User talk:Lizard the Wizard/Archive 2

at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject College Basketball#Tables which you input would be appreciated.UCO2009bluejay (talk) 23:00, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The article

@Schik8337: The agreed upon stats leaders are passing yards, passing TDs, rushing yards, rushing TDs, receiving yards, receiving TDs, sacks, and interceptions. Everything acceptable as highlights can be found at Wikipedia:WikiProject National Football League/Player pages format#Highlights to include. Lizard (talk) 04:02, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Who agrees on that? That's ridiculous and needs to be updated to include other stats every NFL fan knows of, such as passer rating. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Schik8337 (talk • contribs) 04:11, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:WikiProject National Football League decides it. The purpose of the infobox isn't to stuff it with every stat possible. We used to do that, and they became longer than the actual articles in some cases. Lizard (talk) 04:15, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[1]. WikiOriginal-9 (talk) 02:17, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I created the

WP:THISISALIST shortcut just for this. Lizard (talk) 02:20, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

Maybe you can add it to the shortcuts box on the page. Also, how is that an official survey and they don't know about talkref? lol. WikiOriginal-9 (talk) 02:23, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure why footnotes were even necessary. Just put it in the prose in parentheses or something. Lizard (talk) 02:34, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone who does anything good or bad in a playoff game should just have their page auto-protected, lol. WikiOriginal-9 (talk) 01:47, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Preemptive protection has been proposed time and time and time again, and it always gets shot down. Lizard (talk) 01:49, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yh, I was just joking around, not sure we should actually do that. And we always end up reverting it all anyway. What we really needed to worry about was the 50 one sentence paragraphs in the Crosby article, lol. WikiOriginal-9 (talk) 01:53, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Should we create an NFL Offensive Player of the Year article with different selectors like the current NFL MVP one is? If we're including PFWA MVP in the infobox, OPOTY might be notable too. WikiOriginal-9 (talk) 02:49, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I'm not sure why it doesn't already exist. All the selectors on

NFL Defensive Player of the Year must also pick offensive POYs. I won't be the one to do it though. Lizard (talk) 02:51, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

Indeed. WikiOriginal-9 (talk) 03:09, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@

WP:CONCEPTDAB would be more appropriate, and just create a separate page for Pro Football Writers Association NFL Offensive Player of the Year Award. Lizard (talk) 20:54, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

That might be a good idea. Also, do you think all of the awards on the

National Football League Defensive Player of the Year Award page are notable enough for their own articles. If we did a conceptdab, would we just not have any info on the less notable ones? WikiOriginal-9 (talk) 21:06, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

Yes. Lizard (talk) 22:44, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry I missed your message; I've been getting busy with real-life work and this slipped through the cracks. I will attempt to review the article sometime next week, but can't make any promises since I'm going to have less editing time the next few months. This is certainly one that I'd be interested in, if I can find the time. Giants2008 (Talk) 19:19, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I've found time to read the article and am glad I did. It's a really great effort and I enjoyed it. There are a couple of small issues I found that should be easy to fix. First, the bit about him appearing on four SI covers (from where the photo is) is repeated, showing up in the career summary and the Legacy section; you could take that sentence out of the career section. Second, his financial services company and the first note (about the Colts) could use cites. Other than those minor things, this is quite good. If you want another opinion. try asking Sarastro1 for a review as well, as he is an FAC coordinator and probably the best writer we have in the sports field. He'll take a deep look at the article and shake out whatever faults remain. The FAC community has been encouraging first-time nominators to seek "mentors", and I can't think of anyone better than Sarastro for a sports bio. Giants2008 (Talk) 01:50, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Giants2008: That's interesting, only 15%? I can see how that can be discouraging. I actually consider Tittle's to be my second best article behind Billy Cannon. I'm also quite high on Steve Van Buren's which Wizardman GA reviewed and said he'd consider supporting if I put it up for FA. So that's three with a 15% chance each, gotta like those odds. Lizard (talk) 08:15, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think Giants is being a little too kind here, but drop me a note if you want me to look at anything! Sarastro1 (talk) 19:40, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps my rooting interests got a little in the way. If you want this to become featured, the best advice I can give is to encourage Sarastro to read through it. While it may take a while for him to get through it, the results will be worth it. I speak from experience, as the two FAs I wrote were both reviewed by him. In particular, he will be better at spotting football jargon than I am (that's often a problem for sports articles at FAC). Giants2008 (Talk) 23:23, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think he was talking about the compliments towards himself when saying "Giants is being a little too kind here" and not the actual article. (talk page stalker) WikiOriginal-9 (talk) 23:29, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've started hacking at Billy Cannon now, feel free to revert anything I mess up, and left a few comments on the talk page. I just noticed this above, and yes, I was not referring to the article! Giants flatters me a little, but I'll do what I can. Sarastro1 (talk) 22:20, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

List of words in English with tripled letters is an obvious candidate for AfD, but I'm not sure which policies to cite as violations. I assume "all policies" would be too vague? - BilCat (talk) 18:07, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@

WP:LISTN if there aren't any sources discussing the list itself. Although I've found that people tend to completely ignore that guideline in deletion discussions. Interestingly, the OED states that there are no words like this in English. Lizard (talk) 18:13, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

@BilCat: Lo, it's been deleted. Lizard (talk) 01:37, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Instead of the current text that is constantly being changed: For his alleged involvement in the highly publicized Deflategate football tampering scandal, Brady was suspended for the first four games of the 2016 NFL season.

