Talk:Andrew Luck

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Main image[edit]

Is there a reason the main image is sideways? 69.169.134.212 (talk) 01:52, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

We're working on it. Eagles 24/7 (C) 04:38, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Academics[edit]

Any chance any information about his academic performance and perhaps even graduation might be included. Theoretically, he went to Stanford to get an education. (Its my understanding that he did quite well; I think college football could use something positive in that regard.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Avocats (talk • contribs) 02:24, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm watching him being interviewed by David Letterman where I think he just said that he's an Architecture major. As an Architect, I can tell you that it is an insanely time-consuming major. It sounds nearly impossible to be both an Architecture major and a member of a de-facto professional sports team. We may finally be at the point that we are accepting that members of major college basketball and football teams are, in fact, professional athletes and not students in any meaningful way, and that explains why there is nothing in this profile about Mr. Luck's academics while theoretically a student. But if we are planning on maintaining the hallucination of "student athletes", then this should be fleshed out a bit. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.92.132.222 (talk) 04:34, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't disagree the notion of "student-athlete" is a farce for many football and men's basketball players at Power Five schools, but given that Luck was co-valedictorian of his high school class, I think we can take it at face value that his studies at Stanford were legitimate. I also presume that he was an architectural design major (see https://cee.stanford.edu/programs/architectural-design-program), which I believe is distinct from grad programs or combined undergrad-grad programs in architectural engineering. (I'm not an architect, but a close friend is. I know that he had plenty of free time during his undergrad days in his school's equivalent to this Stanford major. Grad school was much busier for him, with tons of studio time.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.202.29.58 (talk) 17:47, 28 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Section for Navboxes?[edit]

Per WP:BRD (I was bold, User:Butwhatdoiknow reverted, now let's discuss), should the navboxes at the bottom of this article be listed in the "External links" section, or in a separate section named "Related information"? One may check Wikipedia:FA#Sport and recreation biographies or Wikipedia:Good articles/Everyday life#Sports and recreation to see which method is common on Wikipedia, and which is not. --bender235 (talk) 13:54, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If the test is what is common then there should not be a heading for navboxes. However, the beating heart of Wikipedia is constant improvement. So, I suggest, the question should be whether a navbox heading is a good idea. This essay argues that it is. Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 14:21, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
After "Related information," will there be a "Categories" heading for the categories? What about a "Lead" heading for the lead? Or an "Infobox" heading for the infobox? Eagles 24/7 (C) 18:49, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The answers to your questions are all the same: Only if there are good reasons for such headings. Your posting here doesn't say why a heading for navboxes is a bad idea. And your article edit summary doesn't explain why the fact that the heading is proposed in an essay makes it improper. Finally, to say that the heading is unnecessary is not the same as saying that it isn't beneficial. For more on "necessity," see Wikipedia:Related_information/answers#Proposal_objections_and_responses. Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 19:13, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You say that MOS:APPENDIX doesn't disallow this section header, but where does it say that this should be included? Eagles 24/7 (C) 19:23, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
MOS:APPENDIX does not require or prohibit a navbox heading. So, as I said above, "the question should be whether a navbox heading is a good idea. This essay argues that it is." Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 19:54, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I for one don't think it is a good idea. --bender235 (talk) 00:28, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Why? Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 01:31, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Because sections separate elements that look alike (like texts, or lists of references). Navboxes, however, are pretty distinguishable themselves. --bender235 (talk) 11:52, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the reply. I certainly agree that a heading is not necessary to assist most readers to visually separate navboxes from external links (although the lack of a heading still leaves the conceptual problem of internal links in the external links section). However, to say that a navbox heading is not a necessity is not to say that it is a detriment or even unhelpful. Which brings us to the other primary benefit of a navbox heading: Letting readers know in the table of contents that an article contains navbox information and making it easy for them to click to jump to that information. Again, not necessary, but helpful. Why not provide that help for our readers? Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 12:42, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
For the remainder of the discussion see User talk:Butwhatdoiknow#Navbox_heading. Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 19:59, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sure you remember that the navboxes don't appear in the print version, but the section heading does. So, when you adding this spurious section heading, it screws up the print version. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 21:36, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"Wikipedia is not a print encyclopedia. That aside, printed and mirrored versions do include succession boxes (for example, Julius Caesar), which are one type of navigation box. Such versions omit important information to the extent they do not also include other navigation aids. Until that problem is fixed the dangling "Related information" heading will alert readers of a printed or mirrored version to look for additional material available in the on-line Wikipedia article." - from Wikipedia:Related_information/answers#Proposal_objections_and_responses (footnote omitted). Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 22:13, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Colts and the "sweepstakes"[edit]

I disagree with the recent addition, "The Indianapolis Colts won the "Luck sweepstakes" with a 2-14 record." I feel that the addition is potentially a violation of WP:CRYSTAL even though the information is sourced and my further views on this can be found here. Eagles 24/7 (C) 03:11, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

...and my side is also found in the above user talk discussion. Short version: 1) WP:CRYSTAL does not apply to speculation that is reliably sourced, as this is. 2) The phrase "Luck sweepstakes" is directly from the cite, and it or some variant has been used by many, many reliable sources in the past few months. 3) The text in question does not claim that the Colts will definitely take Luck. It merely says that they won the right to do so, and this is what "Luck sweepstakes" refers to. The cite itself specifically states "If the Colts draft Luck..." Ylee (talk) 03:16, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Eagles247. "Luck sweepstakes" is informal fanspeak. The Colts did not win any "sweepstakes", they received the right to select first in the 2012 NFL Draft. Whether some in the media label this "Luck sweepstakes" or some other kind of ballyhoo is irrelevant to Wikipedia. --bender235 (talk) 12:07, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

?[edit]

What is that weird College Athlete Recruit Entry infobox doing in the middle of the article? Drmies (talk) 03:09, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Colts-Luck Report[edit]

A while back, I found a report on NFL.com saying that the Colts told Luck that they'll draft him. Should we put this in, or wait until the draft? The link to the report: [1] Zappa (talk) 21:57, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like it's in. Zappa (talk) 05:31, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Edit request on 2 June 2012[edit]

Octavio96 (talk) 05:44, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not done: please be more specific about what needs to be changed.  Honette 10:37, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Main Image Change[edit]

Is there anyway we can get a more up to date image of Andrew as the main picture of the article such as one of him at Colts practices/games/events instead of one where he is still at Stanford? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.54.164.82 (talk) 23:20, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Descendant of Isaac Luck[edit]

Is there any source for this? Deville (Talk) 21:55, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Andrew Luck. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 07:04, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 8 external links on Andrew Luck. 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:

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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 02:57, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Andrew Luck. 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:

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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 09:34, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retirement[edit]

ESPN has received word the Luck is retiring. Should this be mentioned? B.Valley (talk) 01:40, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Andrew_Luck&oldid=1208613829"