Talk:J. J. McCarthy

Lead

@Centurion Seraph: I've made a post on WT:NFL and invite you for discussion. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 21:40, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

Let's put aside any grievances and actually work together to improve the article, as this should be settled before the draft invites a ton of other eyes here potentially causing more issues.

The current lead reads as:

Jonathan James McCarthy (born January 20, 2003) is an American football quarterback. He played college football at the University of Michigan. McCarthy led the Michigan Wolverines to three consecutive Big Ten Conference titles, culminating in a national championship in 2023. He finished his career at Michigan with a 27-1 record (.964) as the starting quarterback, the third-highest winning percentage in college football history.

While my reverted edit read as:

Jonathan James McCarthy (born January 20, 2003) is an American football quarterback. He played college football at Michigan, leading the Wolverines to three consecutive Big Ten Conference titles and a national championship in 2023. McCarthy finished his Michigan career with a 27-1 record (.964) as a starter, the third-highest winning percentage by a college football quarterback.

Proposed edit:

Jonathan James McCarthy (born January 20, 2003) is an American football quarterback. He played college football at the University of Michigan, leading the Wolverines to three consecutive Big Ten Conference titles and a national championship in 2023. McCarthy finished his career with a 27-1 record as a starter with Michigan, the third-highest winning percentage (.964) in college football history.

This keeps both the university and football program without using WP:EASTEREGG; we don't need to add Michigan to the second link since it is self-evident from context who the Wolverines represent. I still disagree with the use of "culminating" when it reads just fine without it, if a word has to be added here then let's try to find a better one. Him being a quarterback was clearly established in the opening sentence and does not need to be mentioned again twice two sentences later. I linked to winning percentage and moved it to the more relevant section, as the general audience not too familiar with sports would probably have no idea what it meant. The hidden wikitext is there simply to help speed up the editing process when he gets drafted in a few days; those should have never been removed. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 21:07, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

For the college references, I prefer your later version (which Bringingthewood also attempted to restore):

He played college football for the Michigan Wolverines, leading them to three consecutive Big Ten Conference titles and a national championship in 2023.

It's consistent with the rough consensus at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject National Football League/Archive 22 § Revisit: College links in bios' lead (reaffirmed at the close to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject National Football League § College in lead (again)) to link the college football program—the most relevant link—in the lead, while the university can be mentioned and linked in the body. As a comparison, Tom Brady's lead doesn't mention that he played at Foxborough, Massachusetts, or the Greater Boston Area, it mentions the teams he played for, like the New England Patriots.—Bagumba (talk) 04:16, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

@Centurion Seraph: Thoughts? I've also adjusted the wording that he "lead" them to three Big Ten titles since Cade McNamara started the 2021 game. See my new proposed edit below with Bagumba's wording. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 23:21, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

Jonathan James McCarthy (born January 20, 2003) is an American football quarterback. He played college football for the Michigan Wolverines, leading them to two consecutive Big Ten Conference titles and a national championship in 2023. McCarthy finished his career at Michigan with a 27-1 record as a starter, the third-highest winning percentage (.964) by a quarterback in college football history.

@Bagumba Ironically Tom Brady’s lead does mention that he played for the University of Michigan though. & saying that he went to school at the University of Michigan is no comparison to saying that he played in Foxborough. That’s the worst example I’ve ever heard, I’m not saying he played at Ann Arbor. I’m mentioning where he went to college.

@Dissident93 In reading that last edit it seems you removed the University of Michigan again, no thanks to Bagumba’s assertion, the entire reason why we’re talking about this, again, and you reverted your same wording in the two other sentences; same as before. Furthermore you want to revert that he won three consecutive big ten titles, down to your preferred version of two. He won three, use won if you dont like the word led. Less desirable than any other ive read.

I thought we weren’t going to revert any more edits, but if you guys are itching to go against local consensus, by all means go for it. Centurion Seraph (talk) 23:46, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

@Dissident93 Really your first proposed edit today was the best i have seen, I might’ve been able to live with it; push come to shove. Since im trying to find common ground…. Centurion Seraph (talk) 00:06, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

I know you think the word quarterback is redundant but he’s not the third all-time winning percentage for a starter in college football; you’ll have to define the position group somewhere. Centurion Seraph (talk) 00:09, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

That's true, but the previous sentence had it mentioned twice. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 00:17, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

I haven't reverted anything in days, we are attempting to actually reach consensus via discussion. Both Bagumba and Bringingthewood have both supported my proposed edit. And we shouldn't be credited backups for "leading" teams to anything if they didn't contribute in a major way. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 00:08, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

@Dissident93 he did contribute that season substantially. Incorrect Centurion Seraph (talk) 00:10, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

Like i said the word ‘won’ in place of ‘led’ is more than enough. You dont erase a championship he won Centurion Seraph (talk) 00:12, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

Could you please make one single comment (or edit an old one) instead of posting several at once? You make following your comments harder than it should be and making edit conflicts likely. Anyway, he was credited for throwing 500 yards and five touchdowns in 2021 and didn't start or play in the Big Ten game. He shouldn't be credited for either leading or winning it if he didn't do either; we aren't talking about a national championship where every member gets a ring or something. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 00:16, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

He scored seven touchdowns that season and you don’t want to credit him with winning a big 10 championship? you don’t think that they get a ring for that too or get credit for that? that’s absurd. This is why trying to compromise with you is straining, you’re going in the wrong direction now. Centurion Seraph (talk) 00:21, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

He didn't lead nor win the Big Ten title having 500 yards and seven touchdowns in a season with zero starts, this is not "substantial" as you put it. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 22:43, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, McCarthy was not the starting QB in 2021, but he did play meaningful snaps and made some big plays in key games that year as a change-up for Cade McNamara. That should be made clear. Jweiss11 (talk) 00:54, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

