Jump to content

Talk:Peyton Manning/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5

Neutrality

Just POV'ed the article as the author(s) have a clear bias toward Manning to the point where it meanders and calls him "Peyton" several times. IMHO, it needs to be completely revamped to meet Wiki guidelines. Worc63 (talk) 20:11, 3 January 2009 (UTC) the site, #10 is terrible and should not be a site that you can site. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.230.33.86 (talk) 04:38, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Advertising Section

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

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

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

What about the fact that he is a co-owner of three D1 Sports Training facilities in Knoxville, Nashville and Chattanooga. Should that be included?? --TonkaMT (talk) 23:32, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Cooper Manning

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

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

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

1st change

revert 1

revert to change 2

revert 2

revert to change 3

revert 3

revert to change 4

revert 4

revert to change 5

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

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

Full protection

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

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

Resolving disputes

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

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

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

OK, thanks. That was my major problem with this whole deal. The other two edit disputes (CBS vs. PFR, UT vs. Tennessee Football) are minor. Dlong 05:35, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
First, can't we just use both CBS and PFR? And second, I think it should link to Tennessee Football... it's like piping Indianapolis Colts to [i love payton manning iusahfsdfvhjgdcsZCGXHGB dsf c sxhbcujsdabjfhgv ,ansgkjvb sreaqwgeta9PR3E8National Football League; links should be piped to the most specific form possible, which in this case would be linking to Tennessee to Tennessee Football as opposed to University of Tennessee because the football team is more specific than the school. Ksy92003(talk) 05:48, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
that userfied version should not be put on lists until it's made more official. Enigmaman 19:37, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
I have no clue what you are trying to say. Dlong 02:01, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
mainly this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:National_Football_League_first_overall_draft_picks

04:47, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

I'd like to make an edit...

{{editprotected}}

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

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

Awards spin off.

payton Manning all i can say is WHO DAT'''' —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.36.54.210 (talk) 13:45, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  • We are at an impasse; WP:DR explains what needs to be done to get this solved. Let's not add to this discussion as it is not helping; if you would like to explore the DR steps so that this article can be unblocked, I'm more than willing to participate. Juan Miguel Fangio| ►Chat  07:32, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

Cat remove request

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

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

broken records

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

Less Cooper/More Eli

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

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

Charity

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

Retired Number

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


Personal Life

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

I just noticed that someone vandalized the entry. They say his father is "Gaylord Richardson" and I'm not sure about his mother's name. I won't edit it because I don't remember my login right now, but someone should. As far as I know, he isn't married; maybe they're private about it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.173.39.56 (talk) 01:41, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

It is widely known amongst the Indianapolis Psychiatrist Association (IPA) that Peyton Manning cheats on his wife. He receives fellatio but does not reciprocate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sigdigz (talk • contribs) 03:56, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Reference to 100 wins as a starter

According to the Indianapolis Colts official website, Peyton Manning had 92 wins as a starter going into the 2007 season. With the Colts 6-0 start, two more wins and he'll become just the 10th player in NFL history to win 100 games as a starter. I suggest referencing the wiki page listing the 100 win quarterback club.

Indianapolis Colts official site (2007 season notes):

http://www.colts.com/sub.cfm?page=article7&news_id=7a1e67a4-7063-455b-9402-8fb0fefe8635

Wikipedia page listing QB's with 100+ wins as a starter:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Most_wins_by_a_starting_quarterback_%28NFL%29

I think it should be referenced. If not now, it should at least be referenced when it happens. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Stylteralmaldo (talk • contribs) 21:15, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Pace

Statistically, Peyton is far ahead of other QBs as far as points/game and yards/game. He is near the top for %pass completions. As is recognized, if his career/health stays on track, he will own most of the major QB records (yards, TDs, TD-INT differential, completions).--Billymac00 17:07, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Lock

This entry needs to be locked for vandalism concerns. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 136.165.51.144 (talk) 16:30, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

To-do List

This article has made some headway since the last time I made one of these lists (see the archive), but it still needs some work. Here is what I see:

  • Information on Manning's freshman season in high school is needed. We don't need much, but a sentence or two would be nice.
  • Considering that his performance at UT has made him legendary in Knoxville, the section on his college career needs to be expanded.
  • More information on the 1998 - 2002 seasons is needed. The paragraph on the 2003 is about the length I think necessary (perhaps a bit short)
  • The (now) section on the 2004 season is too short considering the number of records Manning broke during that season.
  • The section on the current season is too long. At the end of the season, I plan to take care of this, so I'm going to leave it alone for now. On the off chance that the Colts repeat, the section length will be more or less appropriate and just some reorganization will be needed.
  • Each section (or paragraph) dealing with each season should provide a sentence or two detailing his performance in that year's Pro Bowl.
  • A short section noting his position on the all-time charts of the major quarterback records (career completions, career yards, career TDs, etc.) is appropriate considering that he is on pace to break all of these records.
  • A mention on the book Manning wrote with his father is needed, although I am not sure where this would go. An entire section is not appropriate.

