Talk:Jim Taylor (fullback)

Retired Number by Saints

The article states that the Saints have retired Taylor's 31 jersey. While his jersey is honored by the team and this is even listed as a retired number according to the NFL web site, the Saints apparently do not actually retire numbers and 31 is currently worn (as of October 2017) by Chris Banjo. While 81 is also considered retired for Doug Atkins and isn't in current use, it apparently falls into the same category. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.35.103.39 (talk) 23:42, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

LSU Ole Miss Game

Someone should add the full details of Taylor's perhaps most famous run during this game. In which Taylor ran a/b 90+ yards for a touchdown to win this game and including running past all or 10 of the 11 Ole Miss players. Esp as this IS one of the most famous runs in sports history. Lil Downlode Jr 69.121.221.97 (talk) 11:07, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

I know this was six years ago and the IP will never see this, but in case anyone else is wondering: the IP is most likely confusing Taylor with Billy Cannon, specifically Billy Cannon's Halloween Run. Lizard (talk) 02:37, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

Requested move 10 September 2016

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: No consensus emerged from the discussion in favor of the moves (non-admin closure) — Andy W. (talk · ctb) 00:36, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

---

• Jim Taylor (American football) → Jim Taylor
• Jim Taylor → Jim Taylor (disambiguation)

– The American football player over the past year averages about 160 views a day, with peaks during football season (September–January) and a high of 2,767 just a few days ago. On the Jim Taylor dab page, the only other one that receives relatively considerable views is the screenwriter, with about 37 views per day and a high of 112. No other Jim Taylor gets more than 5 views a day, with most not getting more than 2. A google search of Jim Taylor shows the first page dominated by the American football player. Therefore, I believe the American football player is the primary topic on the basis that it is more likely to be searched for than all other topics combined, per WP:PTOPIC. Lizard (talk) 16:58, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose. Far too many Jim Taylors here for an obvious primary topic. This one may be the primary topic in the USA, but most people elsewhere will never have heard of him. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:27, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose this move 2601:541:4305:C70:C0D2:64E7:BA76:826C (talk) 17:23, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Jim Taylor (American football)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: MPJ-DK (talk · contribs) 04:29, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

I will be starting the review of this article in the very near future. I usually leave my review comments in a couple of rounds.  MPJ-DK  04:29, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

Alright so first here is my first round of feedback

Sources

• A couple of references change links slightly, I would recommend that they get updated to the current links to prevent link rot (reference 2, 43, 54), but otherwise the links are fine. I will do a reference check to make sure they're covering what they are supposed to as I review the article content. Y

Copyright violations

• The tool had a couple of high percentage hits but looking them over I believe they are all quotes pr stats and thus acceptable. This checks out. Y

General review

• Everywhere you have a yard measurement you should have " " between the number and the measurement

 Question: Ech. Is there an automated process I can use to do this? Lizard (talk) 19:16, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

I am not aware of one unfortunately.  MPJ-DK  02:59, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

Images

• The one image in the article looks to be appropriately tagged as Public Domain, looking at when Taylor played it is prior to 1977 and I have no reason to suspect it's not correct Y

General review

• Lead

• I am not seeing a source anywhere for his date of birth or place of birth? It's in the lead and info box but not sourced? I'd think that'd be easy to do?

 Done. I've gone and sourced birth info in the Early years section. Lizard (talk) 19:16, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

• NFL career statistics

• Sources for the statistics??

 Done. Lizard (talk) 19:16, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

General review

• Lead

• "penchant for contact" should be "a penchant for contact"

 Done. Lizard (talk) 02:29, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

• five-straight = five straight

 Done. Lizard (talk) 02:29, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

• "recognized as the NFL Most Valuable Player" - That makes it seem like it was "Most Valuable Player Ever"? It was just for that season right?