I’m not sure how you justify saying he didn’t win a Big Ten title. That’s a season cumulation title. Not one game. Example: If you played in all 12 games before that game and got injured, you’re still considered a Big Ten champion. Centurion Seraph (talk) 02:15, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

@Dissident93 Sorry for the second comment but he did play in that game and he did win that game, it’s that simple Centurion Seraph (talk) 02:18, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

If nobody else disagreed with it before apparently me then I suppose so. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 03:14, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

McCarthy won three Big Ten titles. No question. But the way the lead reads right now, it suggests that he was the starting QB for all three. The lead really should mention how he was the backup/mix-ups QB in 2021 and then unseated McNamara as the starter early in 2022. Jweiss11 (talk) 03:55, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

Correction

Might want to fix under the specs for professional life, you have that odunze was drafted 10th overall by the vikings 184.55.153.243 (talk) 01:26, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

Tom Brady - University of Michigan

@Bagumba you wrote this as a reason why it is improper to include the University of Michigan in the lead:

” link the college football program—the most relevant link—in the lead, while the university can be mentioned and linked in the body. As a comparison, Tom Brady's lead doesn't mention that he played at Foxborough, Massachusetts, or the Greater Boston Area, it mentions the teams he played for, like the New England Patriots.”

But Tom Bradys lead reads University of Michigan. So im still confused. You’ve reverted edits from some Wolverine players that I personally edited, but not others that have U of M in the lead, like Tom Brady who you referenced. The majority of past University of Michigan football players have it listed as University of Michigan. This is why i have done so, to match the community consensus of past Wolverines leads. I feel as though the football program is linked through the career information under college, rendering it redundant. Is University of Michigan allowed there either? Or nowhere in plain sight; for certain players only? Centurion Seraph (talk) 02:54, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

Linking to the program in the lead was reaffirmed as the consensus at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_National_Football_League#College_in_lead_(again). There's a saying here about WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, basically that the existence of bad examples does not mean they are justified. We operate on consensus. Regards. —Bagumba (talk) 03:02, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

I see. But if you believe a bad example exists in Tom Brady, and know it is there, why not edit his page as well? Why the double standard?

Surely people are going to see his page more than any other U of M football alumni, see that and think thats the standard template. Centurion Seraph (talk) 15:01, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

@Centurion Seraph: Everyone is a volunteer here. You too are encouraged to be bold and fix pages like Brady's. That said, I did go and change Brady. Regards.—Bagumba (talk) 06:54, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

Big Ten Awards

If you notice most of the Big Ten awards redirect link using dual links, both Rimington–Pace Offensive Lineman of the Year and Big Ten Offensive Lineman of the Year

Graham–George Offensive Player of the Year vs. Big Ten Offensive Player of the Year ect. Why a few dont work like QB, I don’t know. But the only way to keep consistency across the award winners is keeping Big Ten as a constant, as the players names obviously change from award to award. I dont think its wrong to include the both the players names and Big Ten, like ‘Griese-Brees Big Ten’

Furthermore, your edits on Montee Ball’s awards yesterday seem to directly contradict your editing format philosophy. (Using # and pipes) Centurion Seraph (talk) 15:23, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

@Sergio Skol Centurion Seraph (talk) 15:28, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

I am the one who is editing every single page of the Big Ten individual awards winners. Before the 2011 season, awards were known as "Offensive Player of the Year", "Defensive Lineman of the Year", etc. From 2011, its names were changed, so we use "Butkus–Fitzgerald Linebacker of the Year", Tatum–Woodson Defensive Back of the Year".

And you're right, I edited Montee Ball's page using # and pipes, I apologize for it.

After that, I edited Ryan Kerrigan, Jared Odrick and other pages, I didn't use # nor pipes. THX Sergio Skol (talk) 17:00, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

Tatum–Woodson Defensive Back of the Year was started in 2011, yet i can show Big Ten Defensive Back of the Year too. So why not both? Excluding Big Ten from their conference awards makes for inconsistent awards. I dont understand why you dont think the results aren’t pertinent to the three consecutive conference titles, that seems to be your opinion again. NOTBROKEN doesnt apply. Im not avoiding a redirect. Its been in the lead for months, hundreds of thousands of people edited this information since. Centurion Seraph (talk) 17:30, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

Rewriting the lead

@Centurion Seraph - I've noted my issues with your version of the lead in my edit summary, which I'm going to elaborate further on here:

• There is no mention of McCarthy winning Big Ten Quarterback of the Year, one of his most prominent accomplishments. It is an award he won as an individual, not with his team.
• There is no mention of McCarthy leading Michigan to its first national title since 1997, a significant time gap that makes winning the title more notable.
• At least two other editors here are also opposed to saying McCarthy won three Big Ten Conference titles. It is misleading because it implies he was the starter for all three when he was the backup for the first. If the conference titles have to be mentioned, the lead should say he led Michigan to two consecutive conference titles, which is far more notable than being the backup on a team that won a conference title.
• There is no need to hyperlink the University of Michigan when the Michigan Wolverines football program is already hyperlinked. That falls under MOS:OVERLINK. We provided background information on the football program he played for - a hyperlink to the school is redundant.
• Having the third-highest winning percentage in college football is not a record. There are two other quarterbacks ahead of him. A college player's winning percentage is also not particularly notable because they're limited to four seasons, which can inflate the percentage.
• The focus of the lead is inevitably going to be his professional career. That's going to become his primary notability. We want to keep his amateur career as concise as possible and only focus on his biggest accolades to prevent the lead from becoming too long.