Any help with these would be appreciated. I plan to (slowly) work on these items and any other items others think need dealing with. Dlong (talk) 00:56, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Peyton being drafted

Peyton was not drafted in first overall in the NFL dratf he was second to Ryan Leaf. 

  Jmonty1029 (talk) 22:49, 6 January 2008 (UTC)Jmonty1029
No, he was taken first:

Dlong (talk) 23:13, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

GA Review: On Hold

I have reviewed this article according to the requirements of the GA criteria and have placed the article on hold until the following issues are addressed. As you address each issue, either strike through the statement/place a check mark next to the issue and state how you addressed it. If you disagree with any of the issues I raised, state your rationale for disagreeing after the issue.

  1. Expand the lead more to better summarize the article. It should touch on all of the various sections within the article and should probably be four paragraphs long. For guidelines, see WP:LEAD.
  2. "...a game in which Manning passed for 408 yards and 4 touchdowns;[26] He was named the game's MVP." "He" shouldn't be capitalized since a semicolon is being used.
  3. "...but for the third time in his career, Manning fell to Florida, 33-20.[31]." Remove the period after the inline citation. Fix any other occurrences throughout the article.
  4. "In 2005, Tennessee retired Manning's number (#16),[39] making him only the 3rd Tennessee player to have his number retired while still living. One of the streets leading to Neyland Stadium has been re-named Peyton Manning Pass." Single and two-sentence paragraphs shouldn't stand alone. Either expand on it or incorporate it into another paragraph. Fix any other occurrences throughout the article.
  5. "...and Manning was disciplined and required to apologize in writing to Naughright. [40]" Remove the space between the inline citation and the punctuation. Fix any other occurrences throughout the article.
  6. Remove the large space between the "Scandal" section and "Professional career".
  7. Many of the two-column lists are lopsided, try to balance them out more so it doesn't take up so much space. Also is there a reasons "College awards" isn't using the two column setup?
  8. "Manning is currently on pace to break the career records in every major statistical category for a quarterback[158]," The inline citation should go directly after the punctuation. Fix any other occurrences throughout the article.
  9. "on March 24, 2007, his 31st birthday." Wikilink full dates; there is one more in the same paragraph. In the same paragraph Saturday Night Live should be italicized.
  10. Do you have any more information about his personal life to include?
  11. Consider moving all of his statistics and awards to the end of the article. Right now where it is situated it breaks off the last few sections of the article and doesn't flow too well.
  12. Image:Peyton Manning in suit.jpg, on my computer display this is causing the references to be situation in two narrow columns since the image is next to them. Consider moving the image up or reducing it if it is doing the same to your displays.
  13. For the infobox, consider using the other Pro Bowl image or him in the suit as they are both higher quality and more centered on him.

These should be easy to fix and shouldn't take too long. I have left the article on hold for seven days for the issues to be addressed. If they are fixed in this time, I will pass the article. If not, the article will be failed and can be renominated at WP:GAN. If you have any questions or when you are done, let me know on my talk page and I'll get back to you as soon as I can. Happy editing! --Nehrams2020 (talk) 01:43, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

