Talk:Super Bowl XL

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
Good articles Super Bowl XL has been listed as a good article under the good-article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do.
If it no longer meets these criteria, you can delist it, or ask for a review.
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.
Good article GA This article has been rated as GA-Class on the quality scale.
(If you rated the article please give a short summary on the comment page to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)

Archived discussions:

Contents

[edit] Controvery

I know that the controversial calls were mentioned in the article, but there are no example. The number one controversial call is probably the Locklear holding penalty that negated Stevens catch on the 1 yard line. In the game summary this is mentioned, but the quality of the call isn't mentioned. I think that it's 1)unfair to Sean Locklear to not document that Porter was offsides and he actually made a great block and 2)irresponsible to leave it out considering how big a factor the poor officiating was.

NCErnst 22:23, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Note to IP 198.30.5.101

I trimmed down the team history sections in this article, and you reverted my edits. Please note that I have asked for a third opinion: "Super Bowl XL -- Article's team history sections ("Pittsburg Steelers" and "Seattle Seahawks") was trimmed down due to their length. (warning in article says: "IMPORTANT NOTE: This is merely a summary, please do not add too much detail. The main Steelers/Seahawks article is probably best for detailed additions.") An anonymous IP re-added the information, insisting that it was not too much information. 16:56, 28 May 2006 (UTC)" Aplomado talk 21:59, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm IP 198.30.5.101. I forgot to sign in before making the edit. If you look at the other Super Bowl article background sections(most of which were edited by me), you'll see the background section here isn't too much longer then them. In some cases it's shorter. I think the background section should be based on the amount of relevent info, not the length. Length seems like a totaly pointless restriction.Chainclaw
OK, but I still think we should get a third opinion since it seems longer than other Super Bowl articles to me. Cheers. Aplomado talk 01:38, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
This article seems longer because of what I see as some sort of recency effect: everyone was putting so much tidbits and trivia as it happened in January and February. If you want to really cut something, we should start with the trivia section first (see my comment in the XL section above. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 01:45, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
I definitely agree with that, although I'm referring to the Team history sections themselves. Compare them to Super Bowl XXX, for example. Aplomado talk 01:51, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] WP:3O

A third opinion was requested for this, so I decided to answer it. :)

The average person who wishes to find out facts on Super Bowl XL in my opinion would not want to see information about the history of each of the teams. There is information on the teams before the present season outlining their individual history, and that information belongs on the individual teams' wiki page. However, a bit of information on how each team made it to the Superbowl would be beneficial. The 2 sections on the team are also in violation of WP:NPOV and WP:NOR, since it may be disputed that Pittsburg's strength was in its running game, and the statistics have no references.Sbloemeke 23:25, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks a lot for the input. Would you like to add anything Chainclaw? Are you satisfied with this response or do you feel that more input is needed? Aplomado talk 23:31, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
I think "a bit of info on how each team made it to the Super Bowl" is exactly what's on this article right now. I didn't put both team's entire history, just some info on how the Steelers did in the previous seasons(only a few sentences on this) and how they had to overcome their misfortunes earlier in the season. With the Seahawks, I showed how the team turned themsevles from a non winning team 8 seasons in a row to the top team in the NFC. Sometimes, when describing how a team turned their fortunes around, you have to go way back. For example, in order to describe how the Packers made it the first Super Bowl in the 1966 season, I had to explain the steps they took to becoming a dynasty, which started in 1959. Basically I just put in whatever details are needed to show the team's road to the Super Bowl, regardless of length. The length really isn;t too much of an issue for me. Like I said, this is not the longest bckground section of all the Super Bowl articles. The articles for Super Bowl XXXIX and XXXVI are almost as long, if not longer.Chainclaw
Do you think the sections could be trimmed at all, or do you firmly believe they need to remain as-is? Aplomado talk 00:52, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
I think it should remain as it is.Chainclaw
Oh and as for Sbloemeke's comment about Pittsburg's offense, check out http://pro-football-reference.com/teams/pit2005.htm. As you can see, the Steelers ranked 5th in the NFL in both rushing yards and rushing touchdowns, but only 25th in passing yards and 15th in passing touchdowns. Therefore it seems obvouis that the running game was the main strength of their offense. To state it doesn't seem biased to me.Chainclaw
OK, I'll leave it be for the time being. I'm hoping to nominate this as a good article eventually, so we'll see what the Wikipedia community thinks a little farther down the trail. Aplomado talk 01:17, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
Oh, I do not deny the Pittsburgh offense. I watch football, I know there running game is stronger. However, it still is a POV which both you and I share. Sbloemeke 23:54, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
Well I don't think POV comes as much into play in sports articles. Writing about sports tends to be less neutral than other writing. I'm not saying POV doesn't come into play, but stuff like "their strength was their running game" aren't really violations I don't think. Aplomado talk 01:31, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Good Article nomination has failed