Bluerules (talk) 10:17, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

Bluerules, I agree that Big Ten Quarterback of the Year and Michigan's first national title since 1997 should be mentioned in the lead. McCarthy was a prominent member of of three consecutive Big Ten championship teams at Michigan. The lead should explain that McCarthy was not the starting QB in 2021, that he was the backup to Cade McNamara before supplanting him as the starter by the second game of the 2022 season, and that McCarthy was used as a change-of-pace QB in meaningful parts of some of Michigan's game biggest games in 2021. Third-highest winning percentage is still worth mentioning, although it should be qualified that we're talking about major college football (FBS and its predecessors) not all of college football. We can certainly get all of that into an appropriately-sized lead. Both the lead and the body of the article can grow as McCarthy's NFL career progresses. Jweiss11 (talk) 13:10, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

The lead's summary of McCarthy's college career should focus on what got him noticed by the NFL. His backup tenure didn't get him noticed - his starting tenure did, culminating with his national championship victory. Getting into his backup tenure and battle for the starting job veers too much into recap territory. I don't have an issue with adding more information about his two seasons as the primary starter, especially since he hasn't played in the NFL yet, but his backup tenure should be kept to a minimum at best. He didn't start any games in 2021 and he threw less than a fourth of the touchdown passes he threw in each season as the primary starter.

Like I mentioned above, my issue with the winning percentage is it's based off only two seasons (and he only started one full season). That slants the winning percentage in his favor. If a consensus supports the winning percentage being included in the lead, I believe it's more notable that he holds the highest winning percentage since 1971 instead of the third-highest winning percentage. He may not have the highest, but despite my qualms, I do see significance in him having the highest in over 50 years. Bluerules (talk) 18:13, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

WP:ILIKE youre once again wiping the entire lead to your preference. Expand and talk here what you would like. Centurion Seraph (talk) 18:17, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

No, I explained the problems with the winning percentage (it's based on only two seasons and 29 games, which inflates the percentage) and his backup season on the 2021 team (his contributions were not as significant as his contributions as the primary starter and should not be presented as such). If anything, not addressing these issues falls into WP:ILIKE. I am trying to expand the lead with what we both want, but we still need to consider any potential issues with what we want. Bluerules (talk) 20:22, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

I have made 8 concessions. Adding he was starter in 2022 and 2023, QB of the year, adding 1997, adding he was a junior, erasing U of M link, adding FBS, splitting sentence, added #1 record reading, not #3 in division one. You have not made compromises with the existing lead. That win percentage isn’t based on two seasons only, that’s based on every FBS college quarterback’s starting record ever, regardless of how many starts. (obviously there is a minimum amount of starts, but no maximum, or limitations regarding two seasons). He just played 29 games in two seasons, 28 starts. He still gets credit for winning in 2021, the distinction has been made he started in 2022 and 2023. But he was a change of pace quarterback in 2021 and in the game and critical moments and had success with us both individually and with the team Centurion Seraph (talk) 20:33, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

Wrong, I have compromised on including his winning percentage and his conference championships in the lead. And I am willing to have his backup season included in the lead for the time being. That winning percentage is based on two seasons only. It is being compared to every other FBS quarterback, but it is still based on only two seasons as a starter, which slants the percentage in McCarthy's favor because he had less games to lose than college quarterbacks who played longer. I'm not going to remove it on account of the consensus and it being an FBS record, but the point stands it is slanted by McCarthy's shorter tenure as a college starter. He gets credit for winning because he was part of the team, but without the necessary context, his accomplishments are overstated. No matter what he did, he was still not the primary quarterback leading the team to victory in 2021. And the way the lead is currently written, his backup season has more prominence than his conference award and national championship. Bluerules (talk) 20:47, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

Two seasons where he started 28 games. What the average QB would have in 3 seasons as a full time starter in years past. How many college quarterbacks start all four seasons, this is not a slanted record at all. 28 games is more than enough as a minimum starts baseline Centurion Seraph (talk) 20:57, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

Trevor Lawrence started 34 games, but has a lower winning percentage simply because he lost one more game than McCarthy by virtue of playing more games. It is a completely slanted record because of the minimal playtime of college quarterbacks. The focus should be on records and accomplishments that are not impacted by being limited to a maximum of four seasons. Bluerules (talk) 21:06, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

Thats the NCAA man. All career records are limited to four seasons. We dont knit-pick records like that, saying Lawrence should be #1 but he played more games and lost in the end. Every participant is not gonna play the same amount of games, in any record across any sport. I did move the Big Ten championships behind his quarterback of the year and national championship to appease you once again. Centurion Seraph (talk) 21:12, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

And that's why certain records are slanted in college sports. We add context to records and omit the ones that are less important. I'm not saying Lawrence should be No. 1 - I'm demonstrating how losing just one more game can slant this record and that slant is in McCarthy's favor by having less games to lose. It's not significant for players in college sports for this reason. I'm not pushing for its removal, but I have the right to point out the contextual problems with the record. And I'm done editing the lead until there's new information to add to appease you. Bluerules (talk) 21:33, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

You do. & I appreciate hearing your concerns. Though if JJ would have lost his last game too like Lawrence, boom no record. Im just saying 28 games is a big enough baseline to not be considered slanted or tainted, I could see contention if he started only 12. Centurion Seraph (talk) 21:41, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

I don't believe there is any big enough baseline for a winning percentage in college sports because of the mandatory limits on playtime. That's why we focus on accomplishments that aren't impacted by the limitations, namely significant awards like the Heisman, instead of statistics that would change if they played longer. The consensus disagrees on the winning percentage and I'm not objecting to it being included, but I want the context of the percentage - less games to lose - to be clear. Bluerules (talk) 21:59, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

The problem is you are deleting the entire lead, and replacing according to what you like. You should be trying to implement what you want adjusted without disrupting the entire lead. This lead has been a collaborative effort and vetted frequently, much of are previously debated issues with compromises.

