![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 |
The article currently reads, "(The Browns are officially viewed as one continuous franchise that began in 1946 as a member of the All-America Football Conference..." I think there should be some reference to the fact that they won all 4 AAFC titles before the merger with the NFL. In other worlds, "The Brown are officially viewed as on continuous franchise that began in 1946 and won four professional football titles with the All-America Football Conference." 50.201.228.200 ( talk) 16:27, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
At the beginning of the third paragraph it states: "There have only been six times that the same franchises have met in multiple Super Bowls." Then gives a detailed account naming only FIVE pairs of teams (not six). There's also another organized listing further down the article with the heading: Super Bowl Rematches. It also lists the correct five (not six) pairs. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.31.113.14 ( talk) 06:07, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
Understood, however it is written in a manner that can easily be misunderstood. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.31.113.14 ( talk) 06:28, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
ChicoSNKR made this inappropriate edit in the lead. That paragraph is only about teams who played each other multiple times in the Super Bowl. Please revert the edit. Btw, in Baltimore Ravens, Chico changed a wikilink for Baltimore's division from AFC North to NFC North (which was reverted), so I'd keep an eye on his edits from now on. Thanks. 76.189.111.199 05:08, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
Is it worth it to add a paragragh to both the Wikipedia articles of the World Series and the Super Bowl about cities that have won both victories in the same year? It has happened five times in the past: 1969; New York Mets and New York Jets, 1970; Baltimore Orioles and Baltimore Ravens, 1979; Pittsburgh Pirates and Pittsburgh Steelers, 1986; New York Mets and New York Giants, and 2004; Boston Red Sox and New England Patriots. On February 3, 2013, the San Francisco 49ers Might win the Super Bowl. Since The San Francisco Giants won the World Series in 2012, I am sure it will be a popular, often repeated, trivia saying about the cities that have won both the World Series and the Super Bowl in the same year. I think a paragraph should be added to both the World Series and Super Bowl articles to point out that fact, especially considering how few times it has happened. New York city with the NY Mets and New York Yankees baseball teams, and the Giants and Jets football teams has only achieved that victory twice: in 1969 and 1986. 16:06, 1 February 2013 (UTC)Bennett Turk — Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.80.61.133 ( talk)
The number of appearances listed parenthetically for the Steelers is correct in 1996 (5). It is incorrectly listed as (5) again in 2006. It is incorrectly listed as (6) in 2009.
75.111.4.153 ( talk) 16:56, 14 August 2013 (UTC)Larry Trask (clash14@gmail.com)
The Cardinals are highlighted in green on the table for Super Bowl XLIII, but the Steelers won that Super Bowl. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Metolbeast ( talk • contribs) 21:19, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
In the sortable menu at the bottom of the page it has the Pats listed as 3-4 in Superbowls with an appearance count of 7. This should be 5 and they should be 3-2. 1996 and 2011 are incorrectly listed as years the Pats participated in the Superbowl.
jay — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jryanmenuey ( talk • contribs) 04:40, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
--oops, transposed years on the chart above. i.e. 2012 Superbowl is 2011 season.
This lists Denver as winning three and losing four. The correct numbers should be 2 wins and five losses. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.129.171.217 ( talk) 03:12, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
The 3 Super Bowls that the New England Patriots won in 2002, 2004, and 2005 should have an asterisk stating that they were accused/used Spy cameras and were caught during those respective seasons. 166.76.0.1 ( talk) 21:34, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please change the table under the heading "Super Bowl Championships 1966-present" because it incorrectly shows the Pittsburgh Steelers winning the Super Bowl 7 times instead of the correct 6. Super Bowl XL has "Pittsburgh Steelers (6)" denoting that it was their 6th year winning the Super Bowl when in fact it was their 5th year. Subsequently, Super Bowl XLIII reads "Pittsburgh Steelers (7)" when in fact it was their 6th year winning. 173.66.245.245 ( talk) 03:54, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
The Raiders should be listed above the Washington Redskins because the Raiders first appearance in the SB is before the Redskins first appearance. Additionally the Redskins are one of the teams the Raiders beat in the Superbowl. The Raiders should be moved up one row, swapping places with Washington. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.141.66.129 ( talk) 04:40, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
February 7 2018 is a Wednesday the super bowl LII page has it as feb 4 which is a sunday — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.116.191.43 ( talk) 17:42, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
The Houston Oilers are not listed anywhere on the page. While the Houston Oilers never made a superbowl appearance, they could still be listed as a team that never made an appearance at the bottom. Another possible fix would be to use a slash and list them with the Tennessee Titans since they continued to go by the oiler name for a year after the move. Another possible fix would be a combination of the 2 and list them at the bottom as the Houston/Tennessee Oilers
99.155.24.48 ( talk) 02:55, 6 September 2013 (UTC)OOJUGGALO
Why aren't you concern that the St Louis Cardinals are not included as well? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.116.191.43 ( talk) 00:33, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
List of Super Bowl champions has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
In the table where teams are ordered first by number of appearances, then by number of wins, and finally by year of first appearance, Cincinnati and Philadelphia should be switched. This is what it currently reads: 2 Cincinnati Bengals† 0 2 .000 1981,† 1988† 2 Philadelphia Eagles* 0 2 .000 1980,* 2004*. It should read: 2 Philadelphia Eagles* 0 2 .000 1980,* 2004* 2 Cincinnati Bengals† 0 2 .000 1981,† 1988†. Thank you
Done
Laszlo Panaflex (
talk)
16:40, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
Section: Repeat Winners New England Patriots Super Bowl numbers are in error. Should be XXXV111 and XXX1X. ```` — Preceding unsigned comment added by DWAMP ( talk • contribs) 00:04, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
At the beginning of this article, where Super Bowl records are noted, "Dallas and Pittsburgh have the most Super Bowl appearances with eight" needs to be changed to read "Dallas, Pittsburgh, and New England have the most Super Bowl appearances with eight". - Joshua 98.28.129.216 ( talk) 06:22, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
List of Super Bowl champions has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
"February 5, 2006 Pittsburgh Steelers† (6)" and "February 1, 2009 Pittsburgh Steelers† (7)" need to be changed to "February 5, 2006 Pittsburgh Steelers† (5)" and "February 1, 2009 Pittsburgh Steelers† (6)", respectively.
