Talk:Trevor Lawrence

High school wins are not accurate

The claim he led his team to 41 straight victories includes some postseason victories but excludes a postseason loss. The real results were (playoffs in upper case): 2014 wlwwwwwwwwWWWL 2015 wwwwwwwwwwWWWWW 2016 wwwwwwwwwwWWWWW 2017 wwlwwwwwwwWL. If we count regular season only, the streak was 30 wins; including playoffs, the streak was 32 wins. 41 is someone picking and choosing. My source is maxpreps. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.174.126.99 (talk) 22:29, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

Change his accomplishments

Put in his accomplishments he was national Championship and Cotton bowl mvp plus 2018 ACC champion Austindiddy1234 (talk) 18:09, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

Little information and needs to be unlocked

Why is this article so heavily protective and when will I be able to edit because it seems this article doesn’t have enough editors because their is little information about his sensational freshman college season on here and also not all his awards and accomplishments are listed AustinDiddy58 (talk) 18:42, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

This article is very vague and short and gives no details

This is ridiculous that Wikipedia has this page locked for vandalism so nobody that actually cares to make a decent article on Trevor Lawrence can do so and all the pro editors who can change it don’t give a damn to change anything or solve any of the problems with it this needs to be fixed to where more people can edit it or Wikipedia needs to have their admins actually do their damn job AustinDiddy58 (talk) 23:11, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

More information

Also it does not list his senior season of high schools stats or accomplishments nor does it list that he won two state championships and also their is no information from his freshman regular season of college football AustinDiddy58 (talk) 23:17, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

Requested move 23 April 2020

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 discussion.

The result of the move request was: Consensus is against this move buidhe 19:20, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

---

• Trevor Lawrence (American football) → Trevor Lawrence
• Trevor Lawrence → Trevor Lawrence (disambiguation)

– WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, this shouldn't result in a dab page when the other two Trevor Lawrence articles have their own disambiguations to begin with ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 19:19, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

This is a contested technical request. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 09:16, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

Note: target or "new" titles cannot have non-redirected content unless they are to be moved or deleted. So this request has been altered to reflect that fact. P.I. Ellsworth  ed. ^put'r there 01:05, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

• @Dissident93, Llew Mawr, and Sir Joseph: queried move request Anthony Appleyard (talk) 09:17, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
• Can you clarify? Shouldn't there still be disambig page and why shouldn't Trevor Lawrence redirect to that disambig page? Sir Joseph ^(talk) 19:25, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
• It appears that you have just moved the disambiguation page from Trevor Lawrence to support this technical request without there being any consensus or even proposal at Talk:Trevor Lawrence (disambiguation) or even at Talk:Trevor Lawrence (American football) that he is the primary topic. So, I'd like to contest this particularly as his notability isn't prima facie overwhelming. Llew Mawr (talk) 02:27, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
• The few recent contadictory TRs here on these articles (not just by you) evidence a lack of consensus and I would argue also evidence there is no WP:PRIMARYTOPIC amnogst the four people on the dab page. Until move a year ago, Sir Trevor Lawrence, 2nd Baronet was at Trevor Lawrence and he certainly would seem to have more long-term significance than a recent school football player. Llew Mawr (talk) 03:02, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
• I reverted the undiscussed move so that the proposed discussion can be discussed here. Feel free to ping me if there is consensus one way or the other to move pages. [[User:|Sir Joseph]] ^(talk) 03:04, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
• My suggestion would be that if one of you do prefer a PRIMARY page would be to open a RM on the main RM page and seek consensus. But I think that it might change from year to year, which may be fine, but I don't know if this is the right place for the request. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 03:11, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

  Thanks for all your help. Personally, I don't prefer any as primary. None of the four seem overwhelming in either WP:PT criteria relative to the others. None have risen to the top of their field, being mere backing musicians, literally in the case of two, even the noble/surgeon/horticulturalist/politician, out of those, only rose to the top of British horticulture, which isn't a substantial contributor to world events. Llew Mawr (talk) 12:19, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

  Llew Mawr, the primary search topic for Trevor Lawrence is the quarterback (over the others), if you go by google searches. Their background/occupation shouldn't factor into that. If this discussion fails to garner consensus to support a move, I'll look to do it again in the future once he enters the NFL and has even more media coverage/searches for him. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 19:30, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

  Unfortunately, this discussion is now moot (maybe should be closed) since an admin (User:Rehman) has seen fit to, in effect, unilaterally close it early, by speedy deleting the page under discussion (without even moving its content to a hatnote). Llew Mawr (talk) 12:19, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

  My apologies for that accusation. I appeared to having a caching issue with Wikipedia, which was why I couldn't find the dab page, which was merely moved. Llew Mawr (talk) 12:42, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

