Talk:List of NFL career passing touchdowns leaders

Intro?

I appreciate that this is technically just a list rather than an article, but would it be better with a little colour from an intro? I was reading this article[1] and I thought something similar (relative speeds of reaching landmarks, etc.) might add to the readability of the page. Any views? --Legis (talk - contribs) 02:22, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Discrepancy

This list says that Tom Brady has 561 touchdown passes, which appears to be correct. However, his article says that he has 559 and is second in career touchdown passes. This only matters until Sunday. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:37, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

Brees

Why is Brees listed as inactive, he hasn't announced a retirement as yet. Randy Kryn (talk) 20:20, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

Changed. The NFL still shows him as active. Jerry Stockton (talk) 21:52, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

Problem With Progressive Touchdown Table

Can someone please fix the table of progressive all time touchdown leader?

Centralized discussion involving this page

Please see here, if of interest: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_National_Football_League#Volume_stats_sections_combining_regular_season_and_playoffs. Useight (talk) 22:32, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

Reversal of change

Two/one sections if memory is correct one in which combined touchdowns was in use/made and has been wiped. If it was disruption I tend to disagree as it had 3-4 names and was more informing then incorrect or disrespectful. Chn23 (talk) 08:15, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

@Chn23, there was a clear consensus based on a discussion at the NFL WikiProject to not include combined statistics. See the discussion here. Hey man im josh (talk) 19:25, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

Ordering of lede paragraphs

There are currently two lede paragraphs in this article, one describing passing touchdowns and how they are counted, and one discussing some particularly notable records. The ordering is currently the records first, and the explanation second. I personally believe that the first paragraph should be the one explaining passing touchdowns, and the second describing the records. This not only makes sense in terms of flow (seems more reasonable to explain something before talking about it) but also how it is on every other NFL record Featured List. Some examples include List of National Football League annual rushing yards leaders, List of National Football League annual receptions leaders, List of National Football League annual receiving yards leaders, and more. Obviously, for those familiar with American football, a passing touchdown is self-explanatory. But a Wikipedia article should be free for all to understand, regardless of background knowledge. As to avoid an edit war, I am posting on the talk to generate a proper consensus.
@Randy Kryn, I presume you would want to participate in this discussion. ULPS ^{(talk • contribs)} 19:04, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

• Agree with ULPS the current flow of the lead sounds ridiculous. Basic definition of the article first, then records and such. This is basically how every sports list goes. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 19:23, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
• Please read the longish paragraph which the OP is asking to be returned to the lead paragraph. It is informative and well written, and most useful if someone comes upon this page totally ignorant of the game of American football. Yet those who click on this page, "List of National Football League career passing touchdown leaders", or those who read it on a search engine summary, are 1) extremely likely to be familiar with American football, 2) came to this page looking for "National Football League career passing touchdown leaders", and 3) they shouldn't have to read a too-long paragraph to finally get to what the page is actually about. I'm not opposed to the long paragraph, but not as the lead paragraph. It is a summary of how passing and running work, and how the game of football utilized passing and running. But not a good summary of the page topic or of what the article claims to cover. Randy Kryn (talk) 22:49, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

  I do get your concern, but even the Wikipedia page for Human first discusses what a human is in simple terms when I think we all know what a human is. Any article that is well-written will start with an explanation of the topic, we cannot assume that every reader has background knowledge. I'm sure any reader who doesn't care about the lede can just take the two seconds to scroll down to what they want, the table of contents is there for a reason. ULPS ^{(talk • contribs)} 23:44, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

  The explanation and facts of this topic would be "who are the National Football League career passing touchdowns leaders?". The lead paragraph is what people read on mobile. The lead paragraph is what search engines like Google print to summarize the topic. Randy Kryn (talk) 23:49, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

  99% of football fans will scroll straight to the table, they will not even read the prose (mobile or not). Sidenote, this is a little funny but "List of National Football League career passing touchdowns leaders" on Google returns the ESPN list first, not even this one, and when the Wikipedia article shows up it has the "Tom Brady holds the record..." because that is the sentence that has the "career passing touchdowns" phrase. Either way, Wikipedia is meant to be accessible to someone with 0 background knowledge and while explaining seemingly obvious things to those of us with that background knowledge may seem silly, it is helpful to those who don't. ULPS ^{(talk • contribs)} 23:53, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

  Here is what you want to be the view on mobile and on search engines: "In American football, passing, along with running (also referred to as rushing), is one of the two main methods of advancing the ball down the field. Passes are typically attempted by the quarterback, but any offensive player can attempt a pass provided they are behind the line of scrimmage. To qualify as a passing play, the ball must have initially moved forward after leaving the hands of the passer; if the ball initially moved laterally or backwards, the play would instead be considered a running play." Maybe okay for the passing article but why lead with this on a very specific point-of topic page? Randy Kryn (talk) 23:58, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

  People like you or I have 0 need for any of the lede paragraphs, thats true. I know personally that whenever I'm reading a list like this I just scroll straight to the table. But the purpose for the article isn't just for us with background knowledge. (PS. On Google, even with the lede, the articles I checked don't include any of that info, they either jump to the records paragraph or the table itself) ULPS ^{(talk • contribs)} 00:25, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

• Info before records: I also agree with ULPS on this one. You explain what you're about to discuss before presenting the information, and I think that makes the most sense. As Gonzo mentioned, sports lists typically define what the article is about before into details. Hey man im josh (talk) 11:55, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

• Hey man im josh, have you read the lead? The paragraph you want to return as the lead paragraph is far too long, way too detailed for this page, and if used as the lead paragraph should be cut back to one or at most two sentences (as the page used to be). If keeping a lead paragraph defining at length what a pass is, and what a run is, it then needs an addition of what a football is and what the NFL means to pad it out with even more detail. Randy Kryn (talk) 12:41, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

  I have read the lead, I don't have an issue with it. I'm basing my opinion on feedback that I've received while nominating (annual statistical leader) lists at WP:FLC over the last several months. We need to be reasonable about how in depth we go with the details, but I believe details should be given before the records. Hey man im josh (talk) 12:57, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

• Key points are "need to be reasonable about how in depth we go with the details". The paragraph could be cut by 75% easily, i.e. details about what a "run" is not needed here. Randy Kryn (talk) 13:02, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

• Comment not going to get into copyediting or wordsmithing, as I think the lead isn't great either way. That said, the current lead is jarring and does not reflect the typical way a lead is written on Wikipedia. So all my opinion above is that we need to provide an introduction to the article before jumping into the main takeaway. Honestly, the answer is probably some combination of both of your two opinions. That said, the way it is now is definitely poor, so given the option of one or the other, it is pretty easy for me to side with ULPS. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 20:22, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

  I'd love if we had a smoother lead that still establishes the main points of information that could be modified and applied to all of the stat articles. Hey man im josh (talk) 20:48, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

  The lede wasn't finished even when it was the other way round (I think I mentioned this earlier, maybe not) so if you do have any suggestions I will take them into account. ULPS ^{(talk • contribs)} 02:06, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

• @Randy Kryn: I wanted to get your input on how we could shorten that lede paragraph, seeing as from the discussion I think most people want it to be first, but a little shorter. I have a few ideas but just wanted to know what suggestions you had :) ULPS ^{(talk • contribs)} 03:42, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

• Hello ULPS, I'm a bit later than expected, sometimes Wikipedia has many balls in the air at once. I really haven't thought of editing the long paragraphs, was leaving your take on it to follow the opening stats. Will have a go at it soon but not immediately, and thanks for the ping. Randy Kryn (talk) 01:24, 26 August 2023 (UTC)←