Naduerba ( talk) 16:07, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
The New York Giants are the only team to win the Super Bowl in 4 consecutive decades...1986, 1990, 2007, 2011..... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.175.189.169 ( talk) 14:53, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
Hi. I think it would be better to change the Winning team/Losing Team columns to AFC/NFC. Please note how it's done on the NBA page - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_NBA_champions#NBA_champions. Any thoughts? Kvsh5 ( talk) 12:36, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
List of Super Bowl champions has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
The New York Giants were a Wild Card team in 2007 when they won the Super Bowl. That is not notified by a "Note" in the table of Super Bowl Champions. 104.167.135.107 ( talk) 04:23, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
Not done Incorrect request - see (note 3) on the article page, which hasn't been altered since 12 February -
Arjayay (
talk)
14:38, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
List of Super Bowl champions has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
104.167.135.107 ( talk) 20:06, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
List of Super Bowl champions has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
While there is a "Note 3" to notify that the New York Giants were a Wild Card team in 2007 in the actual list of Super Bowl games, there is not a "Note 3" in the Super Bowl Appearances by Team table in the Seasons column. 104.167.135.107 ( talk) 20:08, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
List of Super Bowl champions has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
104.167.135.107 ( talk) 13:20, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
In the table, would it make sense to have the Super Bowl record in parentheses versus just the number of appearances? For instance,
Game | Date | Winning team | Score | Losing team | Venue | City | Attendance | Ref |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
XLIX | February 1, 2015 | New England Patriots†(4-4) | 28–24 | Seattle Seahawks* (1-2) | University of Phoenix Stadium (2) | Glendale, Arizona (3) | 70,288 |
instead of
Game | Date | Winning team | Score | Losing team | Venue | City | Attendance | Ref |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
XLIX | February 1, 2015 | New England Patriots†(8) | 28–24 | Seattle Seahawks* (3) | University of Phoenix Stadium (2) | Glendale, Arizona (3) | 70,288 |
I know there's another table with the multiples, but I did find myself flipping up and down trying to find the *record* rather than just the appearance count. Duke EGR 93 21:13, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
Numbers in parentheses in the table are Super Bowl appearances or team records, as of the date of that Super Bowl and are used as follows:
instead of:
Numbers in parentheses in the table are Super Bowl appearances, as of the date of that Super Bowl and are used as follows:
![]() | This
edit request to
List of Super Bowl champions has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Super Bowl 50 should use the Roman numeral "L" instead of the digits "50" and I wanted to edit that, but I can't. Please may I edit this?
Facemark ( talk) 12:39, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
Not done - as it explains in our article
Super Bowl 50 "Instead of naming it Super Bowl L with Roman numerals like in previous Super Bowls, this game will be marketed with the Arabic numeral "50."" -
Arjayay (
talk)
13:04, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
Where it currently reads, "The Green Bay Packers won the first two Super Bowls, but had also won the NFL championship in the preceding year.", since the article takes the step of mentioning that three-peat, wouldn't it be worthwhile to follow that with something like, "They are the only team to have won three straight NFL Championships, and they have done it twice, having also won three straight non-Super Bowl NFL Championships in 1929-31." Seems highly pertinent. 216.75.212.5 ( talk) 14:48, 28 October 2015 (UTC)BillV
Where it currently reads "Super Bowls XXVII and XXVIII were both won by Dallas, in consecutive seasons.", would it be worth mentioning that this is, in fact. the only occurrence of a repeat Super Bowl matchup, where the AFC and NFC champions were the same teams two years in a row? It's unusual enough to merit distinction.
![]() | This
edit request to
List of Super Bowl champions has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Seattle is currently highlighted in green as if they won XLIX. This should be corrected Vector2222 ( talk) 21:47, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
In the article it says that no team has won more than 2 super bowls in a row but the Buffalo Bills won the 1990, 1991, 1992, and 1993 super bowl. Dodge55 ( talk) 22:04, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
Looks like someone did a search for broncos and was overly excited and added superbowl 50 to the list of consecutive wins, even though the broncos didn't win last year. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.177.128.209 ( talk) 04:55, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
List of Super Bowl champions has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
This page says that The Cleveland Browns had appeared in six NFL Championship games besides the ones that they've won. They've actually been to seven. The one that is missing is the 1965 NFL Championship game. Ballsk1 ( talk) 03:56, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on List of Super Bowl champions. 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, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
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: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 18:43, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
This article should probably be renamed, since this isn't a list of Super Bowl champions, it's a list of Super Bowls. By extension, I suppose that includes a list of Super Bowl champions, but the section below the chronological list is primarily sorted by the number of appearances each team has made in the Super Bowl, not the number of times they've won it. – Pee Jay 20:58, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
I reverted the recent addition of the "winners that failed to make the playoffs the following season" section, and I just thought I'd leave a note here explaining why: because it is a long trivia list that is bloating an already long page. Unlike the other sections around it, namely "Teams with no Super Bowl appearances", "Teams with Super Bowl appearances but no victories", "Teams with long Super Bowl droughts", and "Super Bowl rematches", all of which are lists that are more relevant to this page in that they are each lists directly involving Super Bowl appearances, this particular list of "winners that failed to make the playoffs the following season" is about ensuing playoff fates the following season instead of Super Bowl appearances directly. If this list were to stay, then there are all sorts of other minutiae about ensuing fates of Super Bowl teams that could be added. We have to draw the line somewhere to avoid an enormous page filled with trivia, and I don't think think this meets the standard of relevance set by the other sections around it. — Lowellian ( reply) 04:13, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on List of Super Bowl champions. 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: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 15:20, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
Checking to see if there is any objection to me changing the sort order for the City column to correspond to the MSA. For example, I believe the sort for the following should be Los Angeles, not Pasadena (and clearly Inglewood needs to be changed).
|{{Sort|Pasadena, California 01|[[Los Angeles]], [[California]]
|{{Sort|Pasadena, California 02|Los Angeles, California (2)<ref group=note name=a />}}
|{{Sort|Pasadena, California 03|[[Pasadena, California]] (3)<ref group=note name=a />}}
|{{Sort|Pasadena, California 04|Pasadena, California (4)<ref group=note name=a />}}
|{{Sort|Pasadena, California 05|Pasadena, California (5)<ref group=note name=a />}}
|{{Sort|Pasadena, California 06|Pasadena, California (6)<ref group=note name=a />}}
|{{Sort|Pasadena, California 07|Pasadena, California (7)<ref group=note name=a />}}
|{{Sort|Inglewood, California 08|[[Inglewood, California]] (8)<ref group=note name=a />}}
Thanks Jb45424 ( talk) 02:48, 10 June 2017 (UTC)
On the list of super bowls by team, the Pittsburgh Steelers and Cleveland Browns should be colored the neutral color as the Colts are. They share the note and distinction of having been NFL teams that shifted to the AFC, but only the Colts get the color distinction. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.74.235.4 ( talk) 16:19, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 4 external links on List of Super Bowl champions. 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: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 00:20, 22 September 2017 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
List of Super Bowl champions has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
One image has a caption of "The Jets' victory over the Colts in Super Bowl III was the team's last championship appearance." Please expand it to ..."the former team's..." because "the team" could refer to the Jets or the Colts, so "former" distinguishes from "latter." 208.95.51.115 ( talk) 14:18, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
The article currently states that "Super Bowl III in January 1969 was the first such game that carried the "Super Bowl" moniker, the names "Super Bowl I" and "Super Bowl II" were only retroactively applied to the first two games." However, this is not true, and is easily contradicted. For example, in this famous broadcast of Max McGee's opening touchdown from Super Bowl I, you can hear the announcer saying "and the old veteran scores the first touchdown of the Super Bowl game": https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dVizBENi9cQ#t=27m54s I would love to edit it, but I'm worried it would just get reverted, so I'm posting here. The reference linked does not actually support the article's statement. The game was colloquially known as the Super Bowl, it just hadn't shown up in the branding yet. laddiebuck ( talk) 01:23, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
The New England Patriots won back to back Super Bowls (XXXVIII and XXXIX) and have won 3 out of 4 consecutive title games beginning with their first Super Bowl win (XXXVI).
— Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.163.0.41 ( talk • contribs) 16:21, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
List of Super Bowl champions has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please change the 50 on the list of super bowls to an L so it is consistent to the rest HatboyRSS ( talk) 20:30, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
List of Super Bowl champions has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Second paragraph, third sentence (current):
Super Bowl III in January 1969 was the first such game that carried the "Super Bowl" moniker in official marketing, the names "Super Bowl I" and "Super Bowl II" were retroactively applied to the first two games.
