Talk:Super Bowl/Archive 2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Game History/Notable Games.Honorable Mention Section

As a suggestion, the "Game History" section should be completely redone. Instead of having "Notable Super Bowl" games vs. "Honorable Mention" and some not even listed, it perhaps should follow the example of Indianapolis 500 year by year. They took what was once "notable years," created a spinoff page, and instead of listing some, listed all, without an opinion whether it was good or bad. Every single year was listed, with a brief descrption. I think that the Super Bowl, which has half as many entires, could be done very similair. It would eliminate any neutrality issues, disputes, and POV. Doctorindy 19:14, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Use of terminology "football"

Is the term football used as an americanism for Rugby? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 81.159.68.216 (talk • contribs) .

Not exactly. Rugby and American football have evolved into completely different games. As Wikipedia's football article currently says that is "is the name given to a number of different, but related, team sports. By far the most popular of these worldwide is Association football, which also goes by the name of soccer. The English language word football is also applied to Rugby football (Rugby union and Rugby league), American football, Australian rules football, Gaelic football and Canadian football." Zzyzx11 (Talk) 12:26, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Failed GA

I refailed the GA nom on this article as it has a PoV tag in one section, rather sloppy writing, and references need to be fixed. Thanks Jaranda wat's sup 19:41, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Is this rant necessary?

There is a popular urban myth regarding the Super Bowl — that the game is watched in 234 countries by 1 billion people [1], a fact unlikely to be true considering the time of the event and the lack of popularity American Football has outside of the United States. While Super Bowl XXXIX in 2005 was available to a potential audience of approximately one billion, i.e. one billion people are in the collective coverage area of the various channels that carried the game, in actual fact it was only watched by 93 million viewers in total, of which 98 percent were in North America [2]. Approximately half of the remaining 2 million worldwide viewers watched from the United Kingdom.

Honestly, is this long diatribe against an NFL press release really necessary? The NFL's official site says, "The game will be broadcast to a potential worldwide audience of 1 billion in more than 225 countries and territories." Misleading? Sure. But don't you all think that the above rant is much ado about nothing? Aplomado talk 00:42, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

  • I would hardly call it a 'long diatribe'. It's three sentences, of which two are viewing-figure facts.

Anyway, this isn't about the press release. This is about the popular urban myth which probably stems from the press release but is perpetuated by many media outlets - and has been for a number of years. John the mackem 12:00, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Alright, I just thought the question beared asking. Aplomado talk 21:00, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, someone has deleted the second half of the paragraph. If you think the whole thing should go, fine, but at the moment it doesn't even make sense anymore. In any case it was all referenced so I don't see the problem. I realise some Americans may see the inclusion as a little bizarre, but the 1 billion myth is all that many people hear about the Superbowl, so I see nothing wrong with a short para that makes sense. Shane1 15 August 2006

Can the alleged "popularity" of this myth be cited? I've simply never heard this myth before, and just because a few dippy articles are written by some sloppy journalists parroting a misleading press release does not necessarily constitute the existance of an urban myth, much less a popular one. Hell, this myth is not even listed on the Superbowl page [3] of the Urban Legends Reference Pages. --Bletch 03:47, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

In the UK the only coverage of American football is around superbowl time and I have heard variations of this myth several times. Usually claiming that it is the 2nd most viewed sporting event after the football world cup, which is almost certainly erroneous but hard to prove either way. Whether similiar myths exist in non-English speaking countries I have no idea. 8 Feb 2007 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.77.84.68 (talk • contribs)

The reason that I do not believe that it qualifies as an urban myth is that there doesn't seem to be any traction; googling around shows a great deal of hits, but they are either direct quotes of the press releases or debunking those quotes. OTOH, urban myths generally refer to stories that get passed around without knowledge of the origin; something that doesn't seem to apply here. As for why this story gets passed around the UK media while never being discussed in the US media, I have no idea. --Bletch 13:15, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Notable Super Bowls

I didn't put the POV tag on this section, but I can see why it has one. There's a number of problems with it.