• I do agree with you both on Big Ten Quarterback of the Year but the is an discussion in Wikipedia talk

WikiProject National Football League - Proposal remove conference awards. If you disagree, please go there and voice you concern. It doesnt make sense to include if it will be erased soon from awards sections and leads

• Yes i think adding from 1997 can be added
• One editor, not two, and that was because it said leading to three consecutive at the time, not winning, which was the compromise. & it is a foregone conclusion he won three. He scored 7 touchdowns that season, obviously he was a member and contributor of that 2021 team. He has a ring for 2021 Big Ten Champion. Furthermore ‘winning a third consecutive’, could be used as replacement before deleting entirely.
• That is not an overlink. That is the university he attended, and a compromise you deleted, as the words ‘Michigan’ need to be included to specify.
• That is if you dont delete and entire section, which is a consensus and worthy. It’s the best since 1971. FBS can and should probably have been included.
• Exactly the lead can grow and adapt over time, as I said he hasnt played an NFL game to supplant any key information about his overall career.

Centurion Seraph (talk) 14:54, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

Note: the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject National Football League#Proposal: Remove (some) conference awards from infoboxes applies to infoboxes, not lead sections. Jweiss11 (talk) 15:04, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

True but the point is being argued that those awards are not important enough to even be included in the awards sections, the same argument can and will be made that they are not important enough for the lead. Centurion Seraph (talk) 15:08, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

I am open to including content in the lead that is supported by a consensus. The question is which content is actually necessary.

• Even if Big Ten Quarterback of the Year is removed from the infobox, it can still be included in the lead. There is plenty of room for it.
• I'm glad we agree on the space of time between Michigan's national titles.
• Two other editors, Jweiss11 and Dissident93, raised issue with giving his backup season the same weight as his two starting seasons. He was not a primary contributor of the 2021 team; all backups receive championship rings, regardless of if they take the field. Your wording implies he contributed equally to all three conference championships because they are conflated together. The lead should focus on his most notable accomplishments and being a backup on a team that won a conference championship did not get him noticed by NFL teams.
• It is an overlink. There is already a Michigan-related hyperlink to the football program, making a hyperlink to the school unnecessary. It's already established he played for Michigan and nowhere else, so it's redundant to say "He finished his career at the University of Michigan with a 27–1 record". The sentence would convey the same information by saying "He finished his college career with a 27–1 record".
• If we mention his winning percentage, it's more notable he has the highest winning percentage since 1971, not that he has the third-highest winning percentage. The third-highest winning percentage is still third place, but noting how long it's been since a college quarterback had a winning percentage that high is a stronger demonstration of notability. My issue with the winning percentage is it's based on only two seasons and 28 games, which slants the percentage in his favor. You lose less games when you play less games.
• Since his NFL career has not officially started, I agree we have more room for his college career in the lead. But be prepared to condense information about his college career in the future when we have more information to add about his NFL career.

Bluerules (talk) 17:45, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

2023 is the recognized season of the national championship, once again he did win three. FBS started in 1978. #1 record Centurion Seraph (talk) 18:22, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

Saying McCarthy has the highest winning percentage in the FBS era is fair. But the championship article is still entitled 2024 College Football Playoff National Championship. It is a formal championship and should be recognized as such in the prose. Giving it an informal name without valid reason - e.g. being literal about when the season took place - looks sloppy. And saying McCarthy won three conference championships is like saying Bryce Young won a national championship. He technically did, but as a backup who wasn't a primary factor in that win. When you say, "once again he did win three", you make it sound like he won all three equally when he did not. Context matters and that's lacking in your prose. Bluerules (talk) 20:35, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

It is actually an informal national championship, not hosted by the NCAA, though they do list and recognize by the seasons. We go by the recognized NCAA season, otherwise we would say Michigan last won a national championship in 1998, formally in the 1998 rose bowl, but we dont, we say 1997 as the recognized season.

How could anybody be confused by this now? It clearly distinguishes he was the starter in 2022 and 2023 only. I didnt say “once again he won three”, im giving him credit for the credited big ten championships he was a part of. They were all equally and fairly won, he was just not the starting QB in 2021, though he did play in high leverage situations and contribute to the team winning the big ten.Centurion Seraph (talk) 20:44, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

It is a formal championship because it is the highest recognized championship in college football. If you have an issue with the titles of CFP championship articles, take it up with the editors at the football project. Until then, it is more encyclopedic to refer to the top championship by its actual name.

The current edit removes confusion about his contributions to the conference championship teams, but prioritizes these conference championships over the national championship and his conference honor, which looks bizarre. They were all equally and fairly won as a team, not with McCarthy as a primary contributor. No matter what he did in 2021, it was not on the same level as his next two seasons and definitely not on the same level as his national championship victory. Bluerules (talk) 20:53, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

The NCAA does not recognize it as the national championship game. They allow it, recognizing that the team with the best record or ranking at the seasons end, as the seasons national champion. They NCAA obviously has their problems, but the consensus has been to write it as such (2023 national champions) not 2024 CFP national champions, which is not hosted by the NCAA, unlike their season. Having the national championships uniformly listed across the years is the main idea. Not to have it listed either or and become even more confusing to the average person. Centurion Seraph (talk) 21:05, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

See Carson Beck and Georgia Centurion Seraph (talk) 21:20, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

That is an WP:OTHERCONTENT argument. Bryce Young was part of the team that won the 2021 national championship as a backup and there's no mention of him "winning" a national championship in the lead. But I can't use that as an argument for my case because it's not valid. Different articles are written by different editors with different preferences. Bluerules (talk) 21:25, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

That’s not the same thing we’re talking about the year that is the consensus to be listed, not if its accepable, and Bryce Young’s awards says 2020 national champion even though it was the 2021 college football playoff national championship game. Centurion Seraph (talk) 21:29, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