Maybe something like: Brady was suspended four games after the Wells report concluded that it was "more probable than not" that Brady "was at least generally aware" of the deflation of footballs before the AFC Championship Game against the Indianapolis Colts in 2015, see Deflategate. Jerry Stockton (talk) 05:24, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Jerry Stockton: Might as well wait for the RfC on the talk page to conclude. Being verbose runs the risk of us being accused of lending it undue weight relative to the rest of the lead, while being succinct will probably always cause bickering over exactly what words to use. The whole lead needs a rewrite; I'll probably take a swing at it once the season is over and the dust has settled. Lizard (talk) 06:04, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please look at the Los Angeles Bulldogs Wikipedia page. It includes info and references that prove they were the first team to play in Los Angeles and on the West Coast as a whole. The Los Angeles Dons were not the first as stated in their Wikipedia page. Thanks for your help. 12.7.138.224 (talk) 00:31, 31 January 2017 (UTC)Mark R.[reply]

Every source cited in the Bulldogs' article is a dead link, but it looks like all but one of them are by the same person. The PFRA are typically good with their research, but the LA Times is viewed as one of the US's newspapers of record, so naturally they're held in high regard. Perhaps a compromise of some sort is in order. Lizard (talk) 00:43, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Lol, I don't think there would be a clear succession there. What about the third-string benchwarmers who don't end up on another team after the Super Bowl. Don't they retire as champions too? (Nick Kasa) WikiOriginal-9 (talk) 21:12, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Check that editor's talk page. He's literally been doing stuff like this for years. Lizard (talk) 21:13, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I just assessed about 1,060 articles in one day. Where's my barnstar? lol WikiOriginal-9 (talk) 04:55, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wait, those are the only unassessed WP:NFL articles left? Lizard (talk) 07:40, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yh, the cat had like 1,060 or something like 10 hours ago. WikiOriginal-9 (talk) 07:44, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Time to knock out the 19,000 articles with unknown importance. Lizard (talk) 07:45, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yh, that might take awhile lol. We never came to consensus on the importance, remember? So if someone did start rating those, they might end up getting changed anyway. WikiOriginal-9 (talk) 07:54, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Easy: set all unassessed importance articles to low importance. If they were deemed "important" they would be assessed as such by now. Lizard (talk) 07:55, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That is actually a worthwhile idea and I think a similar idea has crossed my mind before but would this actually get bot-approved. I guess I could get AWB and do it myself. WikiOriginal-9 (talk) 08:05, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wait, when did we stop using just MVP?--Yankees10 05:19, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well after looking around apparently they all spell it out. I guess I hadn't noticed.--Yankees10 05:21, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Yankees10: The only one we don't do it for is Peyton, because he won 20 of them so if we spelled it out it would take up 2 lines. Lizard (talk) 06:09, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

i feel like i am getting a better understanding of when research bleeds into original research when digging for interesting nuggets on players. thanks for your guidance. given that i am a newbie, should i focus on skill guys and stay away from quarterbacks given the general level of scrutiny on those pages? --mkelley78 —Preceding undated comment added 22:05, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"always ready to collaborate"

Thank you for quality articles on footballers such as

Y.A. Tittle and John Henry Johnson, for requesting information, for "cleaning up NFL player pages, including infoboxes and removing ... trivia", - wiki fauna, you are an awesome Wikipedian

!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:46, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A year ago, you were recipient no. 1572 of Precious, a prize of QAI! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:51, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Why did you remove Super Bowl XLI champion from Dwight Freeney's highlights? Toeknee44 (talk) 03:01, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The game isn't over yet. WikiOriginal-9 (talk) 03:03, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That was my mistake. Lizard (talk) 03:04, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nvm, lol. WikiOriginal-9 (talk) 03:07, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Just curious if you'd do me a favor. Would you give Dialleo Burks a look over and tell me what you think. Maybe reassess as you see fit. I just went and gave it a new stat box as opposed to what it once was...ouch. lol. ^{(talk page stalker)} CrashUnderride 21:56, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Crash Underride it's sssooo wide. When they are that wide, it is annoying because the page moves around. I would take unnecessary stats off if you could. RoyalsLife 22:42, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That's just it, none of them are. He played both ways in the AFL, offense and defense and he also returned kicks. ^{(talk page stalker)} CrashUnderride 05:03, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It might be better to split his offensive and defensive stats in separate stat boxes. Lizard (talk) 17:07, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your account is now ready happy editing!--Cameron₁₁₅₉₈ ^(Talk) 04:44, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Could you enlighten me on "old timey football"? Around when did the offense and defense become distinct teams with players playing on only one side of the ball? In, say, 1954, would it be normal for someone to play both offensive guard and some defensive position? I'm working on Buddy Alliston, but the news coverage is quite confusing. He's noted as an offensive guard, but he's also noted as a quick player who can make tackles - something I wouldn't associate with the line. When it says "guard", was that once a position that played both sides? ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 02:18, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There is a position called

nose guard on defensive. I think "ironman ball" stopped in the mid '50s in the NFL. ^{(talk page stalker)} CrashUnderride 02:27, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