Second paragraph, third sentence (edited):
Super Bowl III in January 1969 was the first such game that carried the "Super Bowl" moniker in official marketing; the names "Super Bowl I" and "Super Bowl II" were retroactively applied to the first two games.
Edit: The comma separating the two independent clauses should be changed to a semicolon to fix the run-on sentence error.
Second paragraph, fifth sentence (current):
Nineteen franchises, including teams that relocated to another city, have won the Super Bowl.
Second paragraph, fifth sentence (edited):
Twenty franchises, including teams that have relocated to another city, have won the Super Bowl.
Edits: Since the Eagles won the Super Bowl for the first time this year, there have now been twenty franchises to win the game. Inserting "have" improves the diction of the sentence.
"Teams with no Super Bowl appearances" section, first bullet point, third sentence (current):
The Baltimore Ravens were an expansion team created in 1996 with former Browns players.
"Teams with no Super Bowl appearances" section, first bullet point, third sentence (edited):
The Baltimore Ravens was created as an expansion team with former Browns players in 1996, and have since won two Super Bowls.
Edits: The Ravens is a singular team, and therefore should use the singular verb "was." The fact that they have won two Super Bowls since being relocated to Baltimore is interesting because the team was created from the old Browns players and staff and has been consistently good since, while the team that stayed in Cleveland has been continuously bad ever since reentering the league in 1999. The sentence has been restructured to accommodate this additional fact.
-- PacchMann ( talk) 02:59, 23 March 2018 (UTC) PacchMann ( talk) 02:59, 23 March 2018 (UTC)
A point of correction. The Baltimore Ravens were not an expansion team. The Cleveland Browns moved to Baltimore after the Colts moved to Indianapolis.The city of Cleveland retained the rights to the "Browns" name. That's why the team was re-named "Ravens". But there was no expansion at that time. Later, the current Cleveland Browns were added to the league as an expansion team. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Loosedogs ( talk • contribs) 23:59, 29 April 2017 (UTC)
So does the NFL have the right to fictionalize it's history? It is true that the NFL franchise in Cleveland changed it's name and moved to Baltimore. Also it is fact that later a new team using the "Browns" name started in Cleveland. I have no patience with groups who want to revise history through press releases. Why would we here on Wikipedia want to help them with their fictional revisionist history? The film industry says they moved to Hollywood to get away from gangs who were extorting money from them. The truth is that the Edison company had patents on the filming process and the 'gangs' were agents of Edison trying to collect the patent royalties he was entitled to. Industries and businesses often try and write their own histories, It's up to such as us to keep them honest. Corumplex ( talk) 17:37, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
I propose that the situation involving the Browns and the Ravens be recorded to indicate that in order to make record keeping easier the NFL chooses to regard the Browns as one continuous franchise though the franchise did in fact move to Baltimore and was replaced by a new franchise of the same name. Corumplex ( talk) 02:57, 2 September 2018 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
List of Super Bowl champions has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
It's shows the Arizona cardnails/st louis for Superbowl appernces. Only the AZ cards have been to a Superbowl not St Louis cardinals. Please change! 97.124.121.202 ( talk) 01:49, 15 December 2018 (UTC)
The sentence currently reads ... "Four current NFL teams have never appeared in a Super Bowl, including franchise relocations and renaming: the Cleveland Browns, Detroit Lions, Jacksonville Jaguars, and Houston Texans, though both the Browns (1964) and Lions (1957) had won NFL championship games prior to the creation of the Super Bowl." ... which makes it seem as if both the Browns and Lions had each previously won just one NFL championship game. Actually, each had won four previous NFL titles - Cleveland in 1964, 1955, 1954, 1950 and Detroit in 1957, 1953, 1952, 1935.
Requested/suggested 3rd paragraph, final sentence wording ... "Four current NFL teams have never appeared in a Super Bowl, including franchise relocations and renaming: the Cleveland Browns, Detroit Lions, Houston Texans and Jacksonville Jaguars, though both the Browns (latest in 1964) and Lions (latest in 1957) had each won four NFL championship games prior to the creation of the Super Bowl."
Thanks for your time. 108.28.198.56 ( talk) 14:28, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
The graphic of Super Bowl XX is also incorrect. Starterjacket ( talk) 13:58, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
Since there have been 53 Super Bowls, there should be only 53 data rows in the table. It's great that we already know the venues for future Super Bowls, but it's premature to put that data in the table. If we absolutely want to keep the data here, we could put it in a paragraph after the table. Or create another table that follows.
I would think that a new row should only be added once either an AFC or NFC Champion has been determined, but not before. Zonker.in.geneva ( talk) 16:51, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
Zonker.in.geneva ( talk) 21:28, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
There is a section on this page entitled "Consecutive Wins," which lists the seven teams who have won two SBs in a row. The second paragraph states "No franchise has yet won three Super Bowls in a row, although six of the above seven have come close." First, the recently added phrase "of the above seven" is redundant and therefore, unnecessary. But, that's not the discussion I want to have.
The phrase "comes close" is really vague and should be defined more precisely. As I read it, that phrase takes on about four or five different meanings, from "won two in a row but lost the preceding SB" to "won two in a row but didn't even make the playoffs the following season."
In my view, and I say this as a Pats' fan, only teams that reached two in a row and reached the SB a third straight time qualify as "coming close." I mean, before LIII kicked off, I didn't think to myself, "Man, if the Pats win this game, we'll *almost* have won three in a row." Naw. You lose the SB, the counter starts at zero.
With this more precise definition, not a single team has truly come close. The Dolphins lost the first of their three straight. Not close. The Pats were in three in a row, but lost in the middle. Sorry, but not close. And GB - this article is about SB champions, not seasons prior, so, not close. Losing in a Conference Championship? Not close enough, for me. To say nothing of losing earlier in the Playoffs or not reaching the playoffs at all, such as Pittsburgh in the 1980 season.
I know it makes some of us feel good to see our teams' name in the list of "comes close," but factually, no one has come close.
Perhaps this little section could be renamed to "Sustained Success" oslt. Zonker.in.geneva ( talk) 22:04, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
In some places, listed as San Diego/Los Angeles Chargers other places Los Angeles Chargers (played as San Diego Chargers in Super Bowl XXIX) should these be changed to be consistent? Sportooner1 ( talk) 19:08, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
It seems to me that the superscript symbols used on this page are not the best choice. Here is how they are currently being used:
- NFL‡/NFC*
- AFL^/AFC†
It seems strange to me that the NFL symbol was picked as one that closely matches the AFC symbol, when these are opposites in legacy. It would seem to make a lot more sense to have the strong similarity be between AFL to AFC, and likewise the NFL to NFC. And then the bigger question is why are cryptic symbols being used at all. We could simply use an 'N' to represent NFC and an 'A' to represent AFC. This could eliminate a lot of headscratching that is done by the average reader.
Proposed change:
- NFLv/NFCN
- AFL^/AFCA
Here the '^' is a symbol that looks kind of like an 'A', so there's continuity there. And then the 'v' is the opposite of '^', and if you're into Greek, then you can read it as the letter 'nu'. This is a minor change being proposed here, but it could go a long way toward eliminating confusion. -- Breezy Foal ( talk) 23:27, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
This discussion started with an unexplained reversion by Bonesdonahue of the existing table. I reverted this change with the following explanation in the edit summary:
Undid revisions 829779527-829781887 by Bonesdonahue ( talk). The primary sort for this table is based on the number of appearances. It follows that the next most important item (after winning percentage) is how long each team has had that number of appearances and then that number of wins. It is easy to sort on other values by using the arrows at the top of the table, but this is the default. Regardless, removing the sort values entirely just because you don't agree with the order is not appropriate. Lets discuss this further on the talk page if you have questions or concerns about changing the default sorting options, I'm sure we can come to an agreed upon understanding of how the sorting should work. Thanks!
