Talk:San Francisco 49ers
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is part of WikiProject California, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to California on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit this article, or visit the project page to join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. |
 |
This article is part of WikiProject National Football League, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to the NFL on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. |
I don't think a fan page contains any relevant information, not when there is an official site. --Feitclub 03:08, Sep 26, 2004 (UTC)
- Incorrect. An "official site" gives you only the company line, and avoids speculation, criticism, and negatives regarding an organization. While the 49er fan sites may not be particularly controversial, consider the significant differently viewpoints available between the Bengals official site and MikeBrownSucks.com several years ago.--Valwen 06:16, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
- The link does not violate any of WIKIPEDIA's guidelines...
"Bullying, or stubbornness: Some users cannot come to agreement with others who are willing to talk to them on an article's talk page, and repeatedly make changes opposed by everyone else. This is a matter of regret — you may wish to see our dispute resolution pages to get help. However, it is not vandalism. "
"Spam Adding inappropriate external links "
The link is very appropriate, right on topic in fact, it is only placed once and does not go against any of the guidelines of wikipedia...
Additionaly it offers plenty of information not available on the "official" 49ers page. Including newspaper articles from every major bay area newspaper, a 5 person writing team that writes original articles, more detailed statistics than the official page, as well as a more in-depth history, biography, download, chat and interactive section. Most 49ers fans find this site a nice compliment and in some cases an even more useful site than the official site. It is visited by over 5000 people a day.
In other words just because some people don't find it useful, does not mean others will not find it useful too.
Contents |
[edit] Request for Comment
I've mentioned this on Wikipedia:Requests for comment, so we'll see what "others" think. --Feitclub
-
- I have altered your comment next to the link to follow the guidelines mentioned on that page: "Please add a brief, neutral statement of the issue involved. Don't list arguments for or against any position, or try to assign blame for the dispute. Don't sign entries, just link to the appropriate page." The pre-editted statement clearly expressed your bias.
-
- I guess we will see what others have to say over the coming days etc. In the mean time, please leave the link up as it is the only way others can truly determine its validity
-
- User:24.103.63.56
-
- Fair enough. --Feitclub 04:29, Sep 27, 2004 (UTC)
Just looking at the NFC teams, the Cardinals, Eagles, 49ers, and Redskins articles link to fan sites, the Giants' article links to an NFL page, and all of the teams' articles link to their official sites. It seems to me that the link can stay, but should be included below the official site. Gentgeen 04:58, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)
The fan site seems to be a pretty good one. I don't see any reason why it can't stay. --Lowellian 21:46, Sep 27, 2004 (UTC)
- There is absolutely no reason to exclude external links to important fan sites for any topic, especially NFL teams. Fans are what makes such topics notable in the first place! The official NFL team websites are generally high-quality, but in almost every case, there's information about the teams out there that the official sites fail to cover. Getting outside views is always a good thing. Additionally: fan sites frequently have large forums with less conservative moderation. Also a good thing for our purposes (presenting the whole picture instead of a POV), and a useful resource to our readers.
- This raises the question: is 49ersparadise.com an important fan site? To answer it, look to Alexa traffic rankings. 49ersparadise.com's ranking is 1,485,171 [1]. Compare that to the Alexa rankings for some of the other major NFL fan sites:
- All four of the above are the #1 non-official, non-ESPN Google hits when searching for the team name. 49ersparadise.com is not the #1 Google hit, but it has a somewhat respectible Alexa ranking (though on the lower end of the spectrum).
- Bottom line: Should it 49ersparadise.com linked from our article? Probably. Should major fan sites in general be included? Absolutely; 49erswebzone.com for one. • Benc • 23:35, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)
-
- Just to followup, one of the reason's that the alexa rating for 49ers Paradise is not higher is because until very recently the site used the URL *www.49ersparadise.cjb.net now with the new URL *www.49ersparadise.com it will take some time for the Alexa and google ratings to 'even' themselves out between the URLs
[edit] Improvement drive
National Football League is currently a candidate on WP:IDRIVE. Vote for it if you are interested in contributing.--Fenice 20:03, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
[edit] They "have never lost a Super Bowl"
I never understood why they "have never lost a Super Bowl" is notable. Could somebody explain to me why it is so? The same could be said about the Jets, the Bears, the Ravens, and the Buccaneers. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 19:34, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
- I suppose it is just a bit of trivia, so I will not restore it, but I think it's a bit more notable for a team like the Niners, who are 5-0, since there's a long undefeated tradition. It also serves to differentiate them from the Cowboys, who are 5-3 lifetime in Super Bowls. Simishag 20:02, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
- The Cowboys article already differentiates from the 49ers: Dallas holds the record for most Super Bowl appearances at 8; that is a notable record to mention. But it has never been clear to me why the Niners going undefeated in the Super Bowl is notable in itself. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 21:03, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
- The 49ers are the only team undefeated in the Super Bowl to have won it more than once. I suppose that is what is notable.