  To be clear, I was incorrect about the deletion and getting paranoid when I couldn't find the page for a brief time while it was bring moved. Llew Mawr (talk) 12:47, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose. If anything, the baronet is the primary topic. Of course a currently playing American football player is going to get more ghits, but to most of the world American college football means nothing whatsoever. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:36, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

---

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

RM additional comment

Necrothesp (talk · contribs) you claim that "if anything, the baronet is the primary topic", yet his page averages around 10 views a day, while this article gets 1,000+. This article is the clear primary topic if you go by objective measures. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 01:02, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

@Dissident93: Long-term significance is also a major factor. A kid who plays college football is unlikely to have much. He's currently playing, so of course he gets a lot of hits. However, will anyone be writing about him over a century after his death? Remember, the baronet was knighted for his achievements over his life. We don't just determine primary topic using number of hits for reasons that should be obvious. And, as I said, American college football means nothing to most of the world. In general, to be a primary topic a person must be well-known across the world, not just in one country. The only exception is if the others with the name are very minor. College football stars simply do not qualify. -- Necrothesp (talk) 08:42, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

Necrothesp, I understand your points, but the person in question is still only averaging 10 views a day and has throughout the article's lifetime. If we are going by a purely objective measurement, then the QB is the primary search topic. And while I do think that regional popularity should be a factor, the daily views for all of the subject articles don't really support that here.

Assuming that Lawrence becomes a top draft pick next year (WP:CRYSTALBALL yes, but that's the current consensus among CFB and the NFL), then you can expect his daily views to jump even more. Like I said in the RM, I'll likely revisit this in the future. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 23:06, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

@Dissident93: Even then, professional sportsmen do not usually make primary topic unless they're very well-established names in the sport. There have been similar RMs claiming young British footballers playing for premier clubs should be made primary, even though they've only been playing top tier football for a relatively short time, because lots of people like football (soccer) and search for them; they've failed for the same reason, even though soccer is a far more internationally popular sport than American football. Lots of hits simply do not necessarily equate to long-term notability. -- Necrothesp (talk) 23:24, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

Necrothesp, I fully understand what you are saying, but your logic about long-term notability is basically WP:CRYSTALBALLing in another way. Would you still argue this if he becomes the #1 draft pick and has a successful rookie season and winning awards? ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 20:35, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

Since I know nothing about how American football works I have no real idea what all that means! But I think he would need to be a well-known player for far more than one season to become primary. That goes for any sportsperson anywhere in the world. Again, young British footballers who have been successfully playing top-flight football with top clubs for a few years have been rejected as primary. They would seem to be a reasonable analogy with what you're describing. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:04, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

Necrothesp, can you link me to any examples of footballers like that? ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 10:07, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

Trivia

I'm not sure how somebody's religion and a notable physical attribute of them constitutes trivia, especially when both statements are cited by multiple sources. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 20:31, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

Requested move 18 May 2021

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 discussion.

The result of the move request was: moved. (closed by non-admin page mover) Elli (talk | contribs) 15:07, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

---

• Trevor Lawrence (American football) → Trevor Lawrence
• Trevor Lawrence → Trevor Lawrence (disambiguation)

– considering that he has become the #1 overall pick in the 2021 NFL Draft since the last discussion about moving this article, I think this warrants another discussion. While the horticulturalist may have a longer historical significance, it doesn't have the current significance that the quarterback has and the quarterback averages 22,496 (!) daily compared to only 4 for the horticulturalist. Also, the horticulturalist isn't exactly titled Trevor Lawrence, so of the remaining two Trevor Lawrences, the quarterback is much more notable. See initial discussion. MainPeanut (talk) 20:04, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

