors, so clearly, there is consensus. You may not like that, and it is possible that consensus can change, but your guys insistence on "Jmfangio said this" and "Jmfangio said that" is not rubbing me well. I don't care who said what to whom on what date, I care about the content. If you want to keep going down this path, we're going to end up exactly where Chrisjnelson and I are right now. Juan Miguel Fangio| ►Chat  19:39, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Section names

Why are the sections named by years? This is sloppy and not very prose. I've changed this loads of times and nobody has a reason why they should be sorted by years. You can actually tell what the section is going to be talking about and if you name them by years, it could refer to anything and not just his football career.++aviper2k7++ 18:48, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

• I know several people have differences of opinions on this. I for one, do not like the "verbose" section headings some people use in articles. I think they often fail WP:NPOV and are sloppy. Not surprisingly, I did raise this issue with at WT:HEAD yesterday. WP:HEAD doesn't really address this issue (at least as far as I can tell) and it is something that would enhance the WP:MOS. Juan Miguel Fangio| ►Chat  18:58, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Sloppy? It's prose. A date is sloppy! How can you have a section title that is just a date? What does a date tell you? It doesn't tell you anything. You'd have no idea what you'd be reading about. What if I came to the article looking to read on his Super Bowl victory? Do we assume we know what date that was? What about when he first started? The information isn't about dates, it's about what he did during that time.++aviper2k7++ 19:03, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

• It tells you exactly what the content of the section is about. I have seen things in the past (not on this article necessarily) that say "Rise to stardom", etc...etc.. Also, remember that these are level 3 headings not level two. Juan Miguel Fangio| ►Chat  19:10, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

I fail to see your argument. If it's not happening here, why is it wrong everywhere? And a date is just a date. It gives no context. If I was writing an article on my life, I wouldn't put "2002-2007" as a header. I'd put "High School Years". What does a date tell you?++aviper2k7++ 19:13, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Also, I would like to know in this edit what "per WP:HEAD means? Please actually check these things before citing them as your main reasoning.++aviper2k7++ 19:23, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

I fail to see your argument. If it's not happening here, why is it wrong everywhere? And a date is just a date. It gives no context. If I was writing an article on my life, I wouldn't put "2002-2007" as a header. I'd put "High School Years". What does a date tell you?++aviper2k7++ 19:13, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

• I am confused by the "if it's not happening here, why is it wrong everywhere?". Again, we are talking about level 3 headings not level 2 headings, so i think that makes a significant difference. But, I also think it can be problematic at the level 2 section. Early years is certainly acceptable, but "Beginning years in Green Bay" from this version seems fairly problematic... It's a level 3 under the Green Bay Packers section -> that seems fairly redundant. I'm not sure the Beginning yers in green bay is really informative since it's already under the GBP section. It seems to be an issue that has not been addressed at WP:HEAD, so it certainly is worth discussion. If you want to continue to make uncivil statements, you are not going to have an easy time with other editors. I'm not arguing with you, I'm discussing this with you. It's a very interesting point that you have raised and I'm saying it is worth discussing.Juan Miguel Fangio| ►Chat  19:28, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

I think it's rather rude to make false statements in your arguments. I haven't even replaced the information we are discussion, which is what a lot of other editors would have done. Your argument seems to be that it's a problem in some other articles. What makes it wrong here? You never really said why it's problematic here. The level argument doesn't hold much weight, level three headers should be just as informative as level two headers. I think we can all agree that a date isn't informative. The sections in order now would be "Early years", "Super Bowl years", "Post-Super Bowl years", "Final years". Can we agree on this?++aviper2k7++ 19:39, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

You also have to think that if somebody is reading this article in the year 2027, for example. Would "1991-1994," for example, help the reader understand the context of the section? Listing years doesn't help somebody understand something that happened 30 years before the fact. I agree with Aviper2k7 that in the section heading, it has to be clear enough to help the reader know what it's about. "1991-1994" only tells you that it's about his career between 1991 and 1994. But "College career" tells you that it's about his college career, which is much easier to understand the context of the section following. Ksy92003(talk) 19:40, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

• This information is already under a level 2 heading though. This is a very interesting topic and I'm not sure what the consensus is. For me, I would rather know the years or descriptive information that places things in a time line. Take a look at Oakland_raiders#Franchise_history. Aside from the explicit problems (things like The for example), I think the section organization needs to be addressed on a widescale basis. Al Davis coming to as a section title seems very "prosaic" and not very effective. Juan Miguel Fangio| ►Chat  19:46, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't realize that the issue was with Level 3 headings. The Level 2 headings already declare that it's about his Green Bay career, so then the level 3 headings should be the year spans. I apologize; I was under the impression that the issue was about level 2 headings. Ksy92003(talk) 19:49, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

