Talk:Denard Robinson

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Good articleDenard Robinson has been listed as one of the Sports and recreation good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Did You Know Article milestones
DateProcessResult
November 14, 2010Good article nomineeNot listed
December 7, 2010Good article reassessmentNot listed
January 12, 2011Good article nomineeListed
Did You Know A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on September 15, 2010.
The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that in his first two games as a starter, Denard "Shoelace" Robinson achieved the two highest single-game total offense totals in Michigan Wolverines history—and did so with his shoes untied?
Current status: Good article


Kudos to a clever vandal[edit]

Though it has rightfully been removed, I have to give credit to one of the most clever acts of Wikipedia vandalism that I have seen. As Robinson completed his 502-yard game against Notre Dame, an unnamed poster added the following comment (since removed):

"Denard is way faster than me or any other man on earth or in the universe. Aliens ain't got shit on Denard. Literally, a supercomputer making calculations for eternity cannot calculate his speed. He also is really awesome as a human being"--Usain Bolt

"Denard's speed makes me want to be a better president"--Barack Obama

"Denard Robinson has done way more for planet earth than me"--Gandhi

While we don't want to encourage vandalism, I have to admit this was clever. Cbl62 (talk) 00:04, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Michigan's all-time single game total offense leaders[edit]

I don't know how exactly this list was compiled, but it seems incomplete. For example, in the 2008 Capital One Bowl vs., Florida, Chad Henne passed for 373 yds, and lost 24 on the ground (sacks), for a total of 349. Why isn't this on the list? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Slaunius (talk • contribs) 20:39, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Slaunius, I compiled the list from the data at the Michigan Football Statistic Archive Query Page. Not sure how I missed the Henne game you referenced, and I've now added it to the list. Also, I will go back to the database to make sure there are no others that have been omitted. Thanks for calling attention to the error. Cbl62 (talk) 21:58, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Let's fix that nickname[edit]

Denard "Shoelace" Robinson? Perhaps Denard "Velcro" Robinson would be more appropriate? 110.174.174.155 (talk) 06:26, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reliable sources from the media have confirmed that his nickname is "Shoelace". Vodello (talk) 16:20, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. See WP:OR; this is an encyclopedia talk page for improvements to the article not a nickname designation forum. Obamafan70 (talk) 17:44, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rushing touchdowns by a quarterback[edit]

What are the Michigan and Big Ten records. Tebow had 23 in 2007 in 13 games which seems out of reach, but maybe the school or conference records are within reach (he has 12 in 8 games).--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 01:06, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like Robinson is tied with Rick Leach and Steve Smith for the Michigan QB record at 12. Not sure what the Big Ten record is. The Big Ten media guide doesn't break out QB-only rushing touchdowns and the overall rushing top-10 list (all running backs) cuts off at 21. Antwaan Randle El rushed for 13 TDs twice for Indiana. Jweiss11 (talk) 03:53, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Was 13 the prior record?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 20:18, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Single-half passing yards[edit]

Do we know whose record he broke?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 02:16, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review[edit]

GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Denard Robinson/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Wizardman Operation Big Bear 17:37, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My main concern with the article mirrors Cbl's. Every day after a Michigan game, the article undergoes rather major changes, often beyond a simple addition of what had just happened. Until the season concludes, it would be very much difficult to review the article since it would keep changing, but a true review would have to wait until then as well so that information on his sophomore year can actually be written in relative to its importance. We have a 4,000+ word article right now on someone who played one year of college; it could easily pass 5,000 before the season is over.

In short, since it fails the stability criterion, I'm failing this for now, and ask that it not be put back up until the conclusion of the season, so that the article can actually be reviewed without weekly changes being made. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 17:37, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Heisman finish[edit]

Should we put the 6th place Heisman finish in the infobox? It is probably as important as being a semifinalist for the awards that are mentioned.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 20:33, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox bloat[edit]