- The Cowboys article already differentiates from the 49ers: Dallas holds the record for most Super Bowl appearances at 8; that is a notable record to mention. But it has never been clear to me why the Niners going undefeated in the Super Bowl is notable in itself. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 21:03, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
-
-
- It is noteable. Being the first team to achieve 5 super bowl victories and being the only team to do it with no loses is one of the major feats of the team, and in american football itself. Sports reporters even started using the term "King of the Super Bowls" or similar phrases when talking about the 49er's because of this (at least until the cowboys finally caught up later in the 90's). So, this is a very significant point. It needs to be added back, though properly stated. Fcsuper 23:05, 6 November 2006 (UTC)fcsuper
-
The Steelers are also undefeated with more than one Super Bowl win
- Steelers have lost one super bowl to the cowboys. In fact, I didn't see any media hype for it that year, but it was the game that would've given either the cowboys or the steelers their fifth super bowl victory Fcsuper 22:54, 6 November 2006 (UTC)fcsuper
[edit] Greg Cook and Walsh
Walsh was a disciple of Paul Brown and as Brown's offensive coordinator with the Cincinnati Bengals created an offensive strategy that made star quarterbacks out of average talent such as Greg Cook, Virgil Carter and Ken Anderson. The problem with this statement is that Cook had enormous talent, and may have been the most talented quarterback ever to play the game. He led the NFL in just about every passing category as a rookie, and he did it using a vertical-passing attack created by Walsh. Walsh didn't come up with the "West Coast Offense" until after Cook suffered a career-ending injury. That made Carter the starter, and Carter had a weak arm that forced Walsh to design an offense based around the short-passing game. In short, Greg Cook is a major figure behind Walsh's offense, but not in the way this paragraph suggested.
[edit] an odd thing to say
"Currently, the club is the city's only "home grown" sports franchise, although the nearby San Jose Sharks are also home grown and are sometimes considered a local team to San Francisco."
This is silly. Although the sentence mentions the Sharks, it fails to mention the other home-grown pro Football team in the bay area, the Raiders. Now perhaps the word 'pro' is a bit of stretch for the Raiders at the moment, but still, seems to me that if one mentions a semi-major sports team that's 50 miles away, one should also mention a pro-franchise that resides within a 5 mile radius of the team at issue. The entire bit of trivia is a stretch anyway, seeing as how there are only 2 pro teams in San Fransisco proper, but if it's going to be mentioned, you have mention the Raiders too.
--- But the Raiders aren't considered their team. The Sharks once played in the Cow Palace before going to San Jose, and there's the connection. On another note, who allowed someone to vandalize the Santa Clara section by saying Borat planned to move the 49ers to Kazakhstan?
"But the Raiders aren't considered their team". Says you. Produce a reference please. As for tenous sharks cow palace connection, the Raiders used to play in keszar Stadium(former home of the 49ers and located in the middle of San Fransisco). This one is a loser. I'm taking it out.
[edit] West Coast Offense
The comments regarding West Coast Offense are not point of facts, but are rather argumentive as to what the term means. Instead of arguing the point, the paragraph should state the origins of both uses of the term and how they've been applied to the 49ers style of play.
[edit] article not very good....
Does anyone else feel this way?
The article was clearly written by fans, and that's ok, only it sort of shows, and its to the detriment of the article. I don't think we should be using the word miraculous, but that's sort of emblematic of the sort of embarassing enthusiasm that informs the entire article.
No one disagree?
-- Agreed. Expressions like "Glory Days", "Montana led a magnificent rally" etc. are rampant. I'm new but this might drive me to learn how to edit wikipedia.
[edit] OJ Simpson
The Simpson article says he played for the 49ers in his last two seasons starting 1978. This says he was pro bowl 49ers in 1985, and that is the year he was inducted into the NFL hall of fame. 69.253.121.205 01:42, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
- He was a Pro Bowler in 1975, but retired by '85. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by SFGiants (talk • contribs) 22:44, 10 December 2006 (UTC).
[edit] Dianne Feinstein
Could someone provide a link or a reference to the comment concerning Dianne Feinstein preventing the team from retaining San Francisco in their name? This is the first I've heard of this.