You seriously couldn't change "He" to "he" by yourself? I stopped reading there... really, just withdraw this from GA consideration. People like Nehrams2020 have made the process a joke. --W.marsh 02:00, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
I'm glad to make GAs so funny, I like to make things more entertaining. I didn't make the changes myself, because by pointing out small issues like this will allow editors to catch themselves in the future and prevent the same mistakes from being made again for other articles. I am not punishing anybody for a few mistakes, but showed that there were things that the editors overlooked when nominating. There is no reason that the article can't be the best it can be to be passed. Again, let me know when the issue are addressed and happy editing! --Nehrams2020 (talk) 07:29, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
I'm seriously starting to think you're intentionally making a farce of the GA process. I really encourage Dlong to never send this or anything else back to GA. --W.marsh 13:44, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
Well, joke or not, I've addressed all the points listed here, as well as several others I found on my own. Dlong (talk) 20:27, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
Don't worry, there are no jokes being told here, and good job on addressing most of the issues. There are just a few more things, and I struck through the ones that are completed. There are a few more instances of the single sentence paragraphs throughout the article and the columns still need to be fixed a bit for the awards (the {{col-break}} should be situated to where the two columns are equal in length). Once those are addressed, I see no reason not to pass the article. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 22:16, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
There are no more single sentence paragraphs and the columns are as even as they are ever going to get. Dlong (talk) 23:02, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

GA passed

Good job on addressing the above issues so quickly. I have passed this article according to the requirements of the GA criteria. By the way, the same image is being used in the infobox as in the "2005 season" section, so you may want to readd the prior one that was in the infobox to the "2005 season" section. I attempted to fix the columns to be more balanced, but if they look incorrect on your monitor, feel free to revert. Continue to improve the article, making sure that all new information is properly sourced. Hopefully the peer review assists in improving the article further, and I'd recommend getting a couple of outside editors to give it a copyedit and head off to WP:FAC.

Also, to anyone that is reading this review, please consider reviewing an article or two at WP:GAN to help with the large backlog. Instructions can be found here. Each new reviewer that helps to review articles will help to reduce the time that articles wait to be reviewed. Keep up the good work, and I hope that you continue to bring articles up to Good Article status. If anyone disagrees with this review, an alternate opinion can be sought at Good article reassessment. If you have any further questions about this review, let me know on my talk page and I'll get back to you as soon as I can. I have updated the article history to reflect this review. Happy editing! --Nehrams2020 (talk) 23:40, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

I thought he was seen with a girl named chelsi but idk if there going out? but it could just be a roomer —Preceding unsigned comment added by Iluvbk44 (talk • contribs) 03:04, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Removing Advertising Quotes

I've tried removing the advertising quotes twice but had them reverted. The admin who rv them argued that they establish who he is and the sponsors he represents. Based on that argument, no one who has read to that point needs reminded he's a football player and represents those sponsors. Further, the ONLY hilighted quotes in the entire article are quotes he speaks in ads and didn't write himself - ad writers did. I'm trying to maintain proper standards. From his (user:W.marsh) edit history, people sure seem to make changes to Peyton Manning that he don't seem to agree with and reverts.--Wikifier (talk) 01:02, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

I'll have to agree with W.marsh here; the quotes (or at least the "laser rocket arm" one; the other can probably go) have become well-known in popular culture. I'm really not sure what your argument is here. I agree that he probably didn't right them (although I do not know this for a fact); however, he did say them, and that is what we are saying when we list them as quotes. As for "Based on that argument, no one who has read to that point needs reminded he's a football player and represents those sponsors.", I honestly can't decipher any meaning from that sentence, although maybe that's just because I'm tired. Dlong (talk) 01:17, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
I guess the point is that the only quotes we have are ones that were probably written for him by advertisers. But Manning doesn't have any interesting or well-known quotes except ones he's spoken in ads... that's just the nature of the marketable athlete nowadays... speaking your mind means a lot less endorsement deals. Any other quotes we could provide from him would be pretty boring. At any rate, saying that Manning didn't say write these lines is technically original research... although feel free to point out a source saying that. Yeah the way we have the article set up now emphasizes his ad appearances, but is that really unbalanced? He's known for playing football and doing ads. That's all there is to his career so far.--W.marsh 01:36, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
Okay except maybe the "idiot kicker" line :-) Dlong maybe we should cover that incident... it got a lot of media coverage and still comes up every once in a while. --W.marsh 01:39, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
Fine, but why the need to hilight them so large? If he doesn't have any notable quotes of his own, then that is the reality of who he is, not who he is in the commercials. He's lacking colorful quotes of his own, so let's highlight two quotes from commercials that don't really represent him? And no, they don't represent him - I don't think he actually dons a mustache and refers to himself as having a rocket arm, and I don't think he actually has a fantasy team upon which is an accountant. By including these funny, colorful quotes you are making someone, whom you admit doesn't have any of his own, into someone they're not. If not removed, they should at least be minimized.--Wikifier (talk) 18:02, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Career awards and records section needs to be shortened