It is standard for All-conference recognition to remain in the infobox for the duration of a college career. All detail of All-American recognition should remain for the entire career, IMO. I have done several college athletes who now have this infobox content as professionals including Sherron Collins, Brandon Graham (American football), Zoltan Mesko (American football), and Evan Turner.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 01:51, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In terms of general length concerns, I feel we should include the proper content and let the length fall where it may. Think about infobox content for Jack Kemp (who has two long infoboxes) or even just a Tyrone Wheatley, which is a WP:FA.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 01:55, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree. With an athlete like Robinson, there is a need for selectivity in which honors should be placed in the Infobox to avoid what you have aptly called "Infobox bloat." Some honors are easy and should be included for anyone, e.g., first-team All-American, major award winner. Other honors are, IMO, equally easy and should be excluded, e.g., "honorable mention" honors which fall below 1st team, 2nd team and even 3rd team honors. Other honors are in a grey area and should be evaluated in the context of the particular player so that the Infobox focuses on what's really important, e.g., All-Conference selections, major award finalist lists, etc. If you take a Hall of Fame player with four years of college honors and 15-20 years of NFL honors (e.g., Jerry Rice or Dan Marino), you need to have some selectivity or the Infobox will go on for more than a page. That defeats the purpose of a Infobox, which is to give a brief overview of the most important points about a person. Cbl62 (talk) 03:09, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't feel the honorable mentions are as unimportant as you might think. In some cases selectors have a first team and honorable mention (which is sort of a 2nd team). In other cases an hm selection may be like 6th or 8th team. Regardless, look at a Mouton, who would be quite happy to get an hm after leading the Big Ten in Tackles. I have been adding these types of selections to numerous athletes and have never had anyone say that some levels of AA should be pruned from a multilevel detail. Look at the pro articles I mention above. Of the 10 AA teams named so far, he has only received 4 recognitions in any way. We should recognize his 4 selections. When he goes pro, most of the records will be removed and the All-Conference honors as well as award finalist recognitions may be removed.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 03:31, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It's not that I'm completely dismissive of an "Honorable Mention" honor. But most selectors have 1st, 2nd, and 3rd teams, with HM being a fourth tier. The issue is what honors are so important that they need to be highlighted in the Infobox. I don't object to mentioning an HM in the body of Denard's article, but it clearly doesn't rise to the level of one the major honors that should be in the Infobox. Cbl62 (talk) 03:45, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I just notice you re-inserted "honorable mention" all-conference honors. I don't think Honorable Mention All-American designation belongs in the Infobox, and Honorable Mention All-Conference honors is really out there. Cbl62 (talk) 03:48, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
In a certain sense, hm is informative to the reader as a clarification of what honors he failed to get. It is clearly far less prestigious. Including all levels enables the reader to feel he has complete information. Keep in mind many readers just want to see the infobox and WP:LEAD. It is entirely consistent with every other athlete bio review I have gone through. The various levels are a set. Basically, I think you describe his AA recognitions in their entirety or not at all. For example, just saying he was first team would lead the reader to wonder about all other selectors. I certainly hope Denard achieves the level of professional success where all-conference recognition becomes removable from the infobox, but while in college they belong and the reader deserves a complete set.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 05:24, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think I've ever seen another Infobox for a player who has received major awards that also lists All-Conference "Honorable Mention" honors. Can you direct me to the multiple examples you rely on when you say that including this information is "entirely consistent with every other athlete bio review"? Cbl62 (talk) 05:40, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If you can name some players who were hm All-conference, but who won major awards, I can run throught the list, but it is kind of an unusual accomplishment.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 07:04, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't have such a list, but assumed you did since you had indicated that the practice of including Honorable Mention honors in Infoboxes was consistent with every other athlete bio review you'd worked on. It's not an unusual circumstance, as players often progress as they advance through their college careers from an Honorable Mention to a first-team honor. The issue isn't that it's uncommon, just that HM All-Conference (or even HM All-American) is not typically not sufficiently notable to put in an Infobox. Are there any examples you have where HM All-Conference honors have been included in an Infobox of a good or featured article? Cbl62 (talk) 19:36, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I mentioned some infoboxes on the original post of this thread. Although Graham might use some pruning, it should not come from the hm.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 20:03, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I looked at those. None of those has an Honorable Mention All-Conferenece honor listed. Cbl62 (talk) 20:53, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Some of them have hm AA remaining. For athletes with AA recognition, All-conference is commonly removed after going pro.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 22:42, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You're not getting my point. I'm fine with first-team All-Conference honors being included in the Infobox, but inclusion of "Honorable Mention" All-Conference strikes me as ridiculous. The Big Ten coaches have 24 players who are first-team All-Conference, 24 more who are second-team All-Conference, and almost 50 others who are "Honorable Mention" All-Conference. See here. At the QB position, the coaches picked a first-team QB (Persa), a second-team QB (Tolzein), and three more QBs (Pryor, Cousins and Robinson) got "Honorable Mention". There's neither precedent nor a strong argument that Honorable Mention All-Big 10 honors (bestowed on the 50 players who don't rank in the top 2 at their positions in a conference) are sufficiently notable to include in an Infobox for a player like Denard Robinson. The Infobox should summarize the key honors, and "Honorable Mention" designations are simply not key in a case like Denard's. Cbl62 (talk) 23:14, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
My preference would be to include hm All-conference while the players is still a college player. I will bring it up during the GAC review when we have a captive third party.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 00:43, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review[edit]

GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Denard Robinson/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Racepacket (talk) 17:03, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

GA review (see here for criteria)

I will be reviewing your article. It clearly represents a lot of work.

