Talk:Pittsburgh Panthers football

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

Attendance help[edit]

Any Pitt stats guys here have access to the attendance records of Pitt 1989 Emerald Isle Classic game. Also, any help as to explaining why in the world Rutgers/Pitt went to Ireland would be very helpful (payouts, Big East deals, etc.).--Excaliburhorn 07:51, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pitt vs Pittsburgh[edit]

This has recently come up as two separate editors have taken it upon themselves to change every mention of "Pitt" to "Pittsburgh" in an effort to "formalize" the articles...particularly the sports articles. For now I have undone the revisions on the Pittsburgh Panther web page. There is some history here that those from outside the Pittsburgh/Western PA area are probably unaware of.

1. Since 1908 when the University of Pittsburgh changed its name from the Western University of Pennsylvania (until 1819 it was known as Pittsburgh Academy), those inside and outside of the university have referred to it as "Pitt". Official documentation also self-refers to the university as "Pitt". The quintessential history of the University by Alberts is called "Pitt" and the most referenced slogan and fight song is "Hail to Pitt". Press releases involving the athletic teams (see here for the most recent :press release) refer to the teams as "Pitt". The web site url is www.pitt.edu. It is very similar to the University of Pennsylvania self-referring to itself as "Penn", Pennsylvania State University referring to itself as "Penn State", or the University of California-Berkley referring to itself as "Cal".

2. Locally and regionally, and even nationally, "Pitt" is used to differentiate the University's sports teams from the professional sports teams of Pittsburgh (the Steelers, Pirates and Penguins).

3. Controversy struck in 1997 when new athletic director Steve Pederson took over a sagging athletic department at the university. In an effort to reinvigorate the sports programs by suggesting a fresh start, as well as to tie the Universities athletic teams closer the city in an attempt to revive flagging fan support among the city's non-alumni sports fans, Pederson introduced a new athletics logo, new blue and gold color scheme, and new uniforms. Highlighting these changes was the replacement of the "script" Pitt logo (used to adorn facilities, uniforms, football helmets, and even used for non-athletic university markings) with a logo that incorporated the word "Pittsburgh" in a torch-cut font. Pederson also sent press releases to all local and national media outlets requesting that they no longer refer to the University as "Pitt", but as "Pittsburgh". This met with outrage among some elements of the fan and alumni base, and was generally received by local and national media outlets with scorn, although they did generally comply. A torch-cut "Pitt" logo was produced during this era and was meant to be used only for internal university markings and was seldom seen. Upon the departure of Pederson to the University of Nebraska and the arrival of athletic director Jeff Long, the torch-cut Pittsburgh logo was gradually phased-out, and, to coincide with the hiring of Pitt alumni Dave Wannstedt as head football coach in late 2004, a new (yet retro) "block" Pitt logo was introduced thereby completely reversing the edicts of Pederson to replace "Pitt" with "Pittsburgh" in promotional and media fronts. Interestingly, the change in blue and gold shades remains, as they have been adopted university-wide and Steve Pederson has since returned as AD at Pitt, although he promised there will be revisions of the current logo this time around. However, the replacement of "Pitt" with "Pittsburgh" remains a very sensitive issue for many involved with the university, and unilateral conversion of "Pitt" to "Pittsburgh" may result in edit wars between alumni factions.

4. That said, the official name is the University of Pittsburgh and "Pittsburgh" is used to some extent, generally when referencing other academic criteria in the same sentence that would immediately signal that it was referring to the University, not the city. For instance, when using "Pittsburgh" it is typically either proceeded with the words "University of" or followed by "Panthers", etc). This holds true for administrators through alumni of the university.

These are the reasonings to leave "Pitt" alone, so to speak. I welcome further opinions but, again, direct you the usages of "Penn", "Penn State", and "Cal" by those respective universities. Just so its clear, I do believe the use of the word "Pittsburgh" when referring to Pitt is useful to reduce repetitiveness in the text. Please leave your opinions on this opinion. cp101p (talk) 23:49, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

National Championships[edit]

For the listing of national championships, I'm not sure the table format is necessary for this. It may unnecessarily expand the page vertically compared to the way they were listed before, which didn't convey any less information. Thoughts on this?cp101p (talk) 18:57, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Season-by-season history[edit]