@Crash Underride: This would be in college, if that makes a difference. I imagine they had less to invest in two teams. The coverage I'm finding in papers seems to only list quarterback, back (various types), guard, end, center, and tackle as the team's positions. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 02:37, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No real difference back then, regarding that. lol. <sarcasm>You should really do your research!</sarcasm> lol. ^{(talk page stalker)} CrashUnderride 02:41, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@BU Rob13: College was a lot slower to adopt the two-platoon system than the pros. I'm currently working on Gale Sayers, who's obviously more known as a running back and return specialist, but even in his senior year in college (1964) he was playing on defense as well. Typically the lower down you go in tiers, the less "specialized" players are. Even today, in the high school ranks the best players on the team usually play offense and defense. Alliston was most likely a "defensive guard" on defense, something rarely seen today at any level since it requires 5 defensive linemen. Lizard (talk) 02:52, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've finished my copy-edit, but there are a few questions on the talk page. Sarastro1 (talk) 21:39, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Sarastro1: I'll get to them later today after I've walked my goldfish. Lizard (talk) 19:19, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

By that I mean tomorrow. Lizard (talk) 03:40, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm pretty much done now, it's looking good and I'd say it's just about ready for a run at FAC. I would recommend making sure that you can make the sources (most of which are offline) available to reviewers so that source spot-checks can be done at some point in the FAC. If you want me to have a last read-through before you nominate, let me know; it might be better to just go for it now, though. Sarastro1 (talk) 23:20, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Sarastro1: I left a few questions on Cannon's talk page regarding your last string of suggestions. I'll begin implementing those changes soon, and then I'll see about FAC. Lizard (talk) 03:38, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

...after I finished this. lmfao. Literally, around two hours! Admittedly, I had to go through over 27,000 edits. ^{(talk page stalker)} CrashUnderride 21:10, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Impressive. WikiOriginal-9 (talk) 22:04, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, just added my expansion of Dave Levenick. The references list is actually longer than the article! lmfao ^{(talk page stalker)} CrashUnderride 22:51, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

30em is your friend, lol jk. WikiOriginal-9 (talk) 22:52, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Trust me, I know, I use it a lot, but on that one....not really needed. lol ^{(talk page stalker)} CrashUnderride 23:03, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, before I forget, if there are any articles there that I've helped out that you think currently would be fit for GA, feel free. lol ^{(talk page stalker)} CrashUnderride 23:12, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Why did you revert my edit? Scottie is an advocate for social justice. And GP? HE SPEAKS AT COLLEGES ABOUT IT. I GET YOURE WIKI ELITE SORRY 4 TOUCHING UR ARTICLE — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.141.145.191 (talk) 09:07, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I do *NOT* take any shit at all from basement dwellers such as yourself. Do you understand me? Never, EVER fuck with articles I change. Go get a job you fucking loser.

This is

Anyway, I'm finally caving and am trying to move the article to the title 1999 NFC Championship Game. I have a new article already written as a draft. The problem is, since I can't sign in to my account, I can't either A) create a new article using the draft, or B) replace the text on the current article and move it to the new title namespace.

Any chance you could do it for me? Your help would be much appreciated. The link to the draft is here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:1999_NFC_Championship_Game

I know this might sound kind of sketchy, since I have no way of actually proving it's me, so I understand if you don't want to. 2605:E000:84CD:2F00:9987:9D6B:F9D3:F3E3 (talk) 03:28, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know what's wrong with you, but stop messing with my edits. There is nothing wrong with putting an additional fact about Tom Brady's career. Him never having a losing season is a statistical fact just like everything else listed above. You did the same thing with Elway and you were wrong. There are countless pages where the general manager's highlights are listed. If you are going to try to police Wikipedia at least know what you're talking about. Save your meddling for unsubstantiated and irrelevant information added to articles.

Hello, Lizard the Wizard. You have new messages at Bmorrow151's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Hi, Lizard. I only had time for a quick look at a couple of the lists, and I must say that I'm impressed with what you have been able to do with them. The sourcing in the ones I looked at is spot-on, and that's a major hurdle in itself. Where you will have trouble is with some of the table formatting, which doesn't meet FL standards at the moment. Per

@Giants2008: So "row headers" are a must? The .400 batting average seasons list is the first time I've noticed them on any list. Lizard (talk) 19:27, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. Reviewers at FLC began looking for them sometime around late 2010, I believe. There haven't been a ton of NFL-related lists at FLC in the years since, and if scopes aren't included in any articles you watch, I can understand not knowing about the requirement. The good news is that scopes don't take that much time to insert, although the work is admittedly tedious. Please do consider doing this work, as I think the lists you've done would have a good shot at passing FLC. And please think about bringing either Cannon or Tittle to FAC. The worst thing that could happen is the article not passing, and even if it doesn't the article will be better as a result of any work you do during FAC. Giants2008 (Talk) 00:50, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@