  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
    consider clarifying the "one of the four or five best guys in the Big Ten." quote with a [football players running track] or [sprinter] depending on what you think he was saying. I can't tell from the source what was the basis of comparison. If you can't tell either, perhaps take out the quote.
    I believe I have fixed this.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 01:22, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Good work. Racepacket (talk) 23:59, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
    Footnotes 69 and 77 are dead links.
    These are articles from major media outlets (Washington Post and AP). The sources remain valid and should remain. But I will go ahead and remove the links, as the outlets are no longer making the articles available for free access. Cbl62 (talk) 15:53, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): b (focused):
    Do you want to mention that the coach was fired after the Bowl game and say who won the 2010 Heisman trophy? You might want to incorporate some of the considerations discussed in http://collegefootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2011/01/06/former-coach-uncertain-of-denard-robinsons-michigan-future/ .
    There has been a lot of speculation that Robinson might leave Michigan if he is unhappy with the coaching change. We already have discussion in the "2011 Gator Bowl" section about his post-game comments. Since this is all speculation right now, I'm a little hesitant to include it in the article. It all seems a little "message board"-ish until something factual happens. I agree, though, that this should be monitored. If Robinson makes any announcement, it will need to added. As for saying who won the 2010 Heisman Trophy, I'm ambivalent. My goal over the past month has been to condense/focus the article to get rid of some of the extraneous information that is not directly relevant to Robinson. I'm fine either way on mentioning that Cam Newton won the award. Cbl62 (talk) 16:19, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I would be interested in your response to the allegation that the game-by-game coverage is so detailed that it renders the article "unfocused."
    I think this was previously a valid criticism. During the last GA review, the article was in substantial flux and included length sections with summaries of each game. I agreed with that criticism. After the regular season ended, I went back and substantially condensed the game-by-game coverage. That said, Robinson's 2010 season was one of the most extraordinary in NCAA history. I believe the treatment of the 2010 season has now been appropriately trimmed and focused, but I'm open to suggestions. Cbl62 (talk) 16:03, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Has he announced whether he will run indoor or outdoor track in 2011?
    I have seen no indications one way or the other on this. Unless and until he has a notable achievement during the 2011 track season, I think a separate section on the "2011 track season" is premature. Accordingly, I have removed the brief stub of a section for now. Given the fact that he is not one of the country's elite track athletes, I wonder whether a year-by-year approach to his track seasons is appropriate. It may be that a single section on his college track endeavors would be preferable. Cbl62 (talk) 16:07, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    If a policy decision was reached that the starting quarterback should not also run track, please state. Otherwise, you can leave it open-ended. Racepacket (talk) 23:34, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Are you suggesting we go back to having the article say that the track season started with no statement about Robinson? here is the first track recap. No mention of Robinson.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 01:03, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I suggest holding off and leaving it as is unless/until we know he's on the team. Even then, I think a single track section is sufficient since he's not really known for his track competition. Cbl62 (talk) 02:14, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Since he is not on the official roster it is clear that he is not currently on the track team. Racepacket (talk) 07:07, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Perhaps mention that he is enrolled in the UM School of Kinesiology.
  2. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
  3. It is stable.
    No edit wars, etc.:
    no edit wars.
  4. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
    a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
    Did you check for an available image?
    Yes.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 01:19, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    The article sorely needs an image. I have searched for a public domain image without success. Hopefully, someone will be able to add one soon. Cbl62 (talk) 15:59, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Overall:
    Pass/Fail:
    Placing article on hold.