You completely missed the point about WP:OTHERCONTENT. How the Carson Beck article is written is not a valid argument for how this article should be written because of WP:OTHERCONTENT - articles are written by different editors with different writing preferences. We're not talking about the infobox, we're talking about the lead, and while I think it's notable that Bryce Young's lead omits a more significant accomplishment while he was a backup, it's not a valid argument for me, just as the Caron Beck article is not a valid argument for you. Different editors, different styles. Bluerules (talk) 21:53, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

The article is entitled "2024 College Football Playoff National Championship". It is not saying Michigan is the 2024 champion, it is saying Michigan won the 2024 championship. Not being awarded by the NCAA doesn't change the fact it is recognized as the top college football championship. Again, you are hiding a formal title for the top championship and giving it an informal name out of literalism. If anything, it's more confusing to have a 2023 hyperlink in the infobox lead to an article about the 2024 championship. The main idea is to use proper names, as is the norm for an encyclopedia. Using the proper name demonstrates the significance of the national championship. The national championship is more significant than the conference championships, yet it's the conference championships that are being referred to by their formal name. Bluerules (talk) 21:20, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

I didnt formulate this consensus. Click the link 2024 College Football Playoff National Championship “the game determined the national champion of the NCAA Division I Football Bowl Subdivision (FBS) for the 2023 season”. Centurion Seraph (talk) 21:24, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

And I didn't give the article its title. But it's still entitled "2024 College Football Playoff National Championship" and the logo has "2024" in it. That's the proper name, that's what belongs in the lead, especially if we're providing the proper name for the less significant conference championships. Bluerules (talk) 21:28, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

The year is not contestable for Big Ten Championship? The year for the Big Ten championship & national championship are the listed for the same season, 2023. 2024 presents as if its for the 2024 season. Once again I didnt create this consensus. Centurion Seraph (talk) 21:32, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

You would say 2024 National Championship Game if talking specifically about that game. & winning a national championship in 2023, or 2023 national champion if referencing the season. You wouldnt say he won a national championship game, youd say he won a national championship. Centurion Seraph (talk) 21:33, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

We are talking specifically about the game. Not the national championship in general, not the season, the game. If we were saying he won a national championship, we would hyperlink the College Football Playoff National Championship. But we're hyperlinking the 2024 College Football Playoff National Championship article, a specific game, because it's more specific and concise. You're creating a WP:EGG issue by presenting a hyperlink to a specific game as a generic game. And I am not proposing we change the hyperlink for the 2024 championship to a hyperlink for the general championship. The hyperlink should lead to the championship he directly won because it's the championship he's directly connected to. And it should be formally presented. He didn't win a championship, he won the championship as it is the top championship. Bluerules (talk) 21:48, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

Strawman. You are presenting the conference championship more formally than the national championship, despite the national championship being the more significant game, over a literal perception of years. We are not presenting the season, we are presenting the championship, and the formal name of the championship as "2024" in it because it took place in 2024. We're not mentioning the years of the conference championships either. Once again, I didn't create the titles for these articles and I definitely didn't decide on the names for these games. Bluerules (talk) 21:41, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

I preferred the version @Bluerules and I just decided to settle for. Now this one is starts off way too much with his freshman year. I only Inc. a big 10 title that was already being mentioned because of the 2022 in 2023 season. Every existing link is gone once again Centurion Seraph (talk) 21:50, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

Every existing link is gone once again? What are you talking about? The dynamics between McNamara and McCarthy need to be explained. There's one sentence now about about 2021. That's not too much. Jweiss11 (talk) 21:56, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

Why does McNamara need to be discussed in detail in the lead? Also just a bit irking as we collaborated for a while, and seemed to be settle after debate, and its vastly different again. Seems like info for the body if you want that much detail. Should be an overview. Not to mention its poorly written with typos. But forget it, you guys can have the lead however you want. Im done here. Centurion Seraph (talk) 22:02, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

Yes, there were a few typos in my initial edit in the last hour, but I’ve fixed those. The lead is not “poorly written”. CS, if you’re going to continue to participate here, you need a serious attitude adjustment. Fewer repeat reversions and less hostility would be a good start. Jweiss11 (talk) 22:17, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

I agree rude conduct is unacceptable and I'm sorry this conversation has not been more civil. Speaking civilly, I do agree with Centurion Seraph that there's now too much information about his freshman year and, by extension, his amateur career. His most significant season as a junior is underneath all the information about his previous two years. We also have a confusing chronology - going from his first two seasons, his junior year, and then jumping back to his conference championships. We also go from the end of his college career back to his high school career, then jump ahead to his NFL career. Generally, we don't mention high schools in the lead for football players. The lead is supposed to be a summary, not a recap, and I feel it's now gotten too detailed about his amateur career. I think we should go back to Centurion Seraph's last version and see if there's another way to write it. Bluerules (talk) 22:32, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

Yes, I apologize that this conversation presented uncivil. I think me and Bluerules had an unwritten understanding of how we were going to debate and hash this out. I personally never felt insulted, and grew to respect his opinion, seeing his concerns and editing changes into existence in a collaborative effort, albeit unorthodox. I think we both made good progress, so I also believe we should go back to the last version. It just feel as though @Jweiss11 robbed us of our collaboration and is dismissing it. Centurion Seraph (talk) 22:59, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

And I'm satisfied with the last version by Centurion Seraph while we wait for the NFL season to start. Bluerules (talk) 00:07, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

I agree with Centurion Seraph on this. While I may have issues with some of his edits, his version is more concise and draws focus to McCarthy's junior season, the most prominent season of his college career. This new version has too much detail about his amateur career and buries the most important accomplishments. I think it would be better to go back to Centurion Seraph's last version. Bluerules (talk) 22:19, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