It goes into way too much trivial detail. Buc (talk) 07:50, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

I completely disagree. Every award listed is a major award. You'll notice that All-District, All-Region, All-State, etc. have been left out under high school awards, with only the only state-wide MVP award listed being the Class 2A MVP. Everything else under there is a major national award. Similarly, the college awards listed are all major national awards or all-conference awards. And I really can't imagine you actually thinking any of the NFL awards listed are trivial. Regarding the records, you should notice that no high school records have been listed, as those truly are trivial. For the college and professional records, only the records that the University of Tennessee and the Indianapolis Colts thought worthy of displaying on their website have been listed. This section could have been made far longer, but truly trivial details have been left out.
You'll also have to realize that you are the first person to complain about this. While this doesn't mean you're necessarily wrong, all the people who have looked at it (including the people who reviewed it for GA and FA status, as well as W. marsh who made major contributions to this article before leaving) did not think it trivial.
I'm going to also have to ask you what your purpose is in coming to this article. Based on your previous edits, it appears that you want to shorten the article but have yet to really explain why you want to do so. Although the source of the article is over 85 KB, the actual article text with the reference tags removed is only 33 KB, well within WP:SIZE guidelines. Dlong (talk) 14:44, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
Exactly. Every accomplishment is a major award. RC-0722 communicator/kills 14:46, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
I agree, the records get repeated too many times. Something that's a NFL record does not need to be repeated for the Colts franchise records, especially something like consecutive starts at QB. It is better to have a NFL record than a franchise record. What should be there is that he has played the most consecutive games in Colts history, a franchise record that actually is important and is missing from the list. Smk42 (talk) 00:17 19 July 2008 —Preceding comment was added at 04:18, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

gg

But —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.100.95.82 (talk) 17:53, 13 October 2008 (UTC)


Commercials

How many commercials has Peyton Manning been in? This has been controversial outside of Wikipedia, but I think it's information pertinent to the article and in the interest of the readers of this article and elsewhere. Quod erat demonstrandum 3.14159 (talk) 05:26, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

How come?

There is no mention of his High School career, execpt in the awards section? RF23 (talk) 20:28, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Quarterbacks with 400+ passing yards in postseason games?

Ought there be a separate section on his 400+ passing yard games in the post-season? I think not. Mentioning the accomplishment within the article is one thing, but giving it's own section seems like a stretch to me. It's not like this is a well-known fact about Peyton Manning. Stylteralmaldo (talk) 00:37, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

I took it out. It's already listed under Playoff Records, which is all there needs to be about it. --Smk42 (talk) 05:58, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Edit Request

{{editsemiprotected}}

In section #1 it states that Peyton Manning is "One of only two three-time NFL MVPs". But in fact there have been 4 players to achieve this. See the NFL MVP page for verification. NFL_MVP

Redd14 (talk) 17:24, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Question: Welcome and thanks for wanting to improve the accuracy of this article. I changed your ref to a wikilink for convenience. Wikipedia can't reference itself, so I tried looking at some of the references for NFL MVP. Some of those suggest that the AP NFL MVP started in '61. Prior to that there was another award called the Player of the Year (POY). The NFL MVP article combines those, which may be reasonable, but I'm having a hard time finding anything reliable about the history. I'll look some more, but do you have a reference that clearly says the MVP was running prior to '61? Thanks, Celestra (talk) 05:05, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Edit Request

Someone needs to change the part at the beginning where it says "2006 Super Bowl," because, first of all, it's Super Bowl XLI, and second of all, it was in 2007. Also where it lists the seasons, please list the 2 years the season covered (ex. 2006-2007), otherwise it can cause confusion. Thanks. Some one needs to fix eli is his yonger bro —Preceding unsigned comment added by Greenough1 (talk • contribs) 15:26, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

2009 section

This section is merely stats of every weak I dont think it should be like that it should be like other sections not merely stats The Movie Master 1 (talk) 01:09, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