Bonesdonahue then posted the following to my talk page:
No you decided to change the sort from the original. When you sort by wins it has been and will remain wins/apperances/last time to appear. If your going to try and change that you need to at the very least change it correctly. The Panthers shouldn't end up below teams who haven't won a Super Bowl. Just because you disagreed with how the page was originally was set doesn't mean you get to change it. I will continue to reset your sort order cause it's done incorrectly and doesn't make sense.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Bonesdonahue ( talk • contribs) 04:14, 15 March 2018 (UTC)
I moved the discussion here to keep this back-and-forth all in one place. My response is below.
Appearances sort: Appearances/Wins/Years since last Appearance/Years since last Win/Years since last championship game prior to 1970 (if necessary);
Wins sort: if Wins>0 Wins/Years since last Win, if Wins=0 Wins/Appearances/Years since last Win/Years since last Appearance/Years since last championship game prior to 1970 (if necessary);
Losses sort: Losses/Appearances/Years since last Loss/Years since last Appearance/Years since last championship game prior to 1970 (if necessary)
Paul/Psantora - I'm not Savvy in how to create sort orders in Wiki and reverting the changes wasn't vandalism seeing as it was the default of how the page was originally set. I still believe that when you sort by wins that that it should be based on wins then appearances. Example the Steelers appear first with 6 wins and 8 appearances followed by the Patriots 5 wins 10 appearances and so on but the only way I know how to do that is to revert the change. Maybe something you can look into. Thanks, Bonesdonahue — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bonesdonahue ( talk • contribs) 04:57, 22 March 2018 (UTC)
This article is about Super Bowl Champions. When you win the Super Bowl, they hand you the Lombardi Trophy. They do not hand out Participation Trophies. So in what universe does the number of Appearances count more than the number of Wins? Where is the backlash from every single football fan who knows that the Super Bowl trophy is named for a man famous for his quote about what winning means? If you understand football, if you understand the NFL, if you understand the Super Bowl, if you understand Vince Lombardi ...then you know that if he had made a table himself, it would have only TWO COLUMNS: Team / Wins. And if he were pressed to have a 3rd column added, he would label that one TRIVIA.
It is utterly improper to have a table that defaults to presenting the NE Pats above the Steelers in an article about Super Bowl Champions. I can see that a lot of effort went into building it. And if the creator feels attached to it, then I suggest starting a separate article titled List of Super Bowl Losers. You can put your table there. It does not belong here.-- Breezy Foal ( talk) 17:25, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
Ok, the table has now been fixed so that it reflects an actual List of Super Bowl champions. Columns have been reprioritized by Wins first, then Appearances, and with teams that have the same SB W/L record, the team to have achieved it first is listed first. This change has been implemented with the need for this change having been highlighted more than 3 weeks ago. The only objection voiced during that time was by someone who did not understand the issue, saying that this problem would become moot if the Patriots won. The other grounds for objection was that this table had reflected the prioritization of appearances being counted more than wins since 2007. The rebuttal presented here is that something being broken for a dozen years does not qualify as valid grounds for not fixing it today. So it has been fixed. -- Breezy Foal ( talk) 06:46, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
I'll suggest that we resume this discussion at the new subsection just now created (below), with the idea that a clean re-start of this discussion would be helpful. 3 Options have been highlighted, including both proposals stated above. -- Breezy Foal ( talk) 14:42, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
New Option 2: Create a separate article titled List of Super Bowl Participants, and then get rid of that table from here, and move it to there. Those are the only two valid options I am seeing here. The table being discussed here is a table that is pertinent toward either losers or participants.-- Breezy Foal ( talk) 17:33, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
New title for this table: Lombardi Anathema Table. (proposed change, that from now on until its removal, this is what the table in question be referred to)-- Breezy Foal ( talk) 17:36, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
Fix now implemented (see subsection above). -- Breezy Foal ( talk) 06:46, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
There's been a lot of recent discussion in the subsections above. It might help to re-start with a clean sheet here in this new subsection. Two proposals are currently on the table. And add to those two the third option of keeping things as they are now. We can call these:
Q: The "QUICKER" option values the first team that achieved a certain number of wins ahead of a team that accomplishes this later, with zero weight given to how many times a team may have Appeared without winning. This option says that the most recent change, where Wins are now valued over Appearances, did not go far enough. Option Q says that the Steelers should be listed ahead of the Patriots, because they are the ones who were first to achieve 6 Wins. How many times you get there matters little. What matters most is who got the most wins and who did this first.
R: The REVERT option is to return the table back to the form where Appearances are valued over Wins. That is to say, the proper default presentation would show the 0-4 Vikings and the 0-4 Bills ahead of the 2-0 Ravens, and so on. (NOTE: It has been asserted that this is the way this table has been since 2007.)
S: The STABILIZE option says to keep the table in its current form. Hold the table's default ordering as it is presented right now. This can be seen as a "middle ground", where wins are valued primarily, but appearances also count. So Option S says to keep the Patriots listed ahead of the Steelers, as it stands today.
Extensive arguments have been presented in other subsections above. But it might be good to get some fresh opinions voiced here. For the time being, I myself will withhold my own position as it is today (previous comments I have posted have highlighted certain advantages to each of these three options). -- Breezy Foal ( talk) 14:40, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
Ok, the proper way to present this table is so obvious to me that this is starting to feel like a Twilight Zone episode. Because of that, I will take an extended break from this discussion. (If there is anyone who would like anything else clarified from me, I can post that on your own UserTalk page.) The quotes I've presented from Lombardi & Shula, etc, above make the point far more strongly than any words from me. It seems severely strange that anyone would prefer this Option R. So I am stepping back, and for the time being I will leave it to others here to see what I clearly see: a very broken table. Or not see that.
I've presented this argument as clearly as I can make it. I am now switching to "passive mode" here. Goodbye y'all. -- Breezy Foal ( talk) 23:46, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
I am back. And I'm met with deep disappointment to find that this table is still broken.
What do I think about Option 1?
I think you are still not clear on the fundamental problem which has been highlighted. This article is about Super Bowl champions. Then it presents this table where the Vikings and Bills are placed ABOVE the Ravens. Neither the Vikings nor the Ravens are SB champs. An argument can be made that those teams do not belong in this table at all. No legitimate argument can be made that these teams are to be listed above a team that has won the Super Bowl a single time, let alone listing them above a team which has won the Super Bowl multiple times. It has been thoroughly explained above that the table, as it appears now, is something which would be fitting for an article on Super Bowl participation. Not Super Bowl champions.
If you were clear on this fundamental problem, then you would not be asking me about Option 1. That does absolutely nothing to fix this broken table. The core problem has nothing at all to do with sorting options. It has everything to do with having this article about championships, and then listing "Appearances" in the first column. And the default presentation prioritizes appearances over wins.
