Talk:Indianapolis Colts

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Indianapolis Colts article.
This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.
Article policies
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.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.
This article is part of WikiProject Indiana, a WikiProject related to the U.S. state of Indiana.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.

Article Grading:
The article has not been rated for quality and/or importance yet. Please rate the article and then leave comments here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article.

Archive 1

Contents

[edit] Re:Expansion

I'd love to not disregard it except I'm not entirely clear which is the stuff you want to be added. Does it end before the little capsule descriptions, which I presume are old? And why is this article still so slanted in terms of the space it gives the past three years? Rather than an expansion oughten't it to have a contraction? Cheers, ParvatiBai 21:12, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

The part I'm proposing to add is the part prior to the year-by-year capsules that begin with 1984. Those were added by a different user. The current article covers the years 1984-2003 in a single paragraph. My hope was to expand that section to adequately cover that portion of the Colts' history in Indianapolis, while leaving the 2004-2006 portion roughly as is. Compare, for example, the way the Seattle Seahawks article is organized.

I think it makes sense to give the years 2002-2006 more emphasis both because they are more recent and also because there is more to discuss... the team made the playoffs in each of those years. I would agree that the last three years (the 2005 section, in particular) should probably be reduced to a shorter and more wikified summary. But that isn't something I've taken the time to address yet.

Lafollettea 20:40, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Why semiprotected?

I see that this page is semiprotected and that only registered users can edit the page. Please explain why. - Desmond Hobson 21:33, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Constant vandalism Dlong 22:16, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Protection

It doesn't say that. John Reaves (talk) 02:05, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
For certain times, like during the Super Bowl and 24 hours after, pages pertaining to the teams playing in it should be locked entirely. Its ridiculous to see all the stupid editing going on. And why is the section for the 2006-07 SuperBowl outlining the game? I understand a section for the game is not bad, outlining they won, the MVP, and other notable things. But not who made what interceptions at what times or fumbles, etc. Its not supposed to be a sports article summarizing the game, right?

Re: I feel the need to talk about the many fumbles and interceptions in the game. Also, the record for most fumbles in the first quarter. User:DvDknight

The section should simply link to the main article, after stating whether or not they won it; the article on XLI itself, on the other hand, should have all the factual and verifiable information people desire to put in it. --Chr.K. 13:26, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] it may be protected but

someone wanna get rid of that colts rule remark at the start? even though they do lol im not gonna deny it, but it shouldnt be on wiki 82.15.7.144 19:23, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't see that at the start. There is a mention of the "Colts Rule" towards the bottom, but that doesn't appear to be vandalism. John Reaves (talk) 20:06, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
The "Colts rule" is what it has been referred to as by sportswriters and broadcasters, since it was indeed based on the events in the Patriots/Colts game in question. --Chr.K. 13:24, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 2005 Season Correction

In the section about the 2005 season, it says that the score of the Colts-Steelers game at the time of the questionable Troy Polamalu interception overturn was 21-18, but it was actually 21-10. The overturn kept the Colts' drive alive, which ended in a TD with a 2 point conversion. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.245.189.47 (talk) 02:01, 7 February 2007 (UTC).

[edit] A Notice to all people who vandalize

i am adding this to tell people here to stop vandalizing the colts just because they beat chicago, sure you might think it was the colts fault or that they cheated, you might think they colts got lucky, but that does not matter, the fact is the colts won, and the game is over. if the bears play hard, maybe they will be in the next super bowl or the one after, vandilizing this article just because the colts beat the bears is stupid and childish, if you vandilize it you take this game way to far, and are acting like a 3 year old who cries every time he dosent get something the way he wants it, so please cease the vandilizing and move on.--Superchad 23:47, 7 February 2007 (UTC)superchad

[edit] Bears/colts debate

The superbowl is over and done. The colts won. Big deal. We all know the bears should have won because of the biased refs, but that's no reason to go and vandalize the colts page. Remember, may the best team win, and that's what happened. LET THERE BE PEACE OVER THIS MATTER.

--I am your father. 16:57, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

And we all know the Bears would never have won since their offense couldn't move the damn ball. So let there be peace, their lack of offense kept Peyton on the field, everyone accepts it. --Chr.K. 05:42, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Untitled New Section

On the page it has that the Colts won 2006 Super Bowl XLI when it should say 2007 Super Bowl XLI. Thanks —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.77.72.67 (talk)

Well, as a result of Super Bowl XLI, the Colts are the NFL champion of the 2006 Season. I see there is some discrepency on how to refer to it, though... looks like it's ben changed a few times. I did a little searching around, and I didn't see a consistent naming scheme regarding year designation. Perhaps we should refrain from saying "2006 Super Bowl" or "2007 Super Bowl", and just say "Super Bowl XLI", adding "played in 2007" or maybe just "in 2007" when necessary. Unless someone else has a definitive style guide on this, that is. --Reverend Loki 20:13, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Mr. Unsigned, how can you possibly say the 2007 Super Bowl? This was the 2006 season, I hate how some people refer to it as the 2007 Super Bowl when the season that preceded it was the 2006 season. I think on the NFL project page it says to refer to it was 2006-07 as an example because some diehards refer to it as 2006, like me, and others refer to it as 2007. Soxrock 22:19, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Inaccuracy

"The Colts finally reached the Playoffs under Mora, but were eliminated in a sound defeat by the Playoff tested Miami Dolphins in 2000."

the Colts were eliminated by the Titans in the 2000 playoffs. (PLAYOFFS?????) (sorry, had to). 207.29.128.130 14:52, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

You are correct, the Colts lost to the Titans in the 1999-00 playoffs, and the Dolphins in the 2000-01 playoffs. I changed it to include both losses. Also, upon further inspection of that passage, I found it to be both poorly organized and biased, and made other changes. Specifically, I found it odd that it was mentioned that the Colts traded for running back Fred Lane, but failed to mention either that Lane was shot and killed by his wife, nor that Edgerrin James, in the following season, tore his ACL. I ended up removing the sentence on Lane (which was, in addition, very poorly written) and replaced it with a mention of James' injury and Rhodes' success as his replacement. In regards to the bias, as much as I loathe Jim Mora (being a Colts fan myself), the description of his actions seemed to me rather biased, and I replaced it with a reference to an ESPN article on why he was fired. I also cleaned up the next small section on the hiring of Tony Dungy, wording it a little better and being a bit more detialed regarding his credentials. Warhawk137 12:12, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

"and rookie cornerback Kelvin Hayden both intercepted Bears' quarterback"

DB Kelvin Hayden was not a rookie during the 2006 season. He was drafted in 2005 along with Marlin Jackson. gnasty 03:56, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Constant changing of images in Uniforms and Logo Section.

This article does not need to have a constant changing of the size and positioning of the logos and picture of the blue uniform pants. First of all, the logo images are very large and provide no significant information beyond what the text provides. The logos are nearly the largest image on the entire page. I have tried to compromise, but that doesn't seem to work. The large logos are destroying the layout of the rest of the article. I have temporarily removed these three images by commenting them out. I would appreciate some sort of response from the editorship as a whole regarding this. If we can come to a consensus, it would allow all of us to spend more time on other articles.

Thanks for your responses.

Larry Lmcelhiney 03:02, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Too Long?

To me the article is too long, and has some interesting but irrelevant information. Another problem is that it reads more like a sports magazine,(or book!) than an encyclopedia. IloveIndy 22:26, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../i/n/d/Talk%7EIndianapolis_Colts_059f.html"