It's more about milestones & records than just the stats for the game. This is probably the most historic season of his career at this point. Doing it like that gives it structure. I don't look at many of the other QB pages on here, but I know the 2009 season on Drew Brees' page is a complete mess. Would you rather see something like that? A huge collection of small paragraphs that all start out the same, random capitalization, unnecessary information, etc. I would rather see something like this become standard, at least for the game's top QBs that are doing historic things week to week. It's only a 16 game season. --Smk42 (talk) 03:18, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Right now the recent year sections are glaringly longer than past seasons where he also set records, won MVP awards and even won a superbowl... this is a pretty obvious slanting toward recent events. This should be an overview of his career, not a week-by-week summary with no trivia left unmentioned. All that stuff was pruned when this became a good article, but it's crept back in for recent years and would almost certainly fail a good article review if it isn't pruned again. --Sancho Mandoval (talk) 04:23, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

It's basically the same length and same info as the 2008 season before it, just with a different format that I think is easier to read. If you went back and did the same thing for each season, I still think 2009 would come out longer just because he's never had a season like this before. He's never had this type of winning streak before, this many 300 yard passing games, this many comeback wins, a MVP, All Pro, and all the other times he's hit some milestone this season. And we don't know how it'll finish yet. If they win the SB then this could be looked at as his most significant season. I read it last week and didn't see much you could take out. I read it again this morning and again I see just a few sentences that won't matter much in the future (things like being 3rd in completions or what have you). --Smk42 (talk) 15:07, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

The 2008 season section also has the same recentism issues... both sections should be roughly the same size as his previous seasons in which he won MVP. The 2006 season section, in which he was superbowl MVP, contains about 300 words, the 2009 season, which isn't even over yet, contains over 1,200 words. The 2009 season isn't more important, it might be as important, but even if Manning wins another SB MVP it won't be 4 times as important as the first time he did it. The only thing the 2009 season is more of, really, is more recent... classic recentism problems, common to many sports articles. I am confident that if I took this elsewhere, such as Good Article Review, people would agree with me... I don't want to do that though. --Sancho Mandoval (talk) 18:39, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

You're assuming the 2006 section is actually well written. It's not. How can anyone write a recap of that season and fail to mention his opening game against his brother Eli, the fact that he had to deal with the worst run defense to ever make the playoffs all year, the record breaking job on 3rd down he did (mentioned earlier on the page), and finally his rollercoaster postseason performance in better detail than just the score of the games? That can easily get up to over 1000 words in no time. When you have a record breaking career, the farther it goes along the more history there is to talk about, hence the growth of the sections for seasons. Something he did in week 3 of his second or third season probably isn't as significant as something he may have done in his 11th or 12th season. Who cares about Good Article Review? --Smk42 (talk) 19:14, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

I mean come on, even ELI Manning's 2006 season section is longer than his brother's and mentions the Manning Bowl from week 1. I'm fixing that up. --Smk42 (talk) 19:25, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

This 2009 section is a mess. It should be summarized. KyuuA4 (Talk:キュウ) 21:59, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

And now it's really a mess. Who's going to read a massive 17 line block of text like that? You can barely differentiate which game he's talking about. It clearly states "This section is in a list format that may be better presented using prose", not that it would be better presented. Just may be. And in this case, clearly it is not better in prose. The whole point of the game-by-game format is to give this thing a style and structure that's easy to read, which it accomplishes. Gets rid of these redundant little paragraphs that start "On [Month, Day]...against the [Team]". There was no reason to change it, especially not by just throwing everything into one massive block. Smk42 (talk) 21:11, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Edit Request

Mannings updated passer rating after the 2009 season is 96.04 putting him aheard of Tony Romo and Philip Rivers, please adjust. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.148.50.110 (talk) 22:41, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

No it's not. It's exactly what it should be. --Smk42 (talk) 03:19, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Position on passing statistics leaderboards

The article states that "Manning is currently on pace to break the career records in every major statistical category for a quarterback, including most career passing touchdowns, most career completions, and most career passing yards.[222]".

Favre (the leader many categories) is still playing at a fairly high level (as shown by his stats available from nfl.com). Even if Favre stopped playing after this year (and we all know how that goes by now), Manning would have to play at the top of his game for at least five to seven years more to break Favre's current career records. Maybe he will, and maybe he won't...but I'm not sure that I'm willing to take the Indy Star's (the cited source), word for it, which is now almost three years old and maybe not as relevant (or accurate) today as it might have been then.