The Good article nomination for Super Bowl XL has failed, for the following reason(s):

There are no references. Tarret 11:55, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
Done. Aplomado talk 01:58, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Placing this on hold, 2 problems
  • Article needs a good copyedit and please remove or merge the trivia section as it's considered bad writing.

Thanks Jaranda wat's sup 22:01, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Where should the trivia section be merged? Also, any pointers on exactly what areas need a good copyedit, and why? Aplomado talk 22:06, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
I'm working on the article, trimming unnessarry detail and trivia, and doing a copyedit, Thanks Jaranda wat's sup 22:20, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
Great, I appreciate it. Let me know if I can be of any help. Aplomado talk 22:24, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

I did a partial copyedit of the article, some trimming, and changed the ref format, will do more work later. Thanks Jaranda wat's sup 22:45, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Ring

Does anyone have a better pic of the ring, the only place I have seen it was in my newspaper and that isn't great quality. I am still looking though. --WillMak050389 19:07, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Nevermind, Got a better quality image from here. --WillMak050389 19:15, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Some images of the actual game (preferably of pivotal moments) would be nice as well. — ዮም (Yom) | contribs • Talk • E 06:15, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Added references

I changed all the links throughout the article into proper references. If anyone thinks more references are needed or if some of the current references have dead links, please let me know. Thanks. Aplomado talk 01:46, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Meanlingless game

Someone has yet again removed the phrase "meaningless game" from the article when talking about the Seahawks loss to Green Bay at the end of the season. The Seahawks at that point had clinched the #1 seed in the NFC and ended up resting many of their starters that game. I don't see how you can argue that it wasn't a meaningless game. It's not a big deal to me, but I don't think it should be removed. Aplomado talk 16:52, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Humor...

I vaguely remember this being the game when in the first quarter, like the 4th play into the game, Brady passed the ball right into the face of one of the referees. Was this the one? Who was the referee? Does it deserve noting in the "trivia" section? → JARED (t)  21:45, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Wrong Super Bowl, bud. Aplomado talk 00:44, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Super Bowl Extra Large?

I had heard some call this game "Super Bowl Extra Large" due to the "XL" Roman Numerals. I was wondering if anyone could corroborate that. I'm surprised the NFL didn't use the XL moniker more for marketing, despite the fact that the Super Bowl is already a gigantic event. Just H 17:34, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

I heard it all the time. Shannon Sharpe, for instance, constantly referred to it as "extra large". Plus NFL marketing of the time, while not specifically calling it "Extra large" did imply that it was larger than normal. (I forget the exact wording.) You might also want to look at the archive. [1] —Wrathchild (talk) 16:04, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Super Bowl Ratings

Why does it say the Super Bowl was watched by 90 million viewers. I actually added up the rating share and 18-49 demographic for the duration of the timeslots it went and then I added up the viewer numbers for all half hour timeslot and it gave me 77.9 million viewers, so could you tell me why it has a different rating than the one I have here, because I added them up correctly. Here is my source [2]--Jsalims80 01:04, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

The cited source that is currently at the end of that sentence [3] says 90.7 million. That sentence has been on the article since February 2006. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 01:18, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
Well that is how the nielson ratings calculated it. I think that source is a liar and cheater and don't want to tell the people the truth. You have to know that sometimes when a huge event on TV happens, they'll just pick a number out of Nowhere and act like they are telling the truth, and thats why the American Media is so dishonest when reporting about these things.--Jsalims80 01:37, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
Well, if you have a different, more recent, reliable source, then feel free to change the article. Thanks. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 01:47, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] All-time SB rankings

I saw about the last dozens SBs and i know the history of the others, and my opinion is that this was one of the worst SB ever. :) Other people seem to be agree me on the America's Game site. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 62.201.95.137 (talk) 17:51, 5 January 2007 (UTC).

Amercia's Game is an attempt to rank the teams, not the games. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 128.194.66.145 (talk • contribs).
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../s/u/p/Talk%7ESuper_Bowl_XL_e567.html"