AP NFL Offensive Player of the Year Award, where the majority of the rows are already shaded gold or blue. I'm thinking of just using the daggers. Lizard (talk) 19:59, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

I've used colors in the past, but they aren't a requirement by any stretch of the imagination. What really bothers me is the lists where 3 or 4 cells in a row have the same color, which really looks ugly. In your case, I still think you should use the row headers as they are prescribed by style guidelines, but removing the colors shouldn't cause any problems. Giants2008 (Talk) 01:12, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Giants2008: Would Associated Press NFL Assistant Coach of the Year Award throw a wrench in the featured topic plan? There's only been three winners so far. Lizard (talk) 02:51, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I believe you would need to have that list peer reviewed as part of a featured topic nominations, since I doubt a three-entry list could pass FLC. The

FT criteria state that pages in a topic that are ineligible for FA/GA/FL "must have passed an individual quality audit", namely PR; that's how very short lists have been handled in the past from what little I know of FTC. Honestly, I'm just excited by the prospect of a bunch of football lists coming to FLC. :-) Giants2008 (Talk) 21:36, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

Hello Lizard, I am not experienced at submitting edits, so I'd like a little guidance. I submitted an edit on Phil Simms the day that it was announced that he would no longer be an NFL commentator. I included sources/references from both the NFL and New York Daily News. I am not sure why my edit was rejected. I'd like to learn so that I can submit better edits in the future. All of your work is much appreciated. thank you. Lawikience Lawikience (talk) 16:50, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have page mover rights, so feel free to contact me in such cases. You might consider applying for it yourself, as it's very useful. - BilCat (talk) 16:04, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for telling me how to undo vandalism Nevillefan (talk) 21:41, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know what your problem is. John Elway is a general manager. General managers are very important to a team's success. It is not some simple job. So, he has the right to have his accomplishments as a GM listed. Phil Jackson, Ozzie Newsome, Tex Schramm, Isiah Thomas, Larry Bird, Kevin Colbert, Dick Vermeil, Ron Wolf, George Young, Dick Haley, Mike Lynn, Dan Rooney, etc all have their accomplishments as players as well as coach or GM listed. Are you going to go and remove all of that? An accomplishment is an accomplishment whether you are a player or an executive. I don't know if you get off on pissing people off or what, but try getting a life and mess with edits that actually warrant it. Bmorrow151 (talk) 01:51, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Just a heads up... If you nominate several navboxes with the same rationale, the closers like them to be combined. It's an easier process, allows the same !votes for multiple navboxes to stay under one section, and the closers can close them all together. Just thought I'd let you know... they've gotten on to me a few times for not doing that! Corkythehornetfan (ping me) 19:08, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Corkythehornetfan: But then if even one of them is found to be a suitable navbox the whole nomination is derailed. I'd rather play it safe. Lizard (talk) 19:20, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You reverted my edit stating that Randy White was including in 9 Pro Bowls but was first time 7 times. You said "we don't count only AP teams." I don't understand. Could you elaborate? I think White was just amazing. He's ranked #62 in the 2010 all time best football list but I think he desreves a higher ranking. He played in the Super Bowl against the Steelers with a broken arm. I don't even have words for that.Raryel (talk) 06:29, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@

Sporting News also chose All-Pro teams. For simplicity, we include all All-Pro teams in the infobox. Lizard (talk) 17:36, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

 Note: Please comment on this discussion on how we will name the navbox groupings. If after one (1) week no one has commented, then the suggestions listed will be applied to the groupings. Thanks, Corkythehornetfan (ping me) 22:36, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

   Thank you for that information. Raryel (talk) 04:13, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You're still not explaining why it warrants being put on one page and not the other. You might not consider an allegation of rape as important as football tampering, but I do. This is not NFL.com where you should only mention football.This was a significant event just like Tom Brady. It warranted originally a six game suspension and had significant coverage and went to court. I think getting accused of rape was just as big of an event in the life of Ben as Deflategate was to Tom. If you want to act like the police of Wikipedia at least try to stay neutral and keep your Brady hate out of it. I stopped arguing for Deflategate to be taken off of Brady's lead, but then Ben's suspension for rape deserves to be on his. It's called being fair and impartial. Try it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bmorrow151 (talk • contribs) 05:27, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

He has signed with the saints check the NFL app and all the other news sites Nevillefan (talk) 11:18, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wait for an official source (the Saints) to confirm the signing has happened. Lizard (talk) 11:21, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I was reading your work on the Pihos article and got carried away trying to pin down some info on his later years. I hope you don't mind my jumping in. Cbl62 (talk) 15:32, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

By all means. I'd been putting it off lately anyway. And I tend to neglect players' later years. Lizard (talk) 16:02, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