Since we have a captive third party. Could you please render an opinion on

  1. Should succession boxes be in this article? Such boxes exist in numerous articles such as WP:FA Tyrone Wheatley and WP:GA Brandon Graham (American football). (see here)
I removed the succession box (which you added today) for Michigan quarterbacks. There is already a navbox included at the bottom of the page for that. Recent consensus at the College Football Project indicates that we should not have both a succession box and a navbox for the same thing. So that one had to go. The others seem like clutter-creating overkill to me. Succession boxes should be limited to major awards/records. The only examples I have seen for the succession boxes that you added are two Michigan football articles that you created. None of the other college football articles for player having these achievements have such succession boxes. Frankly, the Robinson article is already cluttered enough. Finally, if you want to develop consensus, this discussion is better suited to the College Football Project talk page rather than a one-off GA discussion. Cbl62 (talk) 17:16, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Prior discussion about the proliferation of succession boxes in college and pro football articles can be found here: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject College football#Succession boxes for major CFB awards? and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject National Football League#Nav boxes and succession boxes for coaches. The consensus is developing against the proliferation of succession boxes. Cbl62 (talk) 17:32, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
A hostage will say anything to gain release from captivity, but I think we should avoid article clutter and that unlike an administrative or coaching position, performance as a college quarterback is so personal and without continuity that an successor box has little practical value. Racepacket (talk) 23:31, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I see little to no need for succession boxes here. WP:CFB has been moving hard against them. cmadler (talk) 13:35, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Should the close voting of the Chicago Tribune Silver Football (see this edit).
Neither of those is really on point for major records. Should we start a discussion at WP:CFB or wait for our reviewer to render an opinion?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 05:43, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think the details of the voting on awards he received is needed. This article is already very long, and it's about a guy who is a college sophomore. We need to be cognizant of size and growth potential. It's not appropriate to include such extraneous details. The fact that Robinson won the Silver Football trophy is important. The fact that Terrell Pryor finished second or Joe Smith finished third may be relevant to articles about them. But in the context of an article about Robinson, it is an unnecessary, extraneous detail. Cbl62 (talk) 17:20, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
IMO, this is not a case of mentioning the runner-up. It is a case of clarifying that he barely won.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 19:54, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
OK. So the voting was close. Voting is often close. That doesn't mean that we ought to identify the #2 or #3 finishers or give a vote count. Robinson won the award, and that's the significant fact. Cbl62 (talk) 21:41, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
One approach would be to list the vote margin without naming the runners-up. There is no clear policy on this point. Racepacket (talk) 23:31, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think that's getting into excessive details. It's sufficient to say that he won and give the citation; people who want to know more details can go read the cited article. cmadler (talk) 13:35, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see the difference in saying he narrowly won the Big Ten MVP and he narrowly won the Big Ten rushing title.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 18:20, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Also, there has been debate on the infoboxes inclusiong of his honorable mention all conference designation by the coaches.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 17:04, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
With an athlete like Robinson, there is a need for selectivity in which honors should be placed in the Infobox to avoid "Infobox bloat." Some honors are easy and should be included for anyone, e.g., first-team All-American, major award winner. Other honors should be excluded, e.g., "honorable mention" honors which fall below 1st team, 2nd team and even 3rd team honors. Other honors are in a grey area and should be evaluated in the context of the particular player so that the Infobox focuses on what's really important, e.g., All-Conference selections, major award finalist lists, etc. If you take a Hall of Fame player with four years of college honors and 15-20 years of NFL honors (e.g., Jerry Rice or Dan Marino), the Infobox will go on for more than a page if you included every minor "honorable mention" designation. If such minor honors are to be included at all, do so in the body of the article or in a list, but the Infobox needs to remain succinct. If Robinson's Infobox is opened to such minor designations, it will be too unwieldy and will get much worse as he progresses through his junior and senior years. Cbl62 (talk) 17:24, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
By way of clarification, I have left the honorable mention All-American designations in the Infobox, even though I think they should eventually be removed. The ones I removed are honorable mention all-conference designations. The Big Ten coaches have 24 players who are first-team All-Conference, 24 more who are second-team All-Conference, and almost 50 others who are "Honorable Mention" All-Conference. See here. At the QB position, the coaches picked a first-team QB (Persa), a second-team QB (Tolzein), and three more QBs (Pryor, Cousins and Robinson) got "Honorable Mention". In a case such as this, Honorable Mention All-Big 10 honors (bestowed on the 50 players who don't rank in the top 2 at their positions in a conference) are not sufficiently important to include in an Infobox for a player like Denard Robinson. Cbl62 (talk) 17:59, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Let's reach consusus and preserve stability. Racepacket (talk) 23:36, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Cbl62 on this, honorable mention all-conference should not be in the infobox. cmadler (talk) 13:35, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