This section seems very unnecessary on the main Pitt football page. It should probably be moved to its own page that could be titled "Pitt football seasons" or something similar. Many other sports teams have done something like that already. To get an idea of what I'm talking about creating see Everton F.C. seasons, Iowa Hawkeyes football seasons, or Boston Red Sox seasons. JohnnyPolo24 (talk) 12:00, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

the football article needs major revamping and expansion, so yes, when that is done I agree with you that season-by-season should be split off and probably standardized.CrazyPaco (talk) 23:22, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've created a Pittsburgh Panthers football seasons page along with a full table for data. I've migrated a lot of the information over from the current table on this main football page, but some of it looks like it will fit better in their own lists or tables, such as the All-Americans or NFL draftees. I'd love some feedback on the seasons' talk page. JohnnyPolo24 (talk) 17:34, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Roster[edit]

I realize that college football rosters can be very large, but I think it would be good to have at least a list of the current starting roster on the main page. I can put together a form form for this. JohnnyPolo24 (talk) 12:00, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Probably would be better placed on 2008 Pittsburgh Panthers football team, but the roster won't be available at least until after fall camp.CrazyPaco (talk) 23:25, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image copyright problem with Image:NCAA Football 2005 Coverart.jpg[edit]

The image Image:NCAA Football 2005 Coverart.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

  • That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
  • That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --02:13, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

New version[edit]

I have begun revamping this article in my sandbox to bring it more in line with articles of other preeminent football programs like USC, ND, Florida, Alabama and Texas. Also, I have brought the wording of the national championship section in line with the national championship article (the current table could be moved to Pittsburgh Panthers football seasons) and have tried to standardize things more, where possible, between this article and the Pitt Basketball article. I have not finished the history section and only have placeholders for what should probably go there, but the remainder of the article is nearing completion. Please leave feedback and comments. CrazyPaco (talk) 18:43, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

New version is up. I hope it does justice to bring the content, quality and consistency in line with other football team articles from schools with similar rich traditions. I'm sure there are plenty of typos though. CrazyPaco (talk) 05:08, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Location of first Pitt-PSU game[edit]

Pitt's media guide cites it as being played at Bellefonte. PSU media guide makes no specific mention which can be inferred from that it was played in State College. No contemporary accounts of the game have been found after searches in newspaper archives or archived student publications (Western Pennsylvania Courant) in order to clarify the location. The location of the game, foremost, is extraneous information and does not need to be included, but additionally, it seems especially improper to do so while there are currently no found or known reliable contemporary sources that are able to reconcile the differences between the two media guides. Further, Wikipedia is not a source as has been suggested. CrazyPaco (talk) 01:03, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Disputed claim on numbered uniforms[edit]

According to the Official NCAA Record book, the first use of numbered uniforms was by Washington & Jefferson in 1908. If UPitt claims otherwise, then there ought to be a note in this article that the NCAA apparently doesn't recognize UPitt's claim. I'm not trying to start trouble, just pointing this out. --GrapedApe (talk) 20:00, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, it not only disputed by the university, but by multiple independent historical sources which is why there are three references cited for this claim in the article. The NCAA Records Book is possibly in error, and that wouldn't be the first time it got historical facts mixed up, but I'll add a footnote regarding W&J's dispute of this claim. CrazyPaco (talk) 20:50, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, but I wouldn't exactly characterize it as W&J disputing Pitt's claim. Instead, it's more like the NCAA doesn't recognize Pitt's claim, but does recognize W&J's claim. A subtle distinction, I know, but I think it makes a difference. We have multiple sources with contradictory statements, and we can't try to synthesize them. I changed the language, and let me know what you think of the change.--GrapedApe (talk) 22:50, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
How you worded it is fine. Thanks for your help. CrazyPaco (talk) 00:00, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of Michael Haywood[edit]

I understand the recentism policy, but the policy does not mean that all recent events should automatically be removed from the article. Michael Haywood's hiring and firing should not be completely skipped over. Looking through the edit history, mentions of Haywood were added to different degrees and removed at least three times now.