On that note feel free to look through the "later life" sections of all the bios I've worked on since most of them are likely lacking. Fred Biletnikoff's is definitely missing some stuff in between because I just wanted to make sure I mentioned his daughter's murder. Lizard (talk) 17:29, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Cbl62: According to this, Pihos "fought on D-Day." His unit, the 35th Infantry, arrived in England on May 25, 1944. He was married in Indiana on May 27. Looks like there's some alternative facts at play here. Lizard (talk) 02:39, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I saw the nfl.com piece. The piece was written two years after Pihos died, and I just don't find it to be a credible source to show that Pihos participated in the D-Day invasion on June 6, 1944. First, the record is clear that, on May 27, 1944, Pihos was in Bloomington, Indiana, getting married. See here. According to this site, the crossing time for troop ships to England leading up to D-Day was typically in the range of a couple weeks. Further, the same site doesn't list any troop ships departing the US after Pihos' wedding that would have delivered him to Europe in time for D-Day. Second, contemporaneous newspaper accounts concerning Pihos' military service make no mention of D-Day. Third, Pihos' unit (the 35th Infantry Division) did not land at Normandy until July 5-7 and did not enter combat until July 11 -- more than a month after the D-Day invasion. Accordingly, it seems highly unlikely that Pihos was part of the Normandy landings on June 6. Cbl62 (talk) 03:07, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes it appears he probably did fight in or around Normandy... just not on D-Day. But hey, why let the truth get in the way of a good story? Lizard (talk) 03:12, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like many former players went on to coach in minor league football. Our coverage of those leagues is pretty scant. Cholmes75 is responsible for much of what we do have. It's a whole world of football I never knew existed until I worked on Steve Van Buren (coincidentally a teammate of Pihos). Lizard (talk) 19:44, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I know next to nothing about minor league football. I don't think I'd even heard of the Continental Football League until researching Pihos' coaching history. I honestly don't know whether it was a big deal at all. Cbl62 (talk) 00:14, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

King Corcoran was one of minor league football's biggest stars. He was known as a "poor man's Joe Namath." Lizard (talk) 00:55, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The reason I left that hatnote is because the Who (disambiguation) page says Jones is a football player known as who, Jim Neidhart was a football player who became a wrestler briefly known as who. Davidgoodheart (talk) 05:08, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Julio Jones is known as "Who"? I've never heard of this. Lizard (talk) 16:40, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, you are probably right about this, as the statement that Jones is known as who has now been removed from the Who (disambiguation) page by another editor that says there is no claim for this. Davidgoodheart (talk) 20:21, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

So are you biased for Roethlisberger or do you just not think sexual assault is a serious controversy? Wikipedia's own description of what to include in a lead says "prominent controversies." If being suspended for sexual assault isn't a prominent controversy I don't know what is. Articles should follow the same guidelines. Editors seem to want to include controversies for a person they don't like but don't want to include it for others, unless you just completely don't think sexual assault is serious enough to be highlighted. I just mentioned Tom Brady to show the double standard for people who are liked and those who are hated. As Wikipedia also says the lead is the only thing a lot of readers will look at and it should include an overview on the person's life and make the reader to continue reading. Being accused of sexual assault is a very significant event in a person's life. Also if you're going to meantion articles on things like you did with the wp:otherstuffexists try reading it yourself. It clearly says the arguments can be used sometimes, because the encyclopedia should be consistent. So don't act like it says they can never be used as part of an argument. So please explain to me why the suspension shouldn't be included — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bmorrow151 (talk • contribs) 03:37, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps it should. But as I've pointed out multiple times, content on one player's page does not justify similar content on another player's page. That's just not how Wikipedia works. However, your citing of guidelines is the right way of going about it and provides a much stronger argument. But still, all contentious material should be discussed on the article's talk page before including it in the lead. It looks like there had been previous discussions on this in the past, but there was never a consensus, so by default according to

our policy on living persons it should be left out pending further discussion. Lizard (talk) 03:51, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

The issue is likely being caused by the presence of rowspans in the season and selectors columns. Ever since I've been involved in reviewing lists, rowspans and sorting functionality have never gone together very well. When I started, I don't remember anyone being able to add sorting when rowspans were in place; at some point it became possible, but not without some extra formatting. Try looking at a list such as Nebula Award for Best Novel. That list has rowspans as well, but it includes additional templates that provide for sorting. If you click on any of the sortable columns, you'll actually see the number of year columns expand to have one that goes with each person nominated for the award, allowing for them to be sorted properly. Hopefully this helps. Giants2008 (Talk) 15:32, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yeesh. Can't quite make sense of that. Lizard (talk) 17:33, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It is a bit complicated, and you could just remove the sorting if it bothers you. While I'm here, I left a comment on a needed source here. Since you seem to be good at tracking down different references, perhaps you could consider offering a helping hand? Giants2008 (Talk) 15:39, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'll see what I can find. Lizard (talk) 17:05, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

CBS has stated that there is no David Leavitt that works for them.