Trust me, the lead is not too detailed now. It was way too brief before. The lead is indeed a summary. It has way less detail than the body of the article. I’m open to suggestions about reordering. I fail to see how there’s too much emphasis on his amateur career. That’s his entire career to date, save for being drafted in the NFL. Jweiss11 (talk) 22:59, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

I think we should go back before you edited it at all, I’m sorry. Me & Bluerules had a good collaboration. This lead you added as a replacement is all over the place chronologically, mentions things that dont need to be included and buries important information. Centurion Seraph (talk) 23:07, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

You guys need to decide whether you like things chronologically or by order of importance because I’m hearing it both ways. I think we should make a call to WT:CFB for more input. Jweiss11 (talk) 23:29, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

Well we were speaking on order of importance of information in the same year i.e 2023. That early life section in the lead does not to be there, but my biggest issue is that you give Cade McNamara the greatest importance to JJ’s career and life, as much or more detail and writing regarding their QB situation then his entire 2022 and 2023 season. I don’t think it’s important enough to even mention his name in the lead. It buries the pertinent information. Just keep it the way you want before going to WT, honestly, if you think we are both wrong. Centurion Seraph (talk) 23:46, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

• FWIW, I prefer jweiss's version. At this point, all he has is a high school and college career, and so this are going to be the focus of the lead. This may change in the future if he ends up having a successful NFL career. Cbl62 (talk) 23:54, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

  We don't focus on high school for NFL players. We focus on what they did in college and how that led to them being drafted. The focus is supposed to be his most notable college accomplishments and that's not the current focus. Being his conference's top quarterback and winning the national championship are more notable than his relationship with another quarterback on his team. Bluerules (talk) 00:14, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

Wrong. All we have is a high school and college career at this point. Ignoring the high school career in the lead would result in a lead that does not properly sumarize the article. See WP:LEAD. Cbl62 (talk) 00:37, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

It is not a common practice, the same information is now listed in direct succession three times. The infobox, the split lead, and the first line of the article(body) all state the same exact information repeated. Where he was born and lived, and which high schools he attended Centurion Seraph (talk) 00:48, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

You should read through WP:LEAD. The infobox is a red herring to this discussion and serves a wholly different function. Important aspects of a biography should be summarized in the lead. In this case there are two importants aspects of the biography -- early years and college career. As the pro career develops (hopefully), there will be more to be said about it, but as of now nothing has happened other than being drafted. Cbl62 (talk) 01:13, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

I cant tell if you're being condescending or not. Almost everything I wrote is still in this lead and has been for this entire year. I know what a lead is, I’m voicing my discontent at the vast expansion of the Cade McNamara relationship at the forefront and the format of including where he was born and both attending high school’s in the lead. Its redundant and unnecessary. That is not the most important information for a concise, engaging lead. This is expansion for the sake of expansion. & I did not appreciate that Jweiss was a part of the initial conversation this morning, and he waited until me and Bluerules came to a consensus, hours later, then edited it according to what he wanted. Not joining the talk page before, and dismissing our concerns after. Centurion Seraph (talk) 01:41, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

Wrong. High school career is not notable for the lead. Just because we only have information about his high school and college career does not mean it should be added. You are adding WP:UNDUE content in an attempt to make the lead the size you think it should be when a proper summary would focus on the most notable moments of his college career. The lead as you've proposed it is not a proper summary of the article because it buries the most important information under undue bloat. Bluerules (talk) 13:15, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

There is too much detail about his relationship with Cade McNamara, a relatively minor part of his college career, in the lead. There's more about the relationship with McNamara and his underclassman seasons than his most important and prominent season when he won the national championship as a junior. By giving his freshman and sophomore years their own full sentences, it becomes a year-by-year recap than buries his junior year. Both Centurion Seraph and I agree that we should go back to the previous version that we feel was the right length. The previous version was the appropriate length for an incoming NFL player with three college seasons to his name. Until this discussion is settled, we should be using the previous version supported by the current consensus. Bluerules (talk) 00:05, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

No. The prior version of the lead (one very brief paragraph) was way to short to summarize a "B" class article. Cbl62 (talk) 00:39, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

Yes, the one short paragraph lead prior to my expansion today was way too brief. If someone wants to add another sentence about 2023 to put more emphasis on that season, I have no objections. But the McNamara-McCarthy dynamic was one of the biggest stories in college football going into the 2022 season. McCarthy also wasn’t some obscure benchwarmer as a freshman in 2021. He came in as a highly-touted 5-star recruit and everyone knew he would become the Michigan starter at some point, probably before McNamara was done with college, which is exactly what happened. McCarthy was also used prominently and was involved in key plays in some of the biggest games the entire 2021 season (vs. Michigan State, Ohio State, Iowa). Researching reliable sources will substantiate coverage here. I’m without a computer for the next 3-4 days, so I won’t be doing much more substantive editing until then. Jweiss11 (talk) 02:38, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

I edited your lead unbiasedly how I thought your words would read better. You can change it back if you see fit. Centurion Seraph (talk) 03:24, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

CS, I like some of what you did there. We’re making progress. I think the early season on-field QB competition with McNamara in 22 is more worthy of mention than McCarthy’s second-team all-Big Ten selection. Rose Bowl player of game is also more worthy. Jweiss11 (talk) 03:49, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

Well I needed All-Big ten as an accolade for the sophomore season, to bridge the gap between summer of 2022 to the 2023 success’. Rose Bowl MVP was as a junior and really doesnt fit without being chunky now. Talking much more about McNamara is really going to bog it down in my opinion. Im trying to play around with wording to accommodate you, but supplant is such a good word I think it works great as is but Ill continue to play around with wording on it though. I think this works out okay without weighing it down. I added via a competition Centurion Seraph (talk) 04:20, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