 Question: I would think it's expected that the average reader understands that MVP nearly always refers to a single season, no?. Lizard (talk) 02:29, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

You are probably right about that. it's fine the way it is.  MPJ-DK  02:59, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

• ", the only season in which Jim Brown did not lead the league in rushing yards during his career." that seems like a side note and not really relevant for the lead, it's about Taylor, not Brown so I think this could be left out.

I wavered on that, but I decided to include it in the lead for two reasons: 1) Taylor and Brown's careers coincided, so Taylor was frequently compared with Brown and 2) Taylor is fairly well-known for being the only one to dethrone Brown (although Brown actually finished behind four players that year); most sources make it a point to attach that tidbit when mentioning Taylor led the league in rushing in 1962. Lizard (talk) 02:29, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

That makes sense then, if dethroning Brown is really the most impressive part of the accomplishment I am okay with it in the lead. MPJ-DK  02:59, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

• "in scoring twice and" I assume that's "two seasons" not "two games" right?

 Done. Changed it to "in scoring in 1956 and 1957". Lizard (talk) 02:29, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

• "His 81 rushing touchdowns scored with the Packers" should be "His 81 rushing touchdowns for the Packers"

 Done. Lizard (talk) 02:29, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

• Early years and college

• "a combination that caused frustration for opposing defenses.", this is not a neutral statement so it needs to be attributed to a source.

 Done. Admittedly that's a bit of OR on my part, so I reworded. Lizard (talk) 02:29, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

• I am not sure what the sentence starting with "Against Texas Tech that season" is trying to convey?

It's supposed to convey that because Texas Tech was so focused on Taylor, Cannon was able to have a big day. This sentence and the one that follows were meant to provide support for the "combination that caused frustration for opposing defenses" sentence. I changed the wording around a bit. Lizard (talk) 02:29, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

I see, the frustration stemmed from the fact that if they chose to focus on one then the other would have a strong game. Maybe that's the approach to rewording the "caused frustration" statement to something along the line of how two strong players made it hard for opponents to give efficient coverage to two strong players at once?  MPJ-DK  02:59, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

Precisely, but it's probably still WP:OR, as I'm forming that conclusion based on my own analysis. Sadly I wasn't able to find a source that specifically stated the combination was difficult to deal with. Probably because LSU didn't have a very successful year overall that season. Lizard (talk) 03:07, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

• 1958-1962

• The inclusion of "through 2016" can make the article seem dated, if it was left out everyone would assume it was still the worst. This way the article would HAVE to be updated after each season, without it it'd only have to be updated if the Packers had a worse season.

• Per WP:ASOF, I figured updating after each season is better than leaving it ambiguous. Lizard (talk) 04:33, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

• "first-year head coach Ray "Scooter" McLean" - question, was it his first year as head coach or just his first year as head coach for the Packers?

 Done. Clarified with "first-year NFL head coach". Lizard (talk) 04:33, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

• "that was not to be renewed, McLean resigned days" - Well no if the contract was not renewed he did not resign, unless he basically went "you can't fire me, I quit"?

• That's one of the few parts I left in from a previous editor. I looked it up, and that does look to be the case. I've added this reference to support. Lizard (talk) 04:33, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

• "the feature back" unless that's a football position I am not familiar with I believe it should be "the featured back"?

• See the last sentence in the lead of Running back. Also wikt:feature back. I'm not sure why but it's always said that way. Weird, I know. Lizard (talk) 04:33, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

• For a non-neutral statement such as "considered arguably the best running back duo in the league at the time" I really think we'd need more than one source making such a claim. WP:PEACOCK worries come with such a statement.

 Done. replaced it with a more neutral statement. Lizard (talk) 04:33, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

• "1,101 yards on a league-high 230 carries" - The phrase "on 230 carries" sounds odd, would "1,101 yards in a league-high 230 carries" be okay?