]

That's why the hatnote says former CBS reporter. Lizard (talk) 04:45, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

But that's really irrelevant. The point is to distinguish him from the David Leavitt that is the subject of that article. Feel free to change the wording but don't just remove it. Lizard (talk) 04:48, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your

Joe Greene (American football)

The article

Talk:Joe Greene (American football) for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Kaiser matias -- Kaiser matias (talk) 06:41, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

NCAA football infobox

Lizard (pinging @

Template:Infobox NCAA football school? I personally prefer "season" over "year", as I think it is more commonly used (and flows better) with the NCAA schools websites (see Notre Dame and Nicholls State to name a couple). Corkythehornetfan (ping me) 21:55, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

What exactly would we be changing? There's a couple of instances of "year" in that infobox. Lizard (talk) 01:25, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, it'd be for the coach. With my proposal, it'd show:

Brian Kelly
8th season, 59–31 (.656)

instead of

Brian Kelly
8th year, 59–31 (.656)... Corkythehornetfan (ping me) 01:38, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, since seasons are what's being counted. Lizard (talk) 04:12, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Seems reasonable. It would make sense to also make the same change for

Template:Infobox NCAA team season, Template:Infobox college basketball team, Template:Infobox college baseball team, etc. Jweiss11 (talk) 08:17, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

Thanks for the responses. They've been updated and as always, you may need to purge your browser to see it. Corkythehornetfan (ping me) 16:47, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

2016 NFL Quarterbacks win-loss records

I've been making this page by myself. I want it to be like the '12, '13, and '14 qb win loss records pages. Because this page is expected to be big, I need some help trying to put in more information, and getting more links, and what not. Can you please help me out? btw this is the link- 2016 NFL quarterbacks win-loss records. Vinnylospo (talk) 0:32, July 13 2017 (UTC). btw I need a few guys to help

I'm not convinced of the necessity of this article.

articles for deletion I'd be inclined to support its deletion. Lizard (talk) 16:20, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

WikiProject Packers

Hey, I saw that you are listed as an active member of the Packers Wikiproject. I am interested in trying to push the Green Bay Packers main article to good article status. If you are interested, I would appreciate any help or advice that you are willing to give. I am sending this to all active members, so please reply to this proposal at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Green Bay Packers. Thanks! And go pack go ‡ Єl Cid, Єl Caɱ̩peador ^ᐐT₳LKᐬ 16:29, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Carr

Regarding their birthplaces', David is 12 years older than Derek. David's article says he attended "Clovis Unified's Kastner Intermediate School in Fresno" and then moved to Bakersfield, where he attended Stockdale High School. If David is 12 years older than Derek, doesn't that mean that Derek was born when they lived in Fresno. Unless David was already in high school when he was 12. That David section is all unsourced though. WikiOriginal-9 (talk) 21:55, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

All I know is that his Fresno State bio says his hometown is Bakersfield and PFR says he was born in Bakersfield. Lizard (talk) 22:00, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yh, I can't find any good sources. And I also have to suspect that the sources may be copying Wikipedia. Bakersfield still could have been his hometown. When they moved back to Bakersfield, Derek would have been like two or three. WikiOriginal-9 (talk) 22:08, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• The "2× MWC Offensive Player of the Year (2012, 2013)" didn't take up two lines on my screen. Doesn't really matter, just letting you know. WikiOriginal-9 (talk) 17:52, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Weird, I always assumed the infobox took up the same amount of space no matter what, but when I view it on safari on my phone it does only take up one space. On my 24-inch desktop monitor it took up 2 spaces. Lizard (talk) 18:41, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Content work?

Are you up for some content work? Bob Baumhower is a 5-time Pro Bowler and likely can get up to GA status. I'd be happy to assist with finding sources if you'd like to expand it/give it a neutral treatment. (I was made aware of the article and its poor state because a company Baumhower is now associated with it apparently tried editing it earlier this year.) ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 02:59, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. I'm actually somewhat of a Dolphins fan by way of my dad, who was a huge fan during the Marino years. I'd been meaning to rework a Dolphins player article for some time. Lizard (talk) 03:19, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Help editing

I did some edits on Terrance West and Darius Victor pages and was wondering if you could look them over for me. Also was interested in updating

University of Maryland! Smartboy65 (talk

) 02:29, 14 August 2017 (UTC) Thank you![reply]

Minor copyedits

Yes. Will do. Was thinking about watchlist issues the other day when running scripts. Can't wait for the season. Red Director (talk) 12:36, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Potential for confusion

United States national anthem protests and U.S. national anthem protests. Please address the potential for confusion. KalHolmann (talk) 21:46, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

@KalHolmann: Thanks for making me aware. I'll try to find the best option here for both pages. Lizard (talk) 23:46, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Punctuation inside or outside quotes

Honest question - am I reading

MOS:LQ wrong? I just looked at it and I'm confused now; seems like it says the punctuation should be inside the quotation marks. Rockypedia (talk) 12:51, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

@

logical quotation. In the case of Owens' article, the source is a dead link and I couldn't be bothered to find an archive. But we probably don't even need quotes here to begin with since it's the common name of the penalty as opposed to something unique. Lizard (talk) 14:23, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

Right, I agree that it's confusing, but the way I read it, periods and commas always go inside the quotes; for other punctuation, it depends on the source, as you said. It's not that big a deal, I just thought that I had read it backwards or something. Glad I'm not the only one that thinks MOS:LQ needs a rewrite. Rockypedia (talk) 14:46, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Rockypedia: It doesn't help that as Americans we were taught in school to always put commas and periods inside quotes. When it comes to American and British grammar differences, the MOS usually allows either way for most cases as long as it's consistent within each article; I don't know why we're forced to use the British way in this case. Lizard (talk) 15:27, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think we are, at least not in an article about an American, per