Uncledrinky —Preceding unsigned comment added by Uncledrinky (talk • contribs) 18:09, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

That Indy Star site is constantly updated to reflect the current projections. After today, Favre should just hang his head and retire for good. Manning would only need 5-6 Manning type years to be ahead of him in everything. The schedule may even be increased to 18-20 games which would just make it easier for him to do it. --Smk42 (talk) 04:51, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Speaking of hanging one's head... Uncledrinky (talk) 01:16, 11 February 2010 (UTC)uncledrinky

Again, I do not think that it can be factually stated that "Manning is one pace to break the career records in every major statistical category for a quarterback". As I said, even if Favre should retire, it would take five to seven years of Manning playing at peak performance (including when he will be on the downside of his career age-wise (approaching and over 40). I do not see how this statement can be included and be considered impartial. Something along the lines of Manning being in a position to break records rather than "on pace"...At the pace he "gained" this year, he actually fell backwards in some categories.

Uncledrinky (talk) 16:43, 25 January 2010 (UTC)Uncledrinky

Mathematically he is on pace to break them. What else matters than that? He didn't fall backwards in anything. He had more attempts, completions, yards and wins than Favre did, and the same number of TD passes.--Smk42 (talk) 14:41, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Ok, let's see...according to the NFL, Manning has 6,531 pass attempts, 4,232 pass completions, 50,128 passing yards, and 366 touchdowns. The current leader, Favre, has 9,811 pass attempts, 6,083 pass completions, 69,329 passing yards, and 497 touchdowns. This means Manning has to gain 3,280 pass attempts, 1,851 pass completions, 19,201 passing yards, and 131 touchdowns to catch the current leader (assuming the current leader stops right now (which with Favre who knows when he will actually stop playing).

Looking at the stats accrued by Manning over the past ten years or so, he is averaging roughly 540 pass attempts, 350 pass completions, 4,100 passing yards, and 30 touchdowns a season (I rounded a bit but I'm probably pretty close). That would mean that Manning would have to play between 4.5 and 6+ years with no appreciable drop off at all (and assuming Favre never plays another down) to become the leader in those stats. Should Favre continue playing, let's compare this current year to guide us: This year Manning had 40 more attempts, 30 more completions, 298 more passing yards, and broke even on touchdowns. At that pace, Manning would need 64 or so years to catch Favre in yards alone. Of course that's silly, but my point is, there is no way that one can unequivocally state that Manning IS on pace to break all Favre's current records. He very well may, but I don't think anyone acting impartially can say that he is 'on pace' to break the records...given the expected playing lifespan of a player. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Uncledrinky (talk • contribs) 19:57, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Manning has never set an endpoint to his playing career. So he could play 16 years, he could play 18 or he may even play 20. No one really knows for sure. He does a great job of avoiding injury so he should be able to last longer than your average QB. All that matters is that he's mathematically on pace to break the records, or at least the ones that matter (TDs, yards, wins, completions; you don't shoot for attempts and INTs as records). It's not like he has to play past 40 to be on pace. --Smk42 (talk) 02:16, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

I merely mentioned attempts as you spoke of it earlier (Manning breaking the record). I still do not see how Manning is 'on pace' to break the records...At least until either Favre (the current leader) DOES actually retire and/or Manning is consistently gaining on the current leader stats for a number of years. That isn't the case. And yes, right now he would have to play at or near 40 at a high level to break the current records...and that is assuming the current leader stops playing. Manning is 33 (34 in 2 months, well before the next season). If (and this is a big if), Favre stops playing and Manning shows no drop off at all (possibly a bigger if), Manning would be at least 38.5 years of age to take the lead in some categories and 40.5 years of age to take the lead in others. Again, I believe that saying he may break the records is fine, but saying that he is 'on pace' to break the records cannot be stated as impartial fact. ~Uncledrinky —Preceding unsigned comment added by Uncledrinky (talk • contribs) 15:56, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Take his career numbers and divide them by 12. Multiply those numbers by 17 and you get 9252 attempts, 5995 completions, 71,014 yards, 518 TDs. So before 5 full seasons he would already pass Favre in yards and TDs. He would need a few games of a 6th season (18th overall) to get the completions and probably into a 7th for attempts (but who cares about attempts anyway?). He'd also need 4-5 seasons to pass him in wins. Obviously how long Favre continues to play is very important here, but right now Manning is still on pace to break the records.--Smk42 (talk) 00:59, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