• Thanks for the appology, I promise I'm not against you guys. I think this is a very interesting topic. Personally, I think that Level 2s should be a bit more "open" on bio pages for people (even outside of sports). Franchises/teams/etc... is a whole nother ball game. This is a pretty big issue and i'm surprised that nothing has been done about it on any of the WP:MOS pages. I might have missed something, but I'm pretty sure this is fresh territory. Juan Miguel Fangio| ►Chat  19:52, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Well we are talking about this article. A person is much different from a professional sports organization. Can you agree on the names I listed? We have to agree on something. And what does the level heading matter? Why doesn't a level 3 heading need to be informative?++aviper2k7++ 19:51, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

• As far as I can tell: none of us is under the impression that headings should not be informative. I think the question is What is considered to be an appropriately descriptive heading? Juan Miguel Fangio| ►Chat  19:53, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

You've never explained why a date is informative. It doesn't explain what's in the section or even why it's grouped that way. Why would one section be 1996-1997 and another 1998-2004? If it was listed solely on dates, shouldn't it go in five year increments? Well no, that wouldn't work because it would disrupt the flow of the article.++aviper2k7++ 19:58, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

I think that there are better alternatives as opposed to 5-year increments. I don't know why the sections are split up the way they are now, but I don't really need to know about those for this situation. Years can be helpful, but I suppose that in this case, the level 3 headings should still have some sort of indication as to what the section is about; by that, I mean if the section describes a portion of his career when he struggled, when he was on top of his career, etc. Ksy92003(talk) 20:03, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

• The name of the sections is dependent on the content within. If a player has a number of significant events that take place in a 2 years period, then the section title will reflect that. Similarly, another player may not have enough information to warrant inclusion in a section without adding information for other portions of their career. Thus, a 5 year span would be appropriate. Certain athletes have individual seasons that are of particular interest and that might consitute enough information on its' own. That is really more an issue of section management and section titles. Juan Miguel Fangio| ►Chat  20:05, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

The reason why it's grouped the way it is now is because someone decided it flowed nice together that way (and it did) and then named the section after what he grouped it as. Can we agree on the section names? Can't we do both for now? Are you skirting this?++aviper2k7++ 20:31, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

• I am completely lost. Stop making uncivil statements - nobody is skirting anything here and you guys really need to stop with those comments. I do not want this to end up at WP:ANI because of personal attacks. Juan Miguel Fangio| ►Chat  20:41, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

I see no personal attacks here.►Chris Nelson 20:42, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

You're right, Chris Nelson. Nobody has left a single personal attack here. Aviper2k7 and I are trying to help improve the articcle, and we're trying to discuss it with you, Jmfangio. I don't know why you are taking these statements in an uncivil manner... Ksy92003(talk) 20:45, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

• Okay guys - i'm done discussing. I didn't say you personally attacked me. I said these comments are drifting toward personal attacks. Your edit summaries and your comments are creating a hostile environment. All three of you do the same thing. I'm not going to put up with it anymore. Either discuss the content or move on. Juan Miguel Fangio| ►Chat  20:48, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Just...wow.►Chris Nelson 20:50, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Discuss the content? That's all I've been doing. I haven't reverted or changed it or anything. I'm trying to get an agreement and now you're done discussing this? I assume you agree with my section titles after ignoring them the past four times here, so I'm adding them to the article.++aviper2k7++ 21:53, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

• I don't agree with anything, I'm removing myself from this conversation because you have an inability to discuss things without saying things that are down right uncivil and rude. Juan Miguel Fangio| ►Chat  22:07, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Jmfangio, saying things over and over doesn't make it true. Neither of them have been uncivil or rude at ALL, and saying it over and over isn't going to change that.►Chris Nelson 22:08, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure this current setup for the Green Bay sections works, at least not the Post-Super Bowl career one. Post-Super Bowl career is technically EVERY year since, including the 2005-2007 seasons discussed in the separate section, recent years. I can't say I have any good ideas right now, but I do know this current title just doesn't work given the presence of the section after it. Any ideas?►Chris Nelson 18:34, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Sorry for not replying yet, CJ. I've too much on my plate recently, as I'm certain you're well aware of. Currently, I have one huge issue with the current format: Years after Super Bowl, and Post-Super Bowl seasons never mind; this was edited as I began typing this comment. I, for one, am at a complete loss of thinking of a reasonable, logistic format of labelling these two sections. With the current format, the one that was just changed to, I think that the latter, "Post-Super Bowl seasons", is worded in an unusual way as correlation to the flow of the article, and I think this one should be modified slightly. There's something about its current state that doesn't seem to flow well in the article. Maybe something like "Final seasons" or something to that effect. Ksy92003(talk) 08:02, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Moved sections around

I moved some of the sections around because I believe it flows better and makes more sense the way I have put it. If you don't like it then feel free to rev it back, just please have a good reason for it.
Gonzo fan2007 ^{talk ♦ contribs} 08:01, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

(Comment by banned user)

The problem I had with the article was that all of Brett's records and awards come before his stats. It makes more sense to me that his stats come first to the reader, and then the records that come from those stats come after. The order does not make sense, as every website with his stats always show his career stats first, reference [1]. And saying that something should not be changed because it has been like that for a long time is anti-wikipedia. Wikipedia is based around evolution of an article.
Gonzo fan2007 ^{talk ♦ contribs} 08:50, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