  • 15 games are listed as either notable or as an honorable mention. That's about 40 percent of all the Super Bowls. If anything, should this section just list 3 or 4 of the most notable?
  • That brings me to my second point. "Notability" is something that needs to be determined by outside references, of which this section has none.
  • Finally, why is this section necessary? What does it add to the article?

—Aplomado talk 00:47, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Several Wiki articles have sections for "notable" - however, what defines "notable"? FYI, that definition will vary from person to person. KyuuA4 18:56, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Super Bowl XLVIII

Why is Super Bowl XLVIII set to redirect to this article, when Super Bowl XLIX has an article of its own? If the argument is that XLVIII fails the not a crystal ball guideline, why is XLIX allowed to stand? -- Grinnblade 22:10, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Alright, after doing a little more research, I see that XLIX was also a redirect for a short period of time. But I still wonder why exactly XLIX has an article and XLVIII doesn't. -- Grinnblade 22:10, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
If you read Super Bowl XLIX, the league was planning on possibly giving it to Kansas City if they had passed a ballot measure to raise sales taxes to raise funds to improve Arrowhead Stadium. However, the measure failed to pass and the city subsequently withdrew. All of this is cited with references -- which is why that article does not qualify under the "not a crystal ball".
On the other hand, there has not been any specific verifable information yet on the preparation for Super Bowl XLVIII, which is why it is currently a redirect. Also note that Super Bowl XLV barely passes as an article instead of a redirect because there is one cited report on who has expressed interest in bidding for the game. Hope this explanation helps. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 23:23, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
I can update you on Super Bowl XLVIII. According to the ticker on NFL Network, city officials in Indianapolis have bid for the game, which would be played at Lucas Oil Stadium, which will open next year. - Desmond Hobson (talk) 03:51, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Myths about the Super Bowl

Should the myth that more domestic abuse occurs during the weekend of the Super Bowl be included? It's a pretty prominent myth I've heard most of my life (I'm 24) but that has no evidence of being true, but it spread nonetheless. Throw 19:14, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

It's a false myth. You could check it on snopes.com

[edit] Entertainment

I think a section (chart) should be added listing the National Anthem and Halftime performers. This would help me since I have about a dozen Star Spangled Banners on my iPod, but am not sure which year each one is from.TonyTheTiger 22:13, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Michael Jackson hypothesis

I've removed this reference to the Janet Jackson incident:

Some think that this was intentional for publicity, possibly so that Janet could detract attention from her brother Michael Jackson, who was facing child molestation charges.

It's unsourced weaseling ("some think...") and obviously Original research. --Tony Sidaway 15:22, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Yeah that version needed to go. But it was a relatively common opinion publically on the incident. I mean it's almost certainly an untrue theory, but the fact that a lot of people believed it might warrant a mention somewhere, more likely in Super Bowl XXXVIII halftime show controversy though. I might see if there is anything approaching mainstream media coverage of this theory... that would add some credibility to it. Of course I'm really not terribly interested in the whole ordeal... just mentioning it here in case other people are. --W.marsh 15:42, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
If it were in fact a relatively common opinion, surely it would have been written about. Therefore, we need an actual source cited, or it does sound weaseling and OR. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 16:49, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Trends

Who the heck added the completely unsourced and WP:OR "Trends" section? That does not belong in this article. —Wrathchild (talk) 04:11, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Okay, it's been a week. I'll be bold. —Wrathchild (talk) 14:09, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

I am the one who added the chart that got whacked of QBs with Multiple Wins. I put a lot of effort into adding hyperlinks so that it all was verifiable, so I don't see how a "completely unsourced" criticism applies. ChrisnHouston 16:58, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

I added the bit about the winning streaks by conferences. That's not WP:OR...it's been published. --Dougwalters 18:58, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Removal of information