You said the exact same thing I did, yet somehow managed to come to a different conclusion (5 to 6 seasons of a high level of play which would leave him playing until 38.5 years of age to 40 years of age). You have also conceded that this is all dependent on Favre retiring...and there lies the rub...One cannot state that Manning is on pace to break the records unless at least one of the following is true: 1) The leader is no longer playing. As of right now that isn't the case. Every year Favre continues to play, Manning at best gains a fairly insignificant sum compared to the distance he has to cover. 2) The leader is still playing yet Manning is gaining ground at a rapid clip. For example, if Mark Brunell was the leader, then a case could be made that since Manning is gaining 4,000 yards a year he is statistically on pace to break the passing yardage record. That isn't the case here. 3) Manning was five years younger than he currently is. Remember, Favre is somewhat of an anomaly as very few quarterbacks have lasted as long as 40 years (Brad johnson...Len Dawson...maybe a handful of others and none of them had seasons worth mentioning). Certainly Manning has shown durability (check me on this, but I think he's started something like 192 regular season games...second only to Favre), but again here's the problem...Manning has shown he has the potential to play unhurt until 40, however Favre has played unhurt until 40. Again, I reiterate...I believe that a statement that Manning may break all passing records is certainly warranted. That he is currently on pace...Not unless one of the three previous conditions come in to play, and one of those (Manning getting five years younger) isn't possible. Uncledrinky (talk) 01:14, 11 February 2010 (UTC)Uncledrinky

Y'all are making this way too complicated. If he's got higher totals than Favre did at his age, he's on pace to break the records. Real simple. Why does the first line have the qualifier "'statistically' one of the best quarterbacks"? It would flow smoother and be just as accurate with that removed. --Tricericon

I think it is time to remove this claim as Manning's health has clearly taken a turn for the worse and even the original site maintaining this claim has since taken it down. - unkldrinky

question

at what point do we create a List of NFL records held by Peyton Manning article? (similar to the List of NFL records held by Jerry Rice article) it would trim the page size almost in half.RF23 (talk) 23:23, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Toby Jugs

I'm not an expert on Peyton Manning or Toby Jugs, but somehow I doubt he is a great collector of them, as stated at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jug_%28container%29#Toby_Jug

Any other opinions? --Rsm77 (talk) 07:32, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Sounds awfully like vandalism to me. Uncited, no google hits if you exclude sites that mindlessly parrot Wikipedia. I'll remove it. Adrian J. Hunter(talk•contribs) 13:46, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Error in number of pro bowls mentioned

It states in the article that Peyton is a 9x pro-bowler. The years listed (1999-2000, 2002-2009) are correct, but they add up to 10 years, not 9. Peyton is actually a 10x pro-bowler currently. I have no clue how to fix this. I was hoping somehow else here could. Jbooth11 (talk) 05:45, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Edit Request

{{Edit semi-protected}} Sam Bradford broke Peyton Manning's rookie record for pass completions December 26, 2010. Should be removed soon.

You don't just remove the record (see any retired player or someone like Brett Favre's page). It will be noted in parenthesis that Bradford surpassed it in 2010, along with any other records (probably just attempts) he sets.Smk42 (talk) 03:40, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Shouldn't the Career NFL statistics infobox be updated to reflect 2011 stats even though he didn't play? Jitsuman (talk) 10:29, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

"Every" Major Statistical Category should be changed to "MOST Major Statistical Categories"

It states in his accomplishments that he is on pace to break every major career statistical category for quarterbacks, while this may be true for career touchdowns, yards and completions, he Is NOT on pace to break the record for career passing completion rate or career passer rating.

Those are rate statistics. You're never really "on pace" to break a rate stat since anyone that hits the 1500 attempt mark could pass you up. I would think most people would loook at that sentence and think about yards, completions, TDs, attempts, wins, etc., which is exactly what he's on pace to break. It's fine as is.Smk42 (talk) 06:25, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Playing Style section?

Would someone who's knowledgeable enough be willing to write a "Playing Style" section for this article? I always love reading those in other articles about athletes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.126.230.91 (talk) 13:15, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

NFL career statistics

NFL career statistics All statistics from Pro Football Reference,[42] CBS Sportsline,[255] and ESPN[256]

Naughright Incident

That's a part of his Life! You don't have to glorify him like a god!! http://www.usatoday.com/sports/columnist/brennan/2003-11-06-brennan_x.htm — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.193.133.161 (talk) 10:15, 6 February 2012 (UTC)


This looks like a Ad for these sites arent just the reference Numbers the only thing needed there? someone should change that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.2.252.159 (talk) 11:52, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Peyton_Manning/Archive_2&oldid=1136243273"