MOS:LQ is a little fuzzy. Rockypedia (talk) 15:43, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

I've tried using American rules for the nicknames in the lead of Babe Ruth, a featured article, and was quickly reverted. By an admin if I'm not mistaken. That's how I first found out about MOS:LQ. Lizard (talk) 17:25, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your GA nomination of Gale Sayers

The article Gale Sayers you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Gale Sayers for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Kaiser matias -- Kaiser matias (talk) 09:02, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ezekiel Elliott

I'm looking at Elliot's page on NFL.com 1, and it says "Born: 7/22/1995 Alton , IL" right beneath his height/weight/age. I'm very much a novice with sports pages/sources so maybe I'm misunderstanding the layout. Cannolis (talk) 08:56, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your GA nomination of Million Dollar Backfield (San Francisco 49ers)

The article Million Dollar Backfield (San Francisco 49ers) you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Million Dollar Backfield (San Francisco 49ers) for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Harrias -- Harrias (talk) 17:41, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Disruptive Editing on Terrell Owens Page

The Terrell Owens page has recently been protected, yet the disruptive edits remain, thanks to said disruptive editor being in possession of an autoconfirmed account. 162.238.116.106 (talk) 01:19, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Manning infobox

Well, I'll add that

WP:INFOBOXPURPOSE says "The less information it contains, the more effectively it serves that purpose, allowing readers to identify key facts at a glance". A link to a verbose list of other less major achievements is not really a "key fact".—Bagumba (talk) 13:24, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

@Bagumba: Fair enough. It likely wouldn't even have been added if it weren't for the old practice of linking highlight sections in the infobox. Lizard (talk) 13:26, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your GA nomination of Raymond Berry

The article Raymond Berry you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Raymond Berry for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Kaiser matias -- Kaiser matias (talk) 09:41, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Cam Newton/ Jourdan Rodrigue incident

@Lizard the Wizard: Hi, I've started a discussion on Talk: Cam Newton if you'd like to weigh in. I agree with your original decision to delete the mention of Rodrigues' questionable tweet. In consultation with User:MPS1992 you formulated a re-write, but it still reads like Newton's comments were in retaliation for Rodrigues' tweets. But the source cited does not suggest this.

American football in leads

I saw your revert at

college American football

.

I know this would need a broader consensus, but if I can't convince one person, I'm not going to bother with a larger audience.—Bagumba (talk) 10:14, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Bagumba: I don't know. I see it as largely pointless since the NFL is by far the least diverse of the major NA sports leagues. On the other hand I agree with all those points, especially with how every other project includes nationality. The pipe linking is unsavory to me though. I could be swayed either way. Lizard (talk) 01:36, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There is

List of foreign players in the National Football League, which I suspect is incomplete, and I read somewhere that stream of talent from Europe is growing. I'll see if I get around to pushing this. It admittedly doesn't impact readers too much, and is probably just me being pedantic about American the nationality technically not being in the lead. That and editors just liking status quo.—Bagumba (talk) 08:00, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

I actually wrote the lead for that article. I think it would be better as a "History of..." article rather than a list; see the talk page discussion. Lizard (talk) 17:31, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Edits

Why are you undoing all of my edits? — Preceding unsigned comment added by LaDanian1000000 (talk • contribs) 01:11, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@LaDanian1000000: None of those images are suitable for use as non-free images, as it's possible to replace them with freely available images. See Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria. Lizard (talk) 01:16, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment

Yh, looking at the page history, people have been changing his sack total. Also, lol @ this. I've seen the term "free agent" used in the articles' of players that have been out of the league for ten years. I just now found another one (Jeno James). I just typed ("who is currently a free agent" football "1977") in the Wikipedia search bar. WikiOriginal-9 (talk) 23:33, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's one of those grey areas where we constantly break Wikipedia's "no original research" rule. You'll hardly ever find a source that explicitly states someone is a free agent. Most players just quietly retire without any official announcement or anything after a few years of being out of the league. It's likely we'll never have a perfect solution for this. Lizard (talk) 00:08, 28 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

1912 Vanderbilt Commodores football team

You suggested you might be willing to help get Talk:1912 Vanderbilt Commodores football team/GA1 to pass; I've got a few concerns outstanding, and wondered if your offer was still open? Harrias ^talk 11:07, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Harrias: I'll see what I can do. Lizard (talk) 15:31, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Name weirdness

I saw this Isaiah Johnson (born 1992, current NFL safety - waived yesterday) and this Isaiah Johnson (born 1992, current NFL safety) somewhat recently and thought it was weird that there were two current NFL players with the same name, birth year and position. Their middle names also both start with N (Nathan and Nigel).

I encountered this again today with Darrell Williams (born 1993, current NFL offensive tackle) and Darrell Williams Jr. (born 1993, current NFL offensive tackle). The second one's common name may include the "Jr.".