The text was moved in its entirety to the 2010 Pittsburgh Panthers football team article. (It is also appropriately described in the Steve Pederson and Michael Haywood articles.) Based on the scope of the history section in this article, which covers over 220 years, Haywood's 15 days with no actual coaching duties does not deserve to be mentioned and is in fact almost entirely insignificant when viewed in context of the overall history of the program. No coaching searches are actually elaborated on elsewhere in the article, and he will never be officially regarded as a coach by Pitt nor the NCAA Records Book. Regarding recentism, the entire Wannstedt era section will need to be trimmed further. CrazyPaco (talk) 03:41, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that a coaching search does not need to be elaborated on, but this was not just a coaching search. The fact that the guy was actually hired as the head coach is significant and it at least deserves to be mentioned. The short length of his tenure makes it all the more unique and worthy of being included as a part of Pitt football history. A good example is the Notre Dame article, which mentions George O'leary, who had an even shorter tenure, as well as the Alabama football article, which mentions Mike Price, who was also removed without ever coaching a game.--St5801 (talk) 22:48, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Although because other stuff exists is not a valid argument, and despite that both of those articles also suffer from recentism, I did add a sentence mentioning Haywood. However, there are four actual Pitt coaches not mentioned in the article and they had significantly more impact as they actually coached a game: Hoskins, Trenchard, Crolius, and Wingard. Haywood, at best, deserves only a passing mention in this article, but that still may be a stretch. It should be revisited after some time has gone by to assess it with the benefit of distance and hindsight, as the entire section about Wannstedt should be seriously reduced in size (as should the Harris section). CrazyPaco (talk) 03:06, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough, thanks.--St5801 (talk) 06:20, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It was deleted again. I re-added it to the sentence about the hiring of Todd Graham. I suspect the repeated removals of single sentences about the temporary coach has less to do with a concern for recentism than a desire not to remember of behalf of certain contributors. I see absolutely no reason why a single phrase or sentence in an article stating that he was fired (as he clearly was) for being charged with domestic abuse (as he clearly was). No one has stated his guilt, and an article with over a thousand sentence is unlikely to be overburdened by one. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Throwawaygull (talk • contribs) 03:04, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No, it had been deleted as it was originally, per the above discussion, for being beyond the context and scope of an article which has entire national championship seasons and multi-year coaching tenures reduced to one sentence blurbs, and had stood as WP:Consensus for eight months. Irregardless of the question of whether he actually acted in the capacity of a head coach (he did not coach a single practice and there are questions about whether his contract was even finalized), the content of the incident is actually covered in both the 2010 Pittsburgh Panthers football team and 2011 Pittsburgh Panthers football team articles. Despite your accusations, WP:AGF would be well remembered here. Nonetheless, I reworked a sentence on Haywood and left it in with expectations it might be culled at a future date with other recentism. CrazyPaco (talk) 05:48, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of mention of Sports Illustrated article[edit]

