Talk:LSU Tigers football

After studying the "LSU Football" article and comparing it to the "LSU Tigers football" article I would suggest that the "LSU Football" article just simply be deleted. It contains no relevant information that the "LSU Tigers football" article doesn't already contain. The section labeled "2006 Season" is actually just a recap of the 2005 season and really doesn't need to be in the article. If you're going to recap a season then a new article should be started for each season, for example, "2006 LSU Tigers football". The naming of the "LSU Tigers football" page keeps with the standard set by the WikiProject College football. Seancp 17:17, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

I know that some people want 1908 listed in the National Championship cell of the table but that championship is not officially claimed by the university. There is mention of that championship in the section titled "National Championships." Seancp 16:31, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Suggestion: In the table depicting LSU's wins versus ranked opponents, it might be more more readable if you change an entry from "#5 @ Arkansas" to "@ #5 Arkansas". Akparker 15:58, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Question: Is the corndog section really relevant to LSU Football? It seems to be more of a slam towards the fans of the team and adds no constructive data with regards to the team itself. ~Reierm —Preceding unsigned comment added by Reierm (talk • contribs) 22:31, August 28, 2007 (UTC)

I agree with you. It is just a stupid insult that opposing teams fans call LSU fans. Its akin to calling Tennesseee Vols fans a bunch of hillbillies and it has no place on this article. Thanks for removing it. Seancp 22:41, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

The traditions section has a lot of opiniated and unverified information, such as the goosebumps and the band "running down the hill." Some citations should be included. -OK —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.207.196.171 (talk) 14:14, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

The traditions page

The band does run down the hill, I've seen it myself. I changed the chinese bandits part because the entire stadium bows to the defense, not just the student section. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.207.241.210 (talk) 03:02, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

RfC: 2008 Depth charts

Do the additions of speculative 2008 Depth charts violate WP:CRYSTAL and or WP:NOR

(More detailed description). Another editor has been adding depth charts that could be WP:NOR as it is believed by some that even most coaches do not know what their depth charts may look like for 2008. Players will declare for the NFL Draft, some incoming freshmen will be good enough to actually play their first year, etc... The editor continues to add this information and seems to refuse to acknowledge any attempts to discuss the matter. This is an encyclopedia and not a fan site. Speculation is fine for a fan site, but articles need to be able to be sourced or be able to be for it to be in an encyclopedia. These lists do not seem to qualify as encyclopedic. These edits have been occuring on multiple team sites. Some examples, but not all, include the following edits: [1] [2] [3] [4] [5].

Verifiability is the biggest concern here. Unless sources can be cited -- and I suspect few will be available until the college football previews/guides start coming out in mid- to late-summer -- then these "projected" depth charts will have to go. As stated above, several factors that can't be accounted for play here. Most coaches will have no idea what the team will look like for next season until, at the very least, spring practice. Caknuck (talk) 21:32, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

This is a no brainer for me. The 2008 depth charts don't belong.Brianreading (talk) 08:02, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Prominent Players page

The "Prominent" players page is a veritable mishmash of players, past and present, seemingly selected at random with no discernible common criterion between them. While I don't want to be too technical, "prominent", as defined by Mr. Webster, means "widely and popularly known." I would respectfully submit that at least 75% of the players listed there do not reasonably fall within that definition. Furthermore, it is near impossible to delineate who's "prominent" and who's not without some sort of objectively ascertainable criteria. And when that is coupled with the harsh but true fact that great players of the past are often forgotten, I submit that the page, as is currently written, falls victim to both generation-based partiality and the contributors' esoteric caprice.

From what I gather, most of the players mentioned there have moved on to the NFL. I do not dispute that making it to the NFL is an achievement worthy of mention on the LSU Tigers football page. However, if that is the basis upon which they have been selected to be labeled "prominent", then I suggest a new section be added, perhaps named "Tigers in the NFL", which would more accurately define the accomplishment warranting their inclusion on the page. That new section may also be subdivided further into "Current NFL Players" and "Former NFL players", if anyone is so inclined. This is the format used by many teams. See, e.g., USC, Michigan, Ohio State. Thereafter, the majority of the remainder of players could be put in another section, possibly titled "All-American Tigers", so that we can incorporate all of the excellent hard work that was put into the existing table. Others could be placed under "Other Notable Tigers" if need be.

In sum, I would recommend that an objective merit-based format be implemented. That may be much more prudent than plucking players out of the timeless field of talent for individual glorification, and then lumping them together as "prominent". With that said, I welcome the community's comments, and hopefully we can figure this out without stepping on any toes.--Htrahan (talk) 04:53, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Arbitrary move to Louisiana State Football

I think that the arbitrary move done is wrong. Consensus should be obtained before doing this. I'd like to voice my Oppose to this action, as sports fans and the public in general know this school commonly as LSU, not Louisiana State. I think the article spells out that LSU stands for Louisiana State University, which should suffice for the presentation of that info. Sf46 (talk) 04:54, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Ditto on not moving. I've never heard anyone familiar with LSU refer to it as Louisiana State. Mdlawmba (talk) 05:51, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

The user that did this, SportsMaster, has done it to almost every LSU athletics page repeatedly, even after I asked him to stop. He also did it under another username, SportsMasterESPN. Can we report him to the admins or something? I'm tired of this happening all the time. Seancp (talk) 11:35, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Also, what the hell happened to the edit history of this article? Seancp (talk) 11:36, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

The edit history was lost when I unmoved his redirect. The history appears to have stayed attached to his redirected article. Sf46 (talk) 13:11, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Yea, I'm working on fixing that. I already put in an admin request to have the original name restored on the article with the correct edit history. Seancp (talk) 13:15, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Did you notice the guy seems to have ties to Ohio. Could it be he's sore because Ohio State can't beat an SEC team to save their soul? Add your vote here & at Requested Moves. Sf46 (talk) 13:18, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Move or stay?

Stay with Louisiana StateTigers football or move back to LSU Tigers football?

Support moving back to name LSU Tigers football Sf46 (talk) 13:29, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Hopefully an admin will see the Move Request I made on the Louisiana StateTigers football article and act on it soon. We just need to maintain the edit history of the article and the only way to do that is to ensure that Louisiana StateTigers football gets moved back to LSU Tigers football. Seancp (talk) 13:37, 2 April 2008 (UTC)