A big part of the reason why I took this extended break is because I had this expectation that just about everyone who follows football will see very clearly how this table is broken. And that there would be overwhelming input here in this talk section supporting this view. Not one single person has chimed in to that effect. The most that has been stated here, aside from my own comments, is this:
Even Bonesdonahue did not voice objection to the fundamental issue of prioritizing Appearances over Wins. Best I can tell from what's been presented here, the crux of that person's argument was centered on this sorting thing.
Because there has been NO SUPPORT voiced for this error which is so clear to me, my plan will be to take another extended break. Perhaps with the upcoming SB LIV there will be people revisiting this article, and people just as shocked as I am to see this table which places the Vikings & Bills above the Ravens. And some of them might come here to see that this failure has been highlighted. And some of them might go so far as to voice support for this fix. But that might not happen. It hasn't happened throughout all of this time.
Should it be an accurate assessment that the consensus is actually that people see this to be a good table to keep, and that it is not just the product of one person who keeps pressing for it to be this way, and no one cares enough to tell the Emperor that he has no clothes, then the fix could go in the other direction to support the nakedness consensus:
Change the title of the article to be List of Super Bowl participants.
Let's all be perfectly clear: That is NOT a table of Super Bowl champions. And it is not a table which belongs in an article on Super Bowl champions. The status quo here is that the public is being presented with an article reflecting Super Bowl participation. The title needs to reflect that, if anyone cares about being consistent.
I plan to be gone, away on another break. This time it may not be as long, depending upon what develops here over the next few weeks. If I don't come back, I will still be very interested to see how this broken article gets fixed. Either direction would make for consistency. Or folks here may decide to just let things remain broken. -- Breezy Foal ( talk) 17:00, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
And yes, as this article stands, it has Vince Lombardi and Don Shula turning in their graves.
Shula's not dead yet, you say? Well if Don were to see this "Participation Table", it might be enough to give him a heart attack.
So that might be the best argument. For the love of Don Shula, let's fix this table! --
Breezy Foal (
talk)
17:19, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
There are only 20 teams that are Super Bowl champions. If we want to show a table which includes the 12 other teams, then those 12 could be listed in a separate table of teams that never won a single Super Bowl. Or if we wanted to list these 12 in the same table as with the 20 who have won, then those 12 would be listed at the bottom. There is absolutely no justification to list any of these 12 teams who have never won above any of the 20 who have won. Not in an article that bears the title "List of Super Bowl champions". For an article by this title, this section
Super Bowl appearances by team has no place being here at all. This should be a section which totals the Wins by team, and presents a table with a default view of teams with the most wins at the top, and teams with no wins at the bottom (if listed at all).
THIS EDIT shows what the Wins by team section and table look like (reverted
here by
Psantora/Paul).
So fix the table, or change the title. Those are the only two reasonable courses of action I see here.
(And I've elaborated above on why the fixing the table makes a lot more sense than changing the title.) --
Breezy Foal (
talk)
18:19, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
Ok, with
this edit just now, I am done here for the time being. I wish you all the best. --
Breezy Foal (
talk)
18:41, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
Oops. I see I've inadvertently clobbered these new columns for "Years since last app/win". I am busy right now but will return to fix that, unless someone else beats me to it. --
Breezy Foal (
talk)
18:59, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
List of Super Bowl champions has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
May you go to https://teamcolorcodes.com/nfl-team-color-codes/ and make a pie chart and insert the teams by Super Bowl Appearances (Conference Championship Wins), Super Bowl Wins, and Super Bowl Loses? 2601:2C6:80:E650:B447:277C:2434:F8B8 ( talk) 00:49, 14 December 2019 (UTC)
{{
Pie chart}}
for one approach. But you might want to start a discussion to see if people think it's a reasonable idea to include. Personally, I don't think a pie chart is a good choice for a large number of items, each with some small, discrete value. –
Deacon Vorbis (
carbon •
videos)
04:17, 14 December 2019 (UTC)The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 00:22, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 20:25, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
NFC now leads AFC 28-27 following last night's victory by the Buccaneers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2603:7080:203:2F56:C49C:2CB1:2FD0:EA26 ( talk) 20:51, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
This article notes that the Vikings "won the NFL Championship in 1969" but then claims that "they have no pre-Super Bowl league championships." Isn't the 1969 NFL championship a pre-Super Bowl league championship? 74.71.77.137 ( talk) 12:59, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
@ Bergeronpp and Sabbatino:
Bergeronpp is making repeated WP:disruptive edits as seen 1) without any edit summary, [3] 2) misleading/inaccurate edit summary, [4] and 3) expressing this new layout as their aesthetic preference with a refusal to discuss. [5]
This prior format of "AFL/NFL (1967)" with AFL/NFL both linked and alphabetized, and "(YYYY)" appended as inline text seems to work very well. Markup like:
[[1967 American Football League season|AFL]]/[[1967 NFL season|NFL]] (1967)
The new edit(s) use non-alphabetized text and scope the YYYY to only one of two leagues. Both issues are resolved by the above example. UW Dawgs ( talk) 21:02, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
@ UW Dawgs: I think that the Date and Season should be separated into different columns. Bergeronpp ( talk) 21:48, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
List of Super Bowl champions has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
I think we should add an indication to the wild card teams (like the World Series article has) and change this:
Game | Date/ |
Winning team | Score | Losing team | Venue | City | Attendance | Ref |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
XV | January 25, 1981 ( 1980) |
Oakland RaidersA (3, 2–1) |
27–10 |
Philadelphia EaglesN (1, 0–1) |
Louisiana Superdome (2) [sb 1] | New Orleans, Louisiana (5) | 76,135 |
[2] |
to this (for all 10 wild card super bowl teams, can change Buccaneers after Super Bowl is over):
Game | Date/ |
Winning team | Score | Losing team | Venue | City | Attendance | Ref |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
XV | January 25, 1981 ( 1980) |
Oakland RaidersA (3, 2–1) [W] |
27–10 |
Philadelphia EaglesN (1, 0–1) |
Louisiana Superdome (2) [sb 1] | New Orleans, Louisiana (5) | 76,135 |
[4] |
And for the 1969 Chiefs change this:
Game | Date/ |
Winning team | Score | Losing team | Venue | City | Attendance | Ref |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
IV [sb 2] |
January 11, 1970 ( 1969 AFL/ 1969 NFL) |
Kansas City Chiefsa (2, 1–1) |
23–7 |
Minnesota Vikingsn (1, 0–1) |
Tulane Stadium | New Orleans, Louisiana | 80,562 |
[5] |
to this:
Game | Date/ |
Winning team | Score | Losing team | Venue | City | Attendance | Ref |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
IV [sb 2] |
January 11, 1970 ( 1969 AFL/ 1969 NFL) |
Kansas City Chiefsa (2, 1–1) [S] |
23–7 |
Minnesota Vikingsn (1, 0–1) |
Tulane Stadium | New Orleans, Louisiana | 80,562 |
[6] |
And add this after the references list:
S Indicates a team that made the playoffs as a second-place team (rather than by winning a division).
W Indicates a team that made the playoffs as a
wild card team (rather than by winning a division).