This edit removed mention of a recent cover story in Sports Illustrated about an issues with criminal behavior among Pitt's players. The editor who removed it cited "Recentism". "Recentism" is an essay and therefore carries no formal weight in deciding content issues. Before I readd the content, however, I'm opening this thread to give the editor who blanked the paragraph a chance to explain why they did so. Cla68 (talk) 07:08, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That lone report is prime example of WP:UNDUE weight and out of scope for the context of this article, particularly a section covering 120 seasons of history, which already suffers from recentism for the last decade. The paragraph about the SI article has been moved, and corrected (adding comments given that were said not to exist), to 2010 Pittsburgh Panthers football team article. There are similar studies and articles like this that come out yearly in publications for all sorts of sports, including a annual tally for all of college football called the Fulmer Cup, which itself has its own Wikipedia article. Seldom does any one article, ranking or report warrant mention in a main team article, let alone one that was so roundly criticized for its methodology (and so narrowly focused ...one magazine's preseason top 25 list as compared to 120 Div 1 FBS members). Nor does the article appear to warrant any mention or citation in the team (or even individual season) articles of other programs placing either high (e.g. Iowa, Penn State) or low (TCU, Texas) on SI's list, not that any one program, including Pitt, was the sole focus of, or only school profiled in the report (a point apparently not picked up by an actual reading of it). Thus neither positive or negative results from the report warranted inclusion to any other Wikipedia article, nor did it warrant inclusion in the main articles on College football or Sports Illustrated. However, because of the attention it received for a few days, I agree that the SI report might warrant inclusion in the article for the 2010 Pitt football season Wikipedia article, because the context of that article is a detailed account of that one season, and as mentioned above, the paragraph on the report was moved there upon removal from this article. However, the SI report, even if it wasn't severely flawed, has had no impact on Pitt football as any policies to enhance background checks of recruits were enacted well before the release of the article, and the coaching staff was already dismissed. Therefore, the SI article will likely have no influence on the history or direction of the program and does not warrant mention in this article. This can be revisited in a year or two, to get away from the recentism of the day, but based on prior experience and historical research, I have no reason to believe that it will even be a footnote. In contrast, dramatic changes to the program are discussed in the article's corresponding sections of history, and in that particular case, two influential reports are cited as references: ref #48 & 52 by Francis Wallace: October 28, 1939, "Test Case at Pitt" and November 24, 1939, "The Football Factory Explodes", both published in The Saturday Evening Post. Further, that controversy is thoroughly covered in Alberts' 200 year history of the university, which is also cited, demonstrating its notability within the scope of the wikipedia article, which the SI report clearly lacks. In fact, in light of WP:UNDUE, an explanation of why the SI article was added to this article in the first place (by word count, 0.7% of the History section covering 122 years and 8% of the section covering six years), as well as the main article covering the university (was 39% of the section on football), seems to be more justified. Indeed, the Michael Haywood incident (removed by another editor but discussed in the the above section) is more justified for inclusion. CrazyPaco (talk) 20:17, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I don't agree that it is undue, but I'm willing to agree to disagree on that point. One other thing, however, looking at past discussions on this page, I see that you have used "Recentism" in the past as justification for removing content. I'm dismayed that someone would cite an essay as justification for removing cited content that others have added to an article. We're supposed to be building an encyclopedia here, not using it as a brochure on the Pitt football team. I'll keep this article on my watchlist for the time being and hope that citing that essay as if it were policy doesn't happen again. OK? Cla68 (talk) 03:42, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Citing an essay or policy it does not change the validity of the rationale and there is no policy against citing essays for editing rationales, whether removing cited content or not. Particularly, Recentism is an essay with a long history and wide acceptance, particularly when the material is not simply deleted, but moved to wikilinked child or parent articles that were more appropriately contemporaneous in scope, as had been done in almost all of the cases here. CrazyPaco (talk) 06:10, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
When the newbie editor in the thread above referred to your use of a reference to the essay as policy, you failed to correct him/her. That looks to me like what you were doing is against the spirit of WP:BITE (which is a guideline, not an essay, and therefore does carry some formal authority). I guess I need to put all the Pitt articles on my watchlist. Hopefully, what I'm seeing here isn't being repeated in those articles. Cla68 (talk) 12:53, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well if you are going to add articles that I regularly edit to your watchlist because you disagree with my reasoning for moving your edits ("against the spirt of" WP:HOUND?), then I invite you join the Wikiprojects that I am most active in, including the Pitt, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, College football, College basketball and Historic Properties wikiprojects. We can always use good editors in those projects. BTW, I noticed you are located in Japan. I hope you and those you know are ok over there. CrazyPaco (talk) 04:03, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If I'm not too late to jump it, it is absolutely recentism and undue to reflect a single article. Grsz 11 05:03, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hail To PITT[edit]

This article is very thorough. It offered a ton of information about the history and tradition of the PITT Panthers that I, a current PITT sophomore, did not know. One tihing I would like to see added to this article are the season-by-season result before the year 2005. Also, maybe a place to keep track of the current season record. Other than those minor suggestion, I think this article is great. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jade.Richardson (talk • contribs) 18:10, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That is split off onto a separate article:
Main article: Pittsburgh Panthers football seasons
Many individual seasons also have their own article. CrazyPaco (talk) 19:36, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Image deletion discussion[edit]

Relevant deletion discussion at Wikipedia:Files_for_deletion/2011_December_30#File:Pittfootballhelmet.png.--GrapedApe (talk) 17:26, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Assessment comment[edit]

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Pittsburgh Panthers football/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

* Covers the topic and is well-sourced
  • Has instances of non-N.P.O.V.; try and make the prose impartial
  • Some technical terms not explained
  • all around great article that is on its way to becoming GA

Last edited at 02:09, 22 May 2009 (UTC). Substituted at 03:05, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Pittsburgh Panthers 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:

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) 11:00, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified external links on Pittsburgh Panthers 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:

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) 04:18, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of sourced CFDW information[edit]