How can we address the remaining issues and wrap up this GA review? Thanks, Racepacket (talk) 23:31, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

January 9 reading
  • Is there a better phrase than "statistical championships" which imply an acknowledged contest. Perhaps use "statistical record" instead?
    • Use "record" if it was in fact a record, otherwise use "statistical leader" or something like that. cmadler (talk) 13:35, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • How is that?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 18:18, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • Because it's not a championship. It's a statistic, and he was the leader in that statistic. In some cases a statistical leader will also be a record-holder, but not always. cmadler (talk) 18:55, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
          • I've revised this to simply indicate he led the conference in the noted statistical categories. Cbl62 (talk) 05:04, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Although his major is listed in the infobox, do you want to mention it in the text as well. He's in the School of Kinesiology, not Engineering, etc.
  • "He was also selected by ESPN.com's Mark Schlabach as the Offensive MVP in its Mid-Season Awards.[87]" -> "He was also selected by Mark Schlabach as the Offensive MVP in ESPN.com's Mid-Season Awards.[87]"
  • Need ref for "2011 Gator Bowl, the most lopsided defeat ever suffered by Michigan in a bowl game. "

Also, while we have a captive third party audience, what about moving to a three section 2010 season summary: Pre-conference, conference, and Bowl/Awards season.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 18:15, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I prefer the existing headings. Sections on less significant games have already been combined. The discussion of some of the games (e.g., Indiana, Notre Dame) are sufficiently lengthy that merging them artificially into the three sections would make the article difficult to navigate. Cbl62 (talk) 04:09, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Eventually, this is going to have to happen. If he has two years remotely similar to last season and then goes on to have a pro career, we are going to have to streamline the table of contents. It can stand for now, but down the line something is going to have to give.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 05:13, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Would someone please address the above items highlighted in red within the next 48 hours so that we may conclude this review? Thanks, Racepacket (talk) 17:26, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations. Racepacket (talk) 16:08, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Youtube of Robinsons 6.81[edit]

Do we want this in the external links?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 23:25, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

NCAA totals or Big Ten/Michigan totals[edit]

Given that the 2011 Western Michigan game totals don't count in his NCAA stats, but count in Big Ten/Michigan stats, what totals should we present to the reader and how should we asterisk the tables if at all?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 04:48, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think it depends on the context. The Big Ten Conference and U of M both count the stats from the 2011 WMU game. So, when reporting Big Ten or Michigan school records, the stats from the WMU should be included. The NCAA does not count the stats from that game, so when reporting NCAA records, the stats from the WMU game should be excluded. In either case, explanatory footnoting is appropriate. This is an unfortunate discrepancy resulting from inconsistent decisions by the various officials, and I think we need to deal with it on a case-by-case basis as noted above. Cbl62 (talk) 20:58, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Update request[edit]

Needs update on the post season.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.119.117.88 (talk • contribs) 17:44 (UTC)

WP is not responsible for a game by game summary of his career. His bowl game performance was non-notable. He had 130 yards of total offense as a quarterback who played the whole game. Gardner did not even take a snap, as I recall. Despite the fact that a wide receiver was MVP, I am not really feeling pressed to detail his performance. Since it is a bowl game, I would not be averse to something being included, but I can go either way on this one.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 19:32, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Robinson's position (OW)[edit]

Please see discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject National Football League#Denard Robinson's position. ~ Richmond96 T • C 23:00, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Denard Robinson. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 16:10, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Denard Robinson. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 07:03, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

July 2016 driving incident[edit]

There is currently quite a bit of news coverage of an incident in which he drove into a pond and the police had trouble rousing him as he and a passsenger slept in the sinking car. Should it be mentioned in the article? See [1], [2], [3], [4]. Or is it not worth mentioning since a policeman determined he was not impaired, no citation was issued and Robinson later Tweeted that he was just tired? Edison (talk) 03:49, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The sheriff is questioning the actions of the officers on the scene. Edison (talk) 20:02, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
My initial take: Based on the officers' report, this was a minor incident in which no one was injured, no one was charged with a crime, and no one was even cited for a traffic infraction. Given the minor nature of the incident, it should either not be included in the Wikipedia article (my inclination), or any mention should be quite brief to avoid WP:UNDUEWEIGHT. Cbl62 (talk) 21:14, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Denard Robinson. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:14, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 9 external links on Denard Robinson. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:47, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Denard_Robinson&oldid=1210078850"