An anon user has been continually removing information without giving a reason why: [4]. I have asked him a lot to clarify why, but he has not, and has used multiple IPs to circumvent 3RR; I suspect it's more a vandalism kind of thing. Do you guys think the information is relevant? If so, I encourage you to add it back in; if not, please explain here; thanks! Patstuart(talk)(contribs) 20:59, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't think that particular "might have been" is appropriate for the article either. No, I'm not the anon who has been removing it. —Wrathchild (talk) 04:05, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

He he, if you could explain why, please do. This user became involved in a ridiculous edit war, if you look at the page history, over this information, and alienated about 6 people in the process. I don't believe you're that IP (you wouldn't bother coming to the talk page) - but please explain how this information doesn't help. -Patstuart(talk)(contribs) 04:08, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

A "what if" scenario is so trivial it doesn't belong in an encyclopedia article. Where does one draw the line? "If it weren't for a kickoff return for a touchdown, the Ravens would have completed the first Super Bowl shutout over the Giants." "If Kevin Dyson hadn't come up a yard short in Super Bowl XXXIV the Tennessee Titans' cinderella season would have been complete." —Wrathchild (talk) 19:38, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
I second Wrathchild's notion. Other than an interesting sidenote exclusive to Seahawks fans, does the "whatif" situation contribute anything to the article? As stated before, the number of whatif scenarios in professional football is simply too numerous to include. No, I'm not the jack-ass that keeps on deleting. Djma12 22:20, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

He guys. To be straightforward, I'm not aware of any Wikipedia policy against using what-if scenarios, especially when they're relevant to the context of the article. Just because we can't include every scenario doesn't mean we shouldn't include any. In this context, how can you possibly assert that the text isn't relevant? -Patstuart(talk)(contribs) 23:39, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Oh there is no wiki policy against using what-if scenarios. The question is whether the statement contributes anything to the article. I know you seem to like this piece of trivia, but whether it contributes to the article is a consensus decision, not one of personal preference.
In my opinion, there is no need to lengthen a trivia section that already takes up one third of the entire article with historical what-ifs -- especially since the Super Bowl's long history has plenty of trivia about events that actually happened.
Then again, I don't claim to speak for the consensus opinion. The only real way to settle this is through a poll.Djma12 02:18, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

I'll lay down my opinion on the matter: the information is interesting, and it's only one sentence, and makes very little difference in the length of the article. That being said, trivia sections aren't supposed to exist on Wikipedia, per the WP:AVTRIV guideline. That being said, it is only a guideline (guidelines are not requirements), and one that didn't pass by that much anyway. I find the trivia section to be interesting; but if anyone objects, we can remove the whole thing (though it's preferrable to integrate it). -Patstuart(talk)(contribs) 00:21, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

You know, there's enough Super Bowl trivia to make its own article. Why don't we just do that? It seem win-win to me. Djma12 00:28, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
I would whole-heartedly support it. But it'd have to be written in prose, not in list format. You'd have to be up to the task of writing it, then. -Patstuart(talk)(contribs) 04:15, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

It really looks bad that in the trivia section and the never happened section the article has the same exact information and so close together. This is very noticable and it does not need to be repeated (the info about teams playing in their home stadium). If it appears in the never happened, it really doesn't need to appear in the trivia section too, because never happened is basically triva in its own right! 198.133.139.5

[edit] Trivia Section

Items listed referring to a SINGLE Super Bowl game should be transferred over to its own entry. However, items listing multiple Super Bowls should remain. If anything, some of the items should cover trends. KyuuA4 09:19, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Here are some:

[edit] Trivia

  • In 1994, the 49ers became the first team to wear a throwback jersey during the Super Bowl. Since it was the league's 75th season, every team wore a throwback jersey during the season and San Francisco decided to continue to wear their jerseys all the way through the playoffs and into Super Bowl XXIX. The jerseys they wore paid tribute to the 1957 team.
  • In the months leading up to Super Bowl XXX (or Super Bowl Thirty), some Internet proxy servers were blocking the web site for the upcoming event. Many proxy servers' filters were configured to block the text string "XXX" whenever occurring to prevent access to pornography. As a result, additional settings were necessary to grant exceptions for other uses of "XXX".
  • In 1999, the St. Louis Rams were the first NFL team who plays their home games in a fully enclosed stadium, the TWA Dome (now called the Edward Jones Dome), to win the Super Bowl. No domed-stadium team has ever done it before, or since.
  • Super Bowl XXXIX was the first such game to be tied after three quarters of play.
  • Super Bowl Indicator, an indicator based on the belief that a Super Bowl win for a team from the old AFL (AFC division) foretells a decline in the stock market for the coming year, and that a win for a team from the old NFL (NFC division) means the stock market will be up for the year. This indicator has been surprisingly accurate (around 85% correct) over the past years.
  • Unlike other major sports events (World Series and Daytona 500 to name two), no sitting president has ever attended the Super Bowl. The closest came in Super Bowl XIX, when Ronald Reagan tossed the coin from the Oval Office of the White House. Two sitting vice-presidents have attended: George H.W. Bush went to Super Bowl XVI and Al Gore was at Super Bowl XXVII. Two former presidents have gone: Bush was at Super Bowl XXXVI (for the coin toss) and Super Bowl XXXIX with Bill Clinton (as part of a fundraising effort for victims of the 2004 Indian Ocean tsunami).

[edit] A Question With An Answer That Should Go In Trivia

Has anyone played the Super Bowl in their own Stadium? (I'm hoping it'll happen this season.)

Looking through List of Super Bowl champions, that had never been the case. KyuuA4 18:54, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wiki Trivia Policy

What's the policy for trivial information in Wiki articles? KyuuA4 18:57, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

See WP:TRIV John Reaves (talk) 03:38, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] More Trivia

[edit] Cartoon Network Parody

Does anyone remember the few years that Cartoon Network put on marathons featuring one character vs another? They had play-by-play recaps and montages... I think it was called The Big Game or something... I searched WP but failed in finding any mention of it, and googling doesn't bring that many results... I was wondering if anyone here could help me find material and decide what to do with it. Blueaster 02:45, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Yep i remember that it was pretty cool think it was called the cartoon brawl or something like that but i doubt there is any information on it since it happened before wikipedia was created. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.85.43.78 (talk • contribs)

[edit] Shoes?

What's with the red shoes reflected in the Lombardi trophy? Is that the best anybody can do for a picture? Did Dorothy Gale take the photo? At least they don't "reflect up", and the picture taker apparently wasn't "dressed" the same way as that infamous eBay teapot pic... but the trophy certainly "reflects down". Wahkeenah 20:18, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I believe it is a red hat that the photographer was wearing. --tomf688 (talk - email) 21:47, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
You're right. If you flip the photo upside down, it turns the reflections right side up. It's several different reflected images of the photographer, a guy in a red baseball cap and a tan shirt, holding the camera up and looking through the viewfinder. It's still weird-looking, though. Wahkeenah 01:55, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
If you think the angle that the shot was taken is a problem, you can either find another free image or try to crop Commons:Image:Patriots Superbowl Trophies.jpg. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 02:19, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] List of Super Bowl champions

I think the list of previous winners, losers, and game scores should be merged with the main article. A lot of people will come to the page looking for this information (at least I was). Maybe we could replace the useless "List of coin toss winners." 18.172.5.109 00:04, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

This page is already 45kb - adding the list will add significant bloat to the article. PSUMark2006 talk | contribs 00:25, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
I actually agree it could probably be in here somewhere, or the link should be more prominent (as in a see also link at the top of the page). Heck, we even have a list on this page of who won the coin toss in each Super Bowl. Patstuarttalk|edits 01:05, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
All of it was moved to List of Super Bowl champions because the Super Bowl article is already long. I also agree that the "Super Bowl appearances" and "Super Bowl winners" tables should also be removed here because they are also on List of Super Bowl champions. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 20:35, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] National Holiday?