• Although not very formal and I try to avoid it when I can, that's typical verbiage in football among sportswriters. "300 yards on 20 for 30 passing attempts," "125 yards on 8 catches," etc. Lizard (talk) 04:33, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

• "Taylor's finest season was 1962." - could it be rephrased to be more factual, neutral? "productive", "successful" or words to that effect maybe?

 Done. Changed to "productive" and sourced. Lizard (talk) 04:33, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

• 1962 championship game

• "every play, and engaged" does not need the comma

 Done. Lizard (talk) 04:33, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

• I don't think "trash-talk" is hyphenated

 Done. According to OED, looks like it's hyphenated as a verb but not as a noun. Lizard (talk) 04:33, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

• 1963–1966

• "five-straight" again not hyphenated

 Done. Lizard (talk) 04:33, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

• "season, and the" does not need the comma

 Done. Lizard (talk) 04:33, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

• "in the Packers' 23–12 win over the Browns in the" if you replace the first "in" with "during" it sounds less repetitive.

 Done. Lizard (talk) 04:33, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

• "passes that year, but recorded" does not need the comma

 Done. Lizard (talk) 04:33, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

• "the West" I assume that's the "West Division"? if so please state so.

 Done. Lizard (talk) 04:33, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

• Playing style

• "widely acknowledged by his peers as one of the toughest and meanest players in the NFL" - something I do not see supported by the source listed?

 Done. Whoops, I was gonna source that more adequately but I guess I forgot. Lizard (talk) 04:33, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

• Rivalry with Sam Huff

• "Boxing promoter Al Flora offered Taylor and Huff $2,000 for a four-round boxing match on the day of the 1962 championship game." - was it ever acknowledged by either or just a media stunt by Flora?

• I tried to find more on this, and it looks like this article may have more on it but I can't access it. Lizard (talk) 04:33, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

• Follow-up: I managed to access it through someone else and I've now updated accordingly. Lizard (talk) 17:04, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

• I believe that's the entirety of my review, I see you are already making great improvements so I will put this on hold while you continue to work on this. No rush, take your time.  MPJ-DK  01:44, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

• I think that's everything. Thanks for the thorough review. Lizard (talk) 04:33, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

• The changes are good, the places where you explained why the article is the way it is makes sense to me so I am going to go ahead and pass it for GA. Congratulations

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Jim Taylor (American football). 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20161220164225/http://archive.jsonline.com/sports/packers/yankee-stadium-witnessed-a-great-2h7j6sc-179211081.html to http://archive.jsonline.com/sports/packers/yankee-stadium-witnessed-a-great-2h7j6sc-179211081.html

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: 5 June 2024).

• 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) 11:58, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

Requested move 17 January 2019

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Moved to Jim Taylor (fullback) per dconsensus. (non-admin closure) –Ammarpad (talk) 13:18, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

---

Jim Taylor (American football) → Jim Taylor (running back) – Current title is ambiguous with the other American football player, which is titled Jim Taylor (tackle). The guideline Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(sportspeople)#Gridiron_football advises to disambiguate by position (In situations where there are two or more people who played gridiron football but they played different positions, use the name of the position they played.) I chose to not boldly move as some might want to argue that

1. The running back is the most notable American football player
2. The disambiguator should be "fullback" instead of generic "running back"
3. Can disambiguate instead between playing levels with the tackle being "college football", having never played pro. —Bagumba (talk) 06:18, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

• I would strongly disagree with #3, as the other Jim Taylor also had a college career. I'd agree that the proposed disambiguation of running back is the correct approach. Tarl N. (discuss) 06:30, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

  I don't have a problem with (fullback) either. Tarl N. (discuss) 16:37, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

• I think "(fullback)" is best as that was his actual position. See here, here, here, here, here. Cbl62 (talk) 06:51, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

  I don't have a problem with that either.—Bagumba (talk) 07:28, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

• Support move to Jim Taylor (fullback). « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 14:40, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
• Support Move to Fullback. --Church ^Talk 16:04, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.