The prior version of the lead was not "one short paragraph". It was a summary of his college career that highlighted his accolades. It was longer than the lead for the Tiny the Terrible article and that has GA status. I'm not going to argue against a consensus for mentioning his QB battle with McNamara in the lead, but it should not take up two full sentences. Giving each of his college seasons their own sentence is WP:UNDUE bloat; we should be condensing sentences, not adding sentences about his three years of college. The lead should be expanded based on notable information, not because editors believe it should be a certain length. It should be the right size - not too short or too long. I was involved in a similar discussion about Gardner Minshew's page in 2022 and other editors agreed there was too much information about his amateur career in an earlier revision. Bluerules (talk) 13:39, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

No. Your preferred version of the lead is way too long. It is bloated with WP:UNDUE content that buries the key information about his junior season, which saw him win the national championship and be recognized as the conference's top quarterback. Two full sentences about his relationship with another quarterback, a footnote in his career, is being given more attention than what made him a top college prospect. The prior version was not "one very brief paragraph". It was a concise summary that focused on the most notable information - his college accolades and subsequent entry into the NFL. Bluerules (talk) 13:24, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

@Cbl62 You are totally erasing and reformatting collaborative efforts of three editors the last 24 hours. I think @Bluerules last version (with my fixing of the typo) is the version that should remain. Him and I both agree on that. This is getting ridiculous, every time multiple users agree on a format and wording, someone else new to edit comes in here and changes the entire lead. Centurion Seraph (talk) 14:05, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

Quite frankly, what you've written is of poor quality. And your attempt to "own" the lead and repeated edit-warring are both problematic. This is a collaborative project. I made significant improvements to the lead, and you've negated them. You are heading down a very dangerous path, son. Cbl62 (talk) 18:21, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

@Cbl62 WP:NPA Im really not sure what you mean by that? If you are threatening me or trying to belittle me. You’ve been patronizing and divisive since you arrived at this discussion. Frankly I cant tell if you joined at the penultimate moment of this talk between Jweiss, Bluerules and myself, to defend Jweiss’ revision or solely to oppose and attack me. You made no edits or suggestions last night, but posted numerous times opposing me and bluerules.

You argued endlessly on how you thought his lead was worthy of including Cade McNamara in expanse and the high school career in Jweiss’ version. Both of which you removed amongst other things in your edit you last wanted to add. I didnt remove anything but a Rose Bowl Offensive MVP and traded it for an All-Big Ten, and you bashed me over it, saying he was not a second team selection, but less than a third. He was voted the second best quarterback in the big ten by the Associated Press, thats a fact.

When me and Jweiss were talking last night, he said he liked the minor revisions i made and we had progressed, but asked me to include the competition aspect of 2022. I included the edit as he asked to his lead. You in turn then made your first edit to the lead, when we had an agreement on how it should newly look again for the second time already that day. You then deleted and reworded the majority of lead, completely changing the things we just agreed to included and were talking about all day. You deleted Cade McNamara entirely, the major aspect Jweiss wanted included, not me. You also deleted the big ten conference titles, which is the whole reason we are including his freshman season, to justify the three consecutive conference titles he won being included in the lead, both me and jweiss agree on this. Again burying the 2023 season too

You did this all without posting in the talk like you had last night, not discussing your thoughts, voicing concerns or making suggestions. You made your first edit and said we all wrote a poor lead. I find it curious how you could delete the important things we were talking about all day, without discussing, and not think it was going to cause a rise? You knew exactly the situation, and even when me and bluesrules disagreed with your edit this morning, and that we preferred his last edit, a collaborative work, you continued to say yours was the best and an improvement on what all three of us thought should be included. & you continue to attack me personally, before and after I disagreed with your edit. Ive not done anything to provoke you personally. From the onset you’ve made this about me, not JJ’s lead. Its baffling. Im not trying to own the lead, I just want to preserve the important aspects from being deleted or distorted. Centurion Seraph (talk) 22:04, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

CS, what’s happening here is that we have a laboriously long talk thread and edit summary trail, often focused on trivial differences of opinion about wording and emphasis. It’s becoming difficult for me to parse which compromises you’ve think made with Bluerules and for Cbl to parse what deals you think you’ve made with me. This is getting rather dysfunctional. You’re a pretty new editor here, and you do appear to be lording over this article in particular. This has been on my radar for a while, but I’ve been focused on other things. The percentage of your edits that are reversions is troublingly high. That being said, you have obviously have an enthusiasm for this subject area, which is good. But you need some coaching. It would be more productive for you to say find more reliable sources to beef up the body of this article. Too much of the sourcing now relies on references to Michigan’s own website. Tellingly, some of the strongest third-party sources here, like from ESPN and the Athletic, focus on the QB battle with McNamara. That should say something about the importance of mentioning that in the lead. Jweiss11 (talk) 06:18, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

Bluerules, you’re applying too much pressure to shorten the lead. McCarthy’s college career is also notable in its own right, not merely as a means to get him to the NFL. I think this NFL-centric is approach is leading you to undervalue details of his college career, like the dynamic with McNamara. Let’s go back to the sources. What do the strongest sources focus on? Jweiss11 (talk) 06:38, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

I'm not saying McCarthy's college career isn't notable. But the main objective of his college career was to get him noticed and drafted into the NFL. His primary notability is being at the highest level of professional football. The information presented about his college career in the lead should be the most notable information and should be presented as a summary, not a recap. Having two full sentences about his first two seasons and competition with McNamara is a recap with WP:UNDUE content that buries the most important information. No matter how valuable the information about his first two seasons might seem, it pales to his major accolades in his junior season, chiefly winning the national championship. What the sources focus on does not determine what belongs in the lead because the sources are not biographies. They focus on what's relevant to their story, while we focus on McCarthy's entire life. And no matter how many sources focus on his QB battle, that will never be as notable as winning college football's biggest game and will never be as notable as being drafted into the highest level of professional football. You're applying too much pressure to expand the lead when it should only be expanded when we have enough notable information to warrant an expansion. Refer to the aforementioned discussion about Gardner Minshew's article when other editors agreed the lead was too long because there was too much information about his amateur career. Bluerules (talk) 14:51, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