Super Bowl Sunday does not bear any resemblance to a US national holiday. National holidays are holidays from work, and even when a national holiday falls on a weekend, another day is usually granted off from work. Super Bowl Sunday may be an entertainment and television mega-blowout, but not a holiday. –Shoaler (talk) 10:36, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

  • Calling it a "national holiday" is just one more element of the Super Hype surrounding this TV event. Wahkeenah 15:08, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
    • On the ESPN program The Sports Reporters this morning, host John Saunders twice referred to the Super Bowl as "our national holiday". Wahkeenah 15:23, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
    • And ESPN Sports Center host Bob Lee just called it "a secular holy day". Wahkeenah 15:33, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Have you ever been out in the world while the game is on? Streets and stores are quite empty (in the U.S. at least). Everybody asks if you're having or going to a Super Bowl party. People who don't even like football go to Super Bowl parties, not unlike all those unfamiliar faces in the pews on Christmas and Easter. It is a bigger "event" than most official U.S. Holidays. Presidents' Day party anyone? —Wrathchild (talk) 17:43, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] De Facto Holiday

This is really what the Super Bowl has become. A de facto holiday. Not an official holiday, but many Americans treat it as such. KyuuA4 19:38, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Venue problem

Would someone care to correct this bit from the Venue information. The counts for New Orleans and Greater Miami don't match the per-stadium counts for those cities.

Over half of the Super Bowls have been played in one of three cities: New Orleans, Louisiana (nine times, six times at the Louisiana Superdome and four times at now-demolished Tulane Stadium), the Greater Miami Area (nine total, five times at Miami's Orange Bowl and three times at Miami's Dolphin Stadium), ... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 199.246.40.54 (talk) 21:22, 7 May 2007 (UTC).

Counts can be verified from this table: List of Super Bowl champions. As a featured list, it should be accurate; and regarding venues, that can be counted. I'll do some checking on that in a bit. KyuuA4 21:06, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
Since the lead in sentence speaks of city/metro area, cutting out the stadium info. from the sentence. That data can be found on the venue table below it. Also, that table can be cleaned up a bit. KyuuA4 21:17, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Count check

  • New Orleans, Louisiana -- 9 times; 6 at the Superdome, 3 at Tulane
  • Greater Miami Area -- 9 times (Miami-S.Florida); 4 at Dolphin Stadium, 5 at the Orange Bowl

Checked the list. KyuuA4 21:13, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Stadiums to host both a Super Bowl and a World Series

Does any mention of the World Series have any relevance to this article? KyuuA4 19:50, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Spelling

A pet peeve of mine is the frequent misspelling of the name of this event as "Superbowl" by many fans. I've been wondering whether something belongs in this article, perhaps a footnote after the first reference to the name stating something like, "The name of this event is frequently misspelled as 'Superbowl.' The official name consists of two words." But I don't have a good citation to support it aside from the NFL's universal practice of using two words (except in the URL superbowl.com, of course). 1995hoo 15:12, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

The NFL holds copyright to the term "Super bowl". As far as I know, it is two words. KyuuA4 16:03, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
Ironically enough, the copyright might explain why the single word version is also popular. In any case, it's not the wiki's job to say people are spelling something wrong. Jon 20:18, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Non occerences

In the non-ocerences section about home field advantage. I think a note for Pitrtsburgh should be added. Super bowl XL was in Jerome Bettis's home city and 99.9 percent of the fans there were Steeler fans. YOu could tell from theg terrible towels and from the statistics about the attendence. I fthat isnst home field advantage then i dont know what is.Mstare88 (talk) 15:50, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Home field is defined as a specific team within that team's city. It is not defined by the "composition" of the attendance. For example, the Steelers playing in Pittsburgh. Even for XL, Detroit is not Pittsburgh. KyuuA4 (talk) 23:32, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Table has ruined the format

I am confused, who has changed the format of the Super Bowl page? It has changed the format and placed all the lower placed items like references into the table. This is not the correct format.Ttrain88 (talk) 19:04, 14 December 2007 (UTC) Tom