This is a contested technical request (permalink). GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 00:31, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose. @MainPeanut: since the current title is the result of an RM discussion at Talk:Trevor Lawrence (American football)#Requested_move_23_April_2020, any further move should be discussed. Also, I am sad see the blatant WP:RECENTISM of your rationale. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:34, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
  • I forgot to put this discussion on the talk page. Also, WP:RECENTISM mostly addresses the content in articles impacted by breaking news and whether the content is significant or not. MainPeanut (talk) 22:24, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
• Support per nom. The Trevor Lawrence disambiguation page is currently getting way more views than any topic that isn't the football player, so it's clear the current setup is a hindrance to readers. If, at some point, he falls to ~1 view a day, we can revisit, but I find that very unlikely in the near future. Nohomersryan (talk) 02:28, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose per BrownHairedGirl. The title of the article about Anthony Edwards, the first overall pick of the 2020 NBA draft, still uses parenthetical disambiguation. It's too early to tell if those two players can perform at a level that is expected of them. LSGH (talk) (contributions) 12:59, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
• Strong support it's obvious the football player is WP:PRIMARYTOPIC at this point and time. Page view stats here. He is getting in his very worst months 1000x more views than the other 2 entries with the same name. The gap is so overwhelmingly big and consistent, that I think it supersedes any arguments of RECENTISM.--Ortizesp (talk) 14:05, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
• Support, per WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. Coltsfan (talk) 15:20, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose - Appears to be WP:TOOSOON to determine if the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC has changed. A sportsperson being hired by a major team is likely to generate a lot of short term interest but is no guarantee of long term significance. HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 10:55, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Very fair. I think it may be helpful to look at stats while cutting out the months since this hiring was announced -- if we do so, he still seems to get over 99 percent of the page views, and has going back a few years.--Yaksar (let's chat) 13:54, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
• Strong support per WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. Any talk of "long-term significance" or WP:RECENTISM is irrelevant once you realize this page gets 1000x more views than other people with the same name and has for years. Him being drafted last month has only increased the gap even further. I respect the policy-based arguments that are against the move, but at some point common sense should take over. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 14:57, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose. Blatant recentism and Americanocentrism. Few people outside America will have heard of him or will have the first clue what "#1 overall pick in the 2021 NFL Draft" even means. Does he have a shovel as well? Or is this something to do with his clothing choices? -- Necrothesp (talk) 23:56, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
  • As I think most of us know well, this is not how primary topics are determined. Few people at many of the pages being discussed at RM for a primary topic recognize all if any the topics, but "I can recognize this person" is irrelevant. The recentism arguments are totally reasonable, so I think it might be helpful to look at views from before the draft pick may have biased it -- in this case he seems to get only around 99.99% of them.--Yaksar (let's chat) 13:51, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
    • However, just being notable in one country and pretty much unheard of outside it is relevant. Otherwise the primary topic in the USA, with far more people than other English-speaking countries doing far more searches for topics that interest them, would by default always be the primary topic on Wikipedia. This has never been the case. This is the problem with topics like American football, which are huge in the USA but of clear minority interest elsewhere. That's why we have the long-term significance criterion as well as the pageview criterion at WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. At the end of the day, this is a young player who has only just graduated from college football to the NFL. As far as I can tell, he hasn't even played in the NFL yet. It's like saying a young footballer recently selected for the Manchester United first team (and therefore doubtless the subject of countless internet searches) should immediately become primary topic by default, but that has never been the case. And that's a sport played and followed all over the world. Sportspeople should only be considered for primary topic status when they have become well-established professionally and are exceptionally well-known. Otherwise, given the huge numbers of sports fans who just love to read up on their favourite player at every opportunity they get, WP:RECENTISM is a very relevant point. Will this 21-year-old ever achieve long-term significance? Who knows. It's far too early to tell. -- Necrothesp (talk) 22:32, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
• Strong Support Page views seem to indicate an overwhelmingly clear primary topic -- not just because of immediately recent news, but even if you pick a period from 2018 to 2019, or 2019 to 2020. And we aren't talking about a minor difference -- this page has been consistently getting thousands of times more than the others of the same name. To overcome such an overwhelmingly clear primary by usage, we need to be talking some kind of gross level of discrepancy in importance -- the level of a pop song vs. species of animal -- to justify going against the very clear preference of readers, for whom disambiguation is designed to aid.--Yaksar (let's chat) 13:51, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
• Support. The American football player is the primary topic, by 2–3 orders of magnitude in page views, consistently for several years. Adumbrativus (talk) 06:34, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
• Support Definitely is the primary topic. I’m honestly surprised he’s not already the primary topic.--Rockchalk717 19:11, 29 May 2021 (UTC)
• Support. The football player is the primary topic. Merson (talk) 09:01, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
• Weak Support. Necrothesp makes a good point but still this page is getting the most views and I think that passes WP:DPT TigerScientist Chat > contribs 16:25, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
• Support. Keeping the DAB page at the base name does a disservice to our readers, who consistently seek out this Trevor Lawrence more than any other Trevor Lawrence combined. This 21-year-old, as the winner of a national championship and a first overall pick in the NFL draft, has already long-term significance by any reasonable standard. -- Calidum 19:24, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
• Support. An obvious and overwhelming primary topic, not just recently but since at least 2017. Station1 (talk) 19:49, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
• Strong Support per above. BeanieFan11 (talk) 18:37, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Rushing yards should be 110 as of 2021 Week 5, not 10

Also, unlock the darn article! SatanicPreacher (talk) 11:06, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 January 2023

In the quoted sentence below, I infer that the "20-of-32 yards" should be "20-of-32 passes" . Otherwise, the sentence is nonsensical. I've not checked the source of the statistics, though. ( uwu ive never done this before!)

Lawerence completed 20-of-32 yards for 212 yards and 1 touchdown in the 20–16 win, clinching the Jaguars first division title since 2017.[69] 174.104.153.183 (talk) 06:28, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

Fixed. Verified the stat for week 18 at [1]. --Mvqr (talk) 13:00, 19 January 2023 (UTC)