+ Super Bowl championships NFLfanforever ( talk) 19:21, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
Adding the above would make sense to denote which teams are wild card and second place NFLfanforever ( talk) 00:58, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
References
{{
cite web}}
: Missing or empty |title=
(
help)
SBAttendance
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).I agree with NFLfanforever when they say we should add an indication to the wild card teams (like the World Series article has) and change this:
Game | Date/ |
Winning team | Score | Losing team | Venue | City | Attendance | Ref |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
XV | January 25, 1981 ( 1980) |
Oakland RaidersA (3, 2–1) |
27–10 |
Philadelphia EaglesN (1, 0–1) |
Louisiana Superdome (2) [sb 1] | New Orleans, Louisiana (5) | 76,135 |
[1] |
to this (for all 11 wild card super bowl teams):
Game | Date/ |
Winning team | Score | Losing team | Venue | City | Attendance | Ref |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
XV | January 25, 1981 ( 1980) |
Oakland RaidersA (3, 2–1) [W] |
27–10 |
Philadelphia EaglesN (1, 0–1) |
Louisiana Superdome (2) [sb 1] | New Orleans, Louisiana (5) | 76,135 |
[3] |
And for the 1969 Chiefs change this:
Game | Date/ |
Winning team | Score | Losing team | Venue | City | Attendance | Ref |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
IV [sb 2] |
January 11, 1970 ( 1969 AFL/ 1969 NFL) |
Kansas City Chiefsa (2, 1–1) |
23–7 |
Minnesota Vikingsn (1, 0–1) |
Tulane Stadium | New Orleans, Louisiana | 80,562 |
[4] |
to this:
Game | Date/ |
Winning team | Score | Losing team | Venue | City | Attendance | Ref |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
IV [sb 2] |
January 11, 1970 ( 1969 AFL/ 1969 NFL) |
Kansas City Chiefsa (2, 1–1) [S] |
23–7 |
Minnesota Vikingsn (1, 0–1) |
Tulane Stadium | New Orleans, Louisiana | 80,562 |
[5] |
And add this after the references list:
S Indicates a team that made the playoffs as a second-place team (rather than by winning a division).
W Indicates a team that made the playoffs as a
wild card team (rather than by winning a division).
Sportsfanforlife (
talk)
18:55, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
References
SBAttendance
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).I believe that this is a good idea to add a flow between these pages. I will update this ASAP. MLBrockstar50 ( talk) 11:52, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
Also in the future please post your agreement as a reply and not as a post. MLBrockstar50 ( talk) 11:56, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
While reading through the article, I noticed that there is an error in the table that shows when each Super Bowl was played. If the Super Bowl will now be held annually on the second Sunday of February instead of the first Sunday of February, then that means the date for Super Bowl LVII (57) would be on February 12, 2023, not on February 5, 2023, as listed in the table. Someone should correct that. JdhWrGrad2020 ( talk) 20:56, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
@ Sabbatino:
user:Sabbatino says breaking out "Wins by conference" information is: "That's completely false. Super Bowl and NFL Championship Game are two different things + the win-loss by conference is already listed in the section below"
===Longest streak by conference=== *[[National Football Conference]] - 13 wins, [[Super Bowl XIX|XIX]]-[[Super Bowl XXXI|XXXI]] ([[1984 NFL season|1984]]-[[1996 NFL season|1996]]) *[[American Football Conference]] - 5 wins, [[Super Bowl VII|VII]]-[[Super Bowl XI|XI]] ([[1972 NFL season|1972]]-[[1976 NFL season|1976]])
This argument for removal is inconsistent. First, if it's false, then the win-loss record needs to be corrected in the rest of the article. If it's not false, but anything listed elsewhere is superfluous, then everything beyond the first section "Super Bowl championship (1966–present)" is superfluous.
The purpose of a listing article is to apply different algorithms to a table of information into smaller and more useful snippets of information without the reader having to physically calculate the larger table for each field themselves.
Breaking out a section for conference wins & losses is just as informative, if not just as superfluous as breaking out wins & losses by team, or calculating consecutive wins & losses by team.
The information in each of those sections is laid out in the table at the top, but has been broken out for ease of use, but if the reasoning for not including something is because it's already available, then all the sections beyond the original table is unnecessary and should be removed as well.
Finally, nowhere in the article is consecutive wins by conference calculated, however it is a valid question that should be answered without the reader having to physically calculate the streak every time they wish to figure it out (as happened to be the question posed in a bet the night before I added the information to the article. - 399scout ( talk • contribs) 22:33, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
Your argument conflicts with the commonly accepted (and retroactively applied by the NFL) standard that the first 4 Super Bowls have been recognized by both the individual teams and conferences as legitimate Super Bowl wins.– this can already be found at List of Super Bowl champions#Super Bowl championship (1966–present) ("Championships table key and summary" and "Super Bowl championships" tables). There is absolutely no need to repeat the information that is already present on the page. In addition, consecutive wins by conference can easily be listed at List of Super Bowl champions#Consecutive wins, because there is no mention that this section is solely about teams (however, I am still against listing such trivia). And keep your threats with WP:DRN to yourself, because you ignored WP:BRD and thought that WP:EW is the way to go. I also notified the editors of WP:NFL about this discussion (since this page is directly tied to that WikiProject), because you did not notify them (or did not want to). – Sabbatino ( talk) 15:42, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
...You're the one who started the personal attacks by stating my calculations were false...– that is not a personal attack nor did I say that anything is false. WP:BRD specifically says that you must start a discussion when you get reverted (ant not the other way around). I will repeat again that if you want to list the streak then do it at List of Super Bowl champions#Consecutive wins but do not create a new section that duplicates the already existing information. WP:NFL is a project that handles American football pages (articles, lists, categories, etc). You can read more about what a WikiProject is at WP:PROJECT. – Sabbatino ( talk) 15:40, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
...nor did I say that anything is false...- You literally said "That's completely false" at 17:19 on 23 January in the summary of your revert. Frankly, I'm over the lecture about proper protocol from you since you still deny accusing me of putting up false information, and that is absolutely a personal attack. Had you started out more diplomatically, followed WP:ROWN, and conducted this discussion in a civilized manor, there never would have been any suggestion of fanaticism. I couldn't care less about about this page or most of the stats presented here. I simply followed WP:BRD by adding information I came to wiki to find (how long was the NFC streak in the 90s?), and not finding it anywhere else, assumed someone else might be interested and boldly put it up on the one page that gave the information to calculate said information. Your actions have completely soured my experience here and don't care if anyone else comes looking for that information again, I want nothing to do with this page. If you actually want anyone to take your advice regarding wikipedia seriously, I suggest looking in the mirror and following your own advice rather than attacking other contributors. 399scout ( talk) 20:30, 5 February 2022 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
List of Super Bowl champions has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
I want to fix the box where it lists the NFC and AFC wins and losses and update them to 56, NFC 29 and the AFC 27 Bigman4566 ( talk) 18:18, 4 March 2022 (UTC)
As a Seahawks fan the Malcolm Butler Interception is still very present. The score is the wrong way around, the Patriots won 28-24 ( https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Super_Bowl_XLIX) TheoBa ( talk) 19:55, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
See above and correct.
I actually believed everything on wikipedia was “fact” 209.172.251.101 ( talk) 04:57, 19 September 2022 (UTC)
I'm well aware what it represents. The problem is, by combining the conferences' records with this legend, the overall conference records are unnecessarily confusing. How should the NFC/AFC records read?
It's fine to keep the "green" entry on the key to make clear what it represents. But I'd at least suggest separating the records to a position outside of the key to prevent this confusion. Jtrevor99 ( talk) 04:24, 13 February 2023 (UTC)
I updated it to hopefully makes more sense to you. That overall scores are separate from the green box, that is solely a key for the Colts because of their unique history. Derknasnort ( talk) 07:53, 13 February 2023 (UTC)
Also, there is a citation at the end of the green box that can be clicked on if someone requires more clarification. Derknasnort ( talk) 08:02, 13 February 2023 (UTC)
Thank you.