Sourced material from College Football Data Warehouse website has been restored after removal which provided reasoning containing only singular WP:POV which was not supported by cited sources or editor consensus among the editing community represented by WP:CFB. Among the WP community of college football editors, CFDW has been considered to provide the most complete and thorough curation of all-time NC selections, beyond even the NCAA Official Records Book, and has provided a WP:neutral evaluation of those selections. It is not a"disbanded" website as claimed, which would not be a criteria for removal in the first place, and also has a long-standing consensus among the college football community editors as an independent, reliable secondary source (per WP Policy) consisting of expert opinion on historical national championship selections conforming to WP:NOR and WP:NPV. CFDW's content has been curated and contributed to by well established and published historians on the subject, including the executive director of the IFRA satisfying indepedent expert knowledge per WP:TPA. Singular opinions on the credibility of CFDW do not represent community consensus as demonstrated for years at College football national championships and WP:CFB. Please also note that the NCAA has never, and does not currently recognize or certify any national championships at the Division 1A/FBS level; it only lists selections of deemed major selectors in its Official Records Book. Other ancillary webpages at its press website contain press release stories containing abbreviated selections and do represent official NCAA comment on those championships, nor are they a component of its Official Records Book. See College football national championships in NCAA Division I FBS for more information on the history, selection, and curation of national championship selections. This material in this article represents comprehensive listing of selections parallel to the primary college football national championship article, which is comprehensive and refrains from editorializing and WP:OR per Wikipedia standards. Please also see Wikipedia:Consensus. CrazyPaco (talk) 22:13, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

NCAA and CFB D1A/FBS national championships[edit]

The NCAA has never, and does not currently, recognized or certify national championships at the highest level of college football play (at various times known as University Division/Division 1A/FBS). The NCAA has never sponsored or awarded college football championship at the D1A/FBS level and therefore has officially never endorsed or commented on the legitimacy of a championship. However, its official NCAA Football Bowl Subdivision Records Book publication [1] has documented the choices of some selectors that, according to the contributing work of one published college football historian, have been deemed to be "major selectors". "Major selectors" are those deemed by the contributing historians to have been national in scope.

The NCAA does define a "consensus" selection. "Consensus" selectors in the official NCAA Football Bowl Subdivision Records correspond to the period from 1950 to present which began with the introduction of the two poll system upon the appearance of the Coaches Poll in 1950. Selectors used to determine teams listed as "Consensus National Champions" in the NCAA Football Bowl Subdivision Records include the AP Poll, Coaches Poll, Football Writers Association of America, and the National Football Foundation/College Football Hall of Fame. This only applies to football championships deemed to be consensus from 1950 forward. Other lists included in on-line articles provided at NCAA.com (not NCAA.org), are deemed derivative snapshots and incomplete, and do not represent official sanction or recognition. The Official NCAA Records Book is considered the definitive WP:Source on how the NCAA views this topic.

Please see College football national championships in NCAA Division I FBS for more information and the long-held Wikipedia community editor consensus on this topic. CrazyPaco (talk) 13:40, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This seems to be clear. The other website is not an official listing and is not through. The College Football Wikiproject and national championship article agree with this. I will reverse edits to match those. Pennaltoid (talk) 20:08, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

WP:TOOBIG / History of Pittsburgh Panthers football[edit]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
The result of this discussion was to split the article WebsterNerd11 (talk) 01:22, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This article is currently 216 kB[2] WP:TOOBIG gives: 

> 100 kB	Almost certainly should be divided
> 60 kB	Probably should be divided (although the scope of a topic can sometimes justify the added reading material)

One option is moving additional content and obvious WP:RECENTISM to History of Pittsburgh Panthers football, as seen in Category:History of college football by team. Note, multiple coaching era sections in this article are already tagged with "This section is too long" re this issue. Other options include addressing non-standard sections and those with sourcing issues. UW Dawgs (talk) 21:16, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(My attention to this was brought up indirectly via IRC) I'd fork the history section into its own article. As it is, it's a third of the page, and I don't doubt it'll just keep growing as time goes on. I've a feeling other sections will likewise need forked off, but this ain't my usual topic area so I haven't the foggiest what the obvious sections should be. —A little blue Bori v^_^v Jéské Couriano 23:51, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
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.

WP:TOOBIG follow up[edit]

Note, according to WP:TOOBIG, the rules of thumb apply only to readable prose and not to wiki markup size. According to readable prose tools, the current article is >7K words of reasonable prose, well within page size guidelines. CrazyPaco (talk) 18:38, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Pittsburgh_Panthers_football&oldid=1207245704"