(Comment by banned user)

First and foremost, to say that the outline of an article is the "right way" extraordinarily subjective and could never be proven, it is your pov. Second of all, if you are citing the GB Packers website as your source, and say that we should follow their order, then the wikipedia page would look completely different. If you look at the page, there is very little in common, we would have to greatly change the layout and content to even get close to the gb page. I really don't care, I just thought the layout i did looked and flowed better for a reader. My main point to you is that changing a Wikipedians edits 5 minutes after they edit a page, without discussing or leaving a post on the talk page will make a lot of wikipedians angry, which goes against wikipedia. Next time just leave a message and discuss the problem, don't just revert back to the original, especially when the wikipedian doing the editing is a good member. Hopefully you learn these things.
Gonzo fan2007 ^{talk ♦ contribs} 09:18, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

I say go ahead and try the reorder you were thinking of. I saw it in the history, and it didn't look unreasonable. If nothing else, you're likely to get rational discussion on the talk page from other editors if there are concerns about it. I believe consensus has reached a firm point that User:800 Home Runs's opinion on your edit is no longer relevant. Skybunny 02:54, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Sounds good to me, i'm just now finding out about User:800 Home Runs and that he is banned and all his edits, no matter their merit can be reverted. I just thought it looked better but i guess we can have a real discussion now, hopefully.
Gonzo fan2007 ^{talk ♦ contribs} 04:28, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

(Comment by banned user)

How hard is this to understand? It is no longer a matter of what your opinion is. You are BANNED. Which means that you cannot edit Wikipedia and any edits you do make can automatically be reverted. This is Wikipedia policy, and the community has identified you as a vandalizer and thus has banned you from editing. Getting new account names and then editing the pages is also against wikipedia policy, because YOU are banned, not your account. Please understand that. If you wouldve just discussed this first a couple of days ago on the talk page as wikipedia says we should, this wouldve all been diverted. Please understand that I will revert any edits by YOU on any page.
Gonzo fan2007 ^{talk ♦ contribs} 06:10, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

(Comment by banned user)

It would appear the person who has over 20 sockpuppets on a encyclopedia website just so they can edit one article about a football player is, the person who has got banned on many accounts and has angered many many people, that is what is sad and speaks for itself. The fact that your account is completely new and you just happened to step right into a debate and know all the ins and outs of the said debate gives you away. I truly hope you grow-up and learn understand that wikipedia is based around everyone, not only one. Please get a life or learn how to be productive on this website.
Gonzo fan2007 ^{talk ♦ contribs} 07:32, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Did Sara Aulepp actually sign in as yet another sockpuppet in PackersMania, and sign the wrong name? Snowfire51 07:38, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Haha yeah :-) I sockpuppeted that account too.
Gonzo fan2007 ^{talk ♦ contribs} 07:39, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

More apparent sockpuppetry about whether or not Favre holds the record for touchdown passes, or is a co-leader and should not be given credit for it. It appears to be being reverted by a new group of fresh editors. Snowfire51 04:46, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Should this page be semi-protected?

I think this page should be semi-protected. There has been multiple vandalizations and this whole thing with User:Starwars1955 makes this page an excellent candidate for protection. It would stop all the anonymous users from vandalizing and make anyone who wanted to edit it make an account and wait a couple of days. What do you guys think?
Gonzo fan2007 ^{talk ♦ contribs} 03:06, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

I removed all comments by our community banned user. Since being banned means having no voice on Wikipedia, this seems a more than reasonable thing to do. In this spirit, I might suggest that future edits placed here by them be removed without comment and not responded to in any way. Gonzo_fan2007, did you want to try your article reorder now? If it is undone as it has been in the past, it will be fairly obvious who's doing it anyway. Skybunny 20:05, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Umm it really doesn't matter to me. I just think this page really really needs to be semi-protected for the length of the season. There has been so much vandalism and edits by anonymous users, and with Brett about to break the TD record, the attempts record, and maybe later the yardage record it would make sense to protect this page so that people cannot just come on here and vandalize. I also think a checkuser would help for our favorite editor and maybe a rangeblock if possible. I think if we can do a checkuser, protect the page, and a rangeblock would cut down on the vandalism by an immense amount. I dont know much about requests for the preceding three items, so any help would be great. On the matter with my edits, it doesnt matter to me, if you feel like it you can look back in the history and revert back to my changes, but its no biggie. Thanks for everything.
Gonzo fan2007 ^{talk ♦ contribs} 23:34, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Facts

In the first paragraph, it states: "He became the Packers starting quarterback in the third game of the 1992 NFL season."

In fact, he became the starter in the 4th game (VS Pittsburgh). The 3rd game was VS Cincinnati, a game in which he didn't start. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.169.188.225 (talk) 17:06, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Good point, and, fixed. Skybunny 18:20, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

There is another record

Brett Favre is tied for Most Wins against one team: 22 against the Chicago Bears ( Dan Marino vs. the Indianapolis Colts ) (1981willy 14:25, 2 October 2007 (UTC))