Jtrevor99 (
talk)
17:29, 13 February 2023 (UTC)
Cite error: There are <ref group=note>
tags on this page, but the references will not show without a {{reflist|group=note}}
template (see the
help page).
Cite error: There are <ref group=sb>
tags on this page, but the references will not show without a {{reflist|group=sb}}
template (see the
help page).
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 |
The article currently reads, "(The Browns are officially viewed as one continuous franchise that began in 1946 as a member of the All-America Football Conference..." I think there should be some reference to the fact that they won all 4 AAFC titles before the merger with the NFL. In other worlds, "The Brown are officially viewed as on continuous franchise that began in 1946 and won four professional football titles with the All-America Football Conference." 50.201.228.200 ( talk) 16:27, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
At the beginning of the third paragraph it states: "There have only been six times that the same franchises have met in multiple Super Bowls." Then gives a detailed account naming only FIVE pairs of teams (not six). There's also another organized listing further down the article with the heading: Super Bowl Rematches. It also lists the correct five (not six) pairs. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.31.113.14 ( talk) 06:07, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
Understood, however it is written in a manner that can easily be misunderstood. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.31.113.14 ( talk) 06:28, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
ChicoSNKR made this inappropriate edit in the lead. That paragraph is only about teams who played each other multiple times in the Super Bowl. Please revert the edit. Btw, in Baltimore Ravens, Chico changed a wikilink for Baltimore's division from AFC North to NFC North (which was reverted), so I'd keep an eye on his edits from now on. Thanks. 76.189.111.199 05:08, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
Is it worth it to add a paragragh to both the Wikipedia articles of the World Series and the Super Bowl about cities that have won both victories in the same year? It has happened five times in the past: 1969; New York Mets and New York Jets, 1970; Baltimore Orioles and Baltimore Ravens, 1979; Pittsburgh Pirates and Pittsburgh Steelers, 1986; New York Mets and New York Giants, and 2004; Boston Red Sox and New England Patriots. On February 3, 2013, the San Francisco 49ers Might win the Super Bowl. Since The San Francisco Giants won the World Series in 2012, I am sure it will be a popular, often repeated, trivia saying about the cities that have won both the World Series and the Super Bowl in the same year. I think a paragraph should be added to both the World Series and Super Bowl articles to point out that fact, especially considering how few times it has happened. New York city with the NY Mets and New York Yankees baseball teams, and the Giants and Jets football teams has only achieved that victory twice: in 1969 and 1986. 16:06, 1 February 2013 (UTC)Bennett Turk — Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.80.61.133 ( talk)
The number of appearances listed parenthetically for the Steelers is correct in 1996 (5). It is incorrectly listed as (5) again in 2006. It is incorrectly listed as (6) in 2009.
75.111.4.153 ( talk) 16:56, 14 August 2013 (UTC)Larry Trask (clash14@gmail.com)
The Cardinals are highlighted in green on the table for Super Bowl XLIII, but the Steelers won that Super Bowl. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Metolbeast ( talk • contribs) 21:19, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
In the sortable menu at the bottom of the page it has the Pats listed as 3-4 in Superbowls with an appearance count of 7. This should be 5 and they should be 3-2. 1996 and 2011 are incorrectly listed as years the Pats participated in the Superbowl.
jay — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jryanmenuey ( talk • contribs) 04:40, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
--oops, transposed years on the chart above. i.e. 2012 Superbowl is 2011 season.
This lists Denver as winning three and losing four. The correct numbers should be 2 wins and five losses. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.129.171.217 ( talk) 03:12, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
The 3 Super Bowls that the New England Patriots won in 2002, 2004, and 2005 should have an asterisk stating that they were accused/used Spy cameras and were caught during those respective seasons. 166.76.0.1 ( talk) 21:34, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please change the table under the heading "Super Bowl Championships 1966-present" because it incorrectly shows the Pittsburgh Steelers winning the Super Bowl 7 times instead of the correct 6. Super Bowl XL has "Pittsburgh Steelers (6)" denoting that it was their 6th year winning the Super Bowl when in fact it was their 5th year. Subsequently, Super Bowl XLIII reads "Pittsburgh Steelers (7)" when in fact it was their 6th year winning. 173.66.245.245 ( talk) 03:54, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
The Raiders should be listed above the Washington Redskins because the Raiders first appearance in the SB is before the Redskins first appearance. Additionally the Redskins are one of the teams the Raiders beat in the Superbowl. The Raiders should be moved up one row, swapping places with Washington. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.141.66.129 ( talk) 04:40, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
February 7 2018 is a Wednesday the super bowl LII page has it as feb 4 which is a sunday — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.116.191.43 ( talk) 17:42, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
The Houston Oilers are not listed anywhere on the page. While the Houston Oilers never made a superbowl appearance, they could still be listed as a team that never made an appearance at the bottom. Another possible fix would be to use a slash and list them with the Tennessee Titans since they continued to go by the oiler name for a year after the move. Another possible fix would be a combination of the 2 and list them at the bottom as the Houston/Tennessee Oilers
99.155.24.48 ( talk) 02:55, 6 September 2013 (UTC)OOJUGGALO
Why aren't you concern that the St Louis Cardinals are not included as well? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.116.191.43 ( talk) 00:33, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
List of Super Bowl champions has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
In the table where teams are ordered first by number of appearances, then by number of wins, and finally by year of first appearance, Cincinnati and Philadelphia should be switched. This is what it currently reads: 2 Cincinnati Bengals† 0 2 .000 1981,† 1988† 2 Philadelphia Eagles* 0 2 .000 1980,* 2004*. It should read: 2 Philadelphia Eagles* 0 2 .000 1980,* 2004* 2 Cincinnati Bengals† 0 2 .000 1981,† 1988†. Thank you
Done
Laszlo Panaflex (
talk)
16:40, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
Section: Repeat Winners New England Patriots Super Bowl numbers are in error. Should be XXXV111 and XXX1X. ```` — Preceding unsigned comment added by DWAMP ( talk • contribs) 00:04, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
At the beginning of this article, where Super Bowl records are noted, "Dallas and Pittsburgh have the most Super Bowl appearances with eight" needs to be changed to read "Dallas, Pittsburgh, and New England have the most Super Bowl appearances with eight". - Joshua 98.28.129.216 ( talk) 06:22, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
List of Super Bowl champions has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
"February 5, 2006 Pittsburgh Steelers† (6)" and "February 1, 2009 Pittsburgh Steelers† (7)" need to be changed to "February 5, 2006 Pittsburgh Steelers† (5)" and "February 1, 2009 Pittsburgh Steelers† (6)", respectively.