Lol, what's the chances of there being two sets of current NFL players with the same names, birth years and positions. The positions are even exact. Why couldn't the other person be a cornerback, guard or center (They're both safeties and tackles). WikiOriginal-9 (talk) 00:59, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I turned Isaiah Johnson into a dab page, as there is clearly no primary topic. The naming convention (e.g. Isaiah Johnson (American football, born May 1992)) sucks, but I kept it consistent. Feel free to find a better one.—Bagumba (talk) 12:38, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Mini rant: "Not to be confused with ..." whatnotes are the worst, since most of the time you wouldn't know you were confused without clicking on the link. Almost always better to use "For the ..."—Bagumba (talk) 12:40, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If anyone is inclined, Darrell Williams should be made into a dab, and add Darrel Williams in there too.—Bagumba (talk) 12:50, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, it's for that reason I didn't include "Not to be confused with Joe Green (American football)" on Joe Greene's page; the vast majority of people would definitely be looking for Greene, and that hatnote would just add confusion. Lizard (talk) 14:06, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"In-universe" for non-fiction

LW, is there an non-fiction equivalent to "in-universe" in fiction articles? My brain just isn't working today, and I can't think of what to call edits to sports articles,especially biographies, that seem more like something found on a sports site. The latest additions to Butch Jones, while totally good-faith, seem to be of that style. However, I'm not sure if I'm overreacting, as I don't have a lot of experience with these kinds of articles. Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 18:26, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Editorializing? I see a lot of that in that article. Lizard (talk) 18:57, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, thanks! That's the word I was looking for. Any thoughts on how best to handle it in that article ? - BilCat (talk) 19:13, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Just list the facts that the sources give. If the source doesn't say a particular loss was "stunning" then remove the word. Lizard (talk) 21:52, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

New Page Reviewing

Hello, Lizard the Wizard. I've seen you editing recently and you seem knowledgeable about Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Would you please consider becoming a New Page Reviewer? Reviewing/patrolling a page doesn't take much time but it requires a good understanding of Wikipedia policies and guidelines; currently Wikipedia needs experienced users at this task. (After gaining the flag, patrolling is not mandatory. One can do it at their convenience). But kindly read the tutorial before making your decision. Thanks. — Insertcleverphrasehere (or here) 07:40, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your signature

Please be aware that your signature uses deprecated <font> tags, which are causing Obsolete HTML tags lint errors.

You are encouraged to change

[[User:Lizard the Wizard|<font color="#008000">Lizard</font>]] ([[User talk:Lizard the Wizard|talk]]) → Lizard (talk)

to

[[User:Lizard the Wizard|<span style="color: #008000;">Lizard</span>]] ([[User talk:Lizard the Wizard|talk]]) → Lizard (talk)

Respectfully, Anomalocaris (talk) 19:58, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Most users are updating their signatures as requested. We hope you will also. —Anomalocaris (talk) 20:42, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Colonel Tennis Complex

The

Colonel Tennis Complex is being reviewed for notability. It has multiple media references, 21 independent references and 22 references overall, which I feel is more than enough for notability. There are also additional references that I found that weren't added to the article because I feel 22 references is enough. As a Louisiana editor, I wanted your opinion included. Of course, I can't tell you how to vote, but I do think it's notable. Thanks for your consideration. User:Spatms

(talk) 16:46, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Dick Butkus

I read the Butkus article last night. Very nice work. Cbl62 (talk) 18:17, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Cbl62: Thanks. It was only my second article on a defensive player so it was a bit of a challenge. My only concern is that I might have dedicated too much to the "Stop-Action" saga. It's the largest paragraph in the article. I'm not sure how much of a controversy it actually was, but if anything, it highlights how drama is nothing new in the NFL. Lizard (talk) 18:33, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

So of those generally considered the top 5 defensive players of all time, we have 3 GAs: Butkus, Mean Joe, and LT. Next up is Lott and Reggie White. Lizard (talk) 04:19, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Unanimous All-Americans

Was Bob Pellegrini a unanimous All-American in 1955? I was wondering because he is listed as one at unanimous All-Americans in college football but the 1955 College Football All-America Team article says he was only named to the first teams of 7 out of 8 official selectors. WikiOriginal-9 (talk) 03:29, 16 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

He is listed in the NCAA record book as unanimous. This source says there were 12 selectors that determined the consensus All-American team. This source says he was a unanimous AA and lists 8 selectors he was chosen by (this is also worded similarly to he previous source but has 11 selectors listed). Also this says he was one of four players chosen as "consensus" AA's and lists the 8 selectors. Also, @Cbl62:. WikiOriginal-9 (talk) 03:52, 16 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The 1955 AA article lists the All-America Board as one of the official selectors. The source cited is ESPN College Football Encyclopedia. ESPN Books. 2005. p. 1240. Having moved earlier this year, I haven't been able to find my copy to double-check. Cbl62 (talk) 04:35, 16 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I found a newspaper version of the 1955 AAB picks and, sure enough, Pellegrini is on it. It's unanimous. Cbl62 (talk) 04:57, 16 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Happy holidays!

What better way to celebrate the holidays (and bowl season) than "Touchdown Jesus"!
Best wishes for a happy and healthy 2018!
Cbl62 (talk) 17:58, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, and same to you. Lizard (talk) 18:19, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]