The major difference between your version and Centurion Seraph's version is you split the paragraphs up by mentioning when he was drafted before his college career. That is not an improvement because that confuses the chronology. I have not seen a single other NFL player article that mentions his NFL draft position before his college because of that reason; his college career led to him being drafted by an NFL team, hence why the college career belongs before the NFL draft in the lead. I understand you feel the lead should be more than one paragraph, but that is not required. The lead should be the appropriate size for its subject. If that appropriate size is one paragraph, it should be one paragraph. Bluerules (talk) 14:51, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

• Bluerules. I though it was sensible to collect the two pices about his putative pro career (QB for Vikings + draft) in an opening paragraph. If you prefer to split the drafft position and put it at the end, I don't object. Cbl62 (talk) 16:08, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

  The NFL draft is the bridge between his amateur career and his professional career. That's why the lead for an NFL player article will mention his college career before the draft; otherwise, there's information missing to the reader. Thanks for understanding. Bluerules (talk) 18:13, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

  @Cbl62 This is exactly what I’m talking about. Why are you deleting everything I continue to mention? Why cant you include the three big ten conference titles that we are all agreeing to include. Not to mention changing the entire lead again, that all of us collaborated on, to something you want based entirely on your opinion is better. This is a concerted effort solely to cause division.

I think maybe we should take this to Wikipedia Talk now. Centurion Seraph (talk) 16:16, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

• The claim of "three Big Ten Conference titles" is undue, as McCarthy was only a backup on the 2021 team. Cbl62 (talk) 18:13, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

  I submitted the edit i would like to take to WT.

Centurion Seraph (talk) 18:16, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

Link, please. Cbl62 (talk) 18:53, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

2021 Orange Bowl

Centurion Seraph, the reference to the 2021 Orange Bowl in the lead now is a bit weird as it now stands. McCarthy playing the last few series was pretty just mop-up duty in garbage time as the game was already lost. That's a totally different thing from how he was named the starter over McNamara after the Hawaii game in 2022. Jweiss11 (talk) 02:58, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

I mean he played the entire 4th quarter, (as well as sporadically throughout the entire game). McNamara had two interceptions, Harbaugh was not giving up and conceding in a playoff game with more than 15 minutes to go. He had the better statistical output, you can make a point that that was JJs actual coming out party, people just dont remember it in regard as Michigan got pounded. At any rate, it enforces the sentiment that he was a contributing member of the 2021 team, and that he won three big ten titles and made three CFP appearances. I wish I didnt have to strain for the obvious, but I do.

Please see the IMG national championship reference I just added in early life. (There was no reference to him winning in 2020). An additional “three consecutive big ten conference titles” source. Hopefully five is enough, this is really all Im asking for, I feel I have compromised on this lead a significant amount. Centurion Seraph (talk) 03:10, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

You're not straining for the obvious. You're straining to defend a strange concoction that you inserted into the lead. I know exactly what McCarthy and McNamara did in that game. McCarthy threw 15 of his 17 passes in the last 16 minutes of the game when Michigan was down by 24+ points. In terms of contributing to the team's success in 2021, I would say the TD he threw vs. Michigan State and the plays he made on Michigan's second possession of the second half vs Ohio State were more meaningful than what he did in garbage time at the Orange Bowl. The main point here is McCarthy subbing in for McNamara at the Orange Bowl was a different animal than beating him out for the starting job in 2022. What do the sources say about McCarthy coming for McNamara in the Orange Bowl? What do they say about the two in early 2022? Jweiss11 (talk) 04:26, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

Why are you getting upset? I meant straining to include his 3 CFP appearances and his 2021 season. Nobody in the discussion wanted McNamara included in the lead but you, I was trying to appeal to what you wanted, not upset you. Centurion Seraph (talk) 04:35, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

I'm not upset. I'm just trying to explain what's going on there. I think Cbl62 was also on board with mentioning the QB competition with McNamara in the lead. Jweiss11 (talk) 04:47, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

Look at his proposed lead in WT. McNamara is not included.

Cbl’s proposal in regard to 2021.

“After serving as a backup in 2021, he became Michigan's starting quarterback as a sophomore…”

It is an unnecessary name drop as others said, as it distracts from JJ and it is obviously causing strife right now. Centurion Seraph (talk) 04:56, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

It's not a "name drop". McCarthy's more accomplished and higher profile than McNamara now. What matters here is that the QB competition with McNamara is a pivotal part of McCarthy's biography. Let's let Cbl weigh again on this specifically. Jweiss11 (talk) 05:00, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

You can see his proposed lead in WT, if you truly want to know. Are we going to go back on everything we said in that discussion? Start from scratch. If you want to argue about this all over again, about Cade, just leave me out of it. Centurion Seraph (talk) 05:17, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

Citation / exteral link for college stats

Dissident93, I see you reverted my edit in which I converted the embedded external link to an in-line reference for the college statistics table here. While embedded external links appear commonly on NFL statistics tables, that practice seems inappriorate as it is at odds with Wikipedia:External links. Was there some dicussion somewhere about links on these sorts of tables qualifying as a "rare exception" to the guidelines on external links? Thanks, Jweiss11 (talk) 21:31, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

I don't recall any discussion one way or the other, but if this is the preferred way I'll fix other pages. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 22:06, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

Okay, I restored the inline reference here. Wikipedia:External links makes it pretty clear that an inline reference is preferable, barring some sort of consensus-based exception. Jweiss11 (talk) 23:46, 6 October 2024 (UTC)