Naduerba ( talk) 16:07, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
The New York Giants are the only team to win the Super Bowl in 4 consecutive decades...1986, 1990, 2007, 2011..... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.175.189.169 ( talk) 14:53, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
Hi. I think it would be better to change the Winning team/Losing Team columns to AFC/NFC. Please note how it's done on the NBA page - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_NBA_champions#NBA_champions. Any thoughts? Kvsh5 ( talk) 12:36, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
List of Super Bowl champions has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
The New York Giants were a Wild Card team in 2007 when they won the Super Bowl. That is not notified by a "Note" in the table of Super Bowl Champions. 104.167.135.107 ( talk) 04:23, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
Not done Incorrect request - see (note 3) on the article page, which hasn't been altered since 12 February -
Arjayay (
talk)
14:38, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
List of Super Bowl champions has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
104.167.135.107 ( talk) 20:06, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
List of Super Bowl champions has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
While there is a "Note 3" to notify that the New York Giants were a Wild Card team in 2007 in the actual list of Super Bowl games, there is not a "Note 3" in the Super Bowl Appearances by Team table in the Seasons column. 104.167.135.107 ( talk) 20:08, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
List of Super Bowl champions has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
104.167.135.107 ( talk) 13:20, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
In the table, would it make sense to have the Super Bowl record in parentheses versus just the number of appearances? For instance,
Game | Date | Winning team | Score | Losing team | Venue | City | Attendance | Ref |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
XLIX | February 1, 2015 | New England Patriots†(4-4) | 28–24 | Seattle Seahawks* (1-2) | University of Phoenix Stadium (2) | Glendale, Arizona (3) | 70,288 |
instead of
Game | Date | Winning team | Score | Losing team | Venue | City | Attendance | Ref |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
XLIX | February 1, 2015 | New England Patriots†(8) | 28–24 | Seattle Seahawks* (3) | University of Phoenix Stadium (2) | Glendale, Arizona (3) | 70,288 |
I know there's another table with the multiples, but I did find myself flipping up and down trying to find the *record* rather than just the appearance count. Duke EGR 93 21:13, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
Numbers in parentheses in the table are Super Bowl appearances or team records, as of the date of that Super Bowl and are used as follows:
instead of:
Numbers in parentheses in the table are Super Bowl appearances, as of the date of that Super Bowl and are used as follows:
![]() | This
edit request to
List of Super Bowl champions has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Super Bowl 50 should use the Roman numeral "L" instead of the digits "50" and I wanted to edit that, but I can't. Please may I edit this?
Facemark ( talk) 12:39, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
Not done - as it explains in our article
Super Bowl 50 "Instead of naming it Super Bowl L with Roman numerals like in previous Super Bowls, this game will be marketed with the Arabic numeral "50."" -
Arjayay (
talk)
13:04, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
Where it currently reads, "The Green Bay Packers won the first two Super Bowls, but had also won the NFL championship in the preceding year.", since the article takes the step of mentioning that three-peat, wouldn't it be worthwhile to follow that with something like, "They are the only team to have won three straight NFL Championships, and they have done it twice, having also won three straight non-Super Bowl NFL Championships in 1929-31." Seems highly pertinent. 216.75.212.5 ( talk) 14:48, 28 October 2015 (UTC)BillV
Where it currently reads "Super Bowls XXVII and XXVIII were both won by Dallas, in consecutive seasons.", would it be worth mentioning that this is, in fact. the only occurrence of a repeat Super Bowl matchup, where the AFC and NFC champions were the same teams two years in a row? It's unusual enough to merit distinction.
![]() | This
edit request to
List of Super Bowl champions has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Seattle is currently highlighted in green as if they won XLIX. This should be corrected Vector2222 ( talk) 21:47, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
In the article it says that no team has won more than 2 super bowls in a row but the Buffalo Bills won the 1990, 1991, 1992, and 1993 super bowl. Dodge55 ( talk) 22:04, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
Looks like someone did a search for broncos and was overly excited and added superbowl 50 to the list of consecutive wins, even though the broncos didn't win last year. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.177.128.209 ( talk) 04:55, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
List of Super Bowl champions has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
This page says that The Cleveland Browns had appeared in six NFL Championship games besides the ones that they've won. They've actually been to seven. The one that is missing is the 1965 NFL Championship game. Ballsk1 ( talk) 03:56, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on List of Super Bowl champions. 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, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
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: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 18:43, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
This article should probably be renamed, since this isn't a list of Super Bowl champions, it's a list of Super Bowls. By extension, I suppose that includes a list of Super Bowl champions, but the section below the chronological list is primarily sorted by the number of appearances each team has made in the Super Bowl, not the number of times they've won it. – Pee Jay 20:58, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
I reverted the recent addition of the "winners that failed to make the playoffs the following season" section, and I just thought I'd leave a note here explaining why: because it is a long trivia list that is bloating an already long page. Unlike the other sections around it, namely "Teams with no Super Bowl appearances", "Teams with Super Bowl appearances but no victories", "Teams with long Super Bowl droughts", and "Super Bowl rematches", all of which are lists that are more relevant to this page in that they are each lists directly involving Super Bowl appearances, this particular list of "winners that failed to make the playoffs the following season" is about ensuing playoff fates the following season instead of Super Bowl appearances directly. If this list were to stay, then there are all sorts of other minutiae about ensuing fates of Super Bowl teams that could be added. We have to draw the line somewhere to avoid an enormous page filled with trivia, and I don't think think this meets the standard of relevance set by the other sections around it. — Lowellian ( reply) 04:13, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on List of Super Bowl champions. 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: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 15:20, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
Checking to see if there is any objection to me changing the sort order for the City column to correspond to the MSA. For example, I believe the sort for the following should be Los Angeles, not Pasadena (and clearly Inglewood needs to be changed).
|{{Sort|Pasadena, California 01|[[Los Angeles]], [[California]]
|{{Sort|Pasadena, California 02|Los Angeles, California (2)<ref group=note name=a />}}
|{{Sort|Pasadena, California 03|[[Pasadena, California]] (3)<ref group=note name=a />}}
|{{Sort|Pasadena, California 04|Pasadena, California (4)<ref group=note name=a />}}
|{{Sort|Pasadena, California 05|Pasadena, California (5)<ref group=note name=a />}}
|{{Sort|Pasadena, California 06|Pasadena, California (6)<ref group=note name=a />}}
|{{Sort|Pasadena, California 07|Pasadena, California (7)<ref group=note name=a />}}
|{{Sort|Inglewood, California 08|[[Inglewood, California]] (8)<ref group=note name=a />}}
Thanks Jb45424 ( talk) 02:48, 10 June 2017 (UTC)
On the list of super bowls by team, the Pittsburgh Steelers and Cleveland Browns should be colored the neutral color as the Colts are. They share the note and distinction of having been NFL teams that shifted to the AFC, but only the Colts get the color distinction. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.74.235.4 ( talk) 16:19, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 4 external links on List of Super Bowl champions. 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: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 00:20, 22 September 2017 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
List of Super Bowl champions has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
One image has a caption of "The Jets' victory over the Colts in Super Bowl III was the team's last championship appearance." Please expand it to ..."the former team's..." because "the team" could refer to the Jets or the Colts, so "former" distinguishes from "latter." 208.95.51.115 ( talk) 14:18, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
The article currently states that "Super Bowl III in January 1969 was the first such game that carried the "Super Bowl" moniker, the names "Super Bowl I" and "Super Bowl II" were only retroactively applied to the first two games." However, this is not true, and is easily contradicted. For example, in this famous broadcast of Max McGee's opening touchdown from Super Bowl I, you can hear the announcer saying "and the old veteran scores the first touchdown of the Super Bowl game": https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dVizBENi9cQ#t=27m54s I would love to edit it, but I'm worried it would just get reverted, so I'm posting here. The reference linked does not actually support the article's statement. The game was colloquially known as the Super Bowl, it just hadn't shown up in the branding yet. laddiebuck ( talk) 01:23, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
The New England Patriots won back to back Super Bowls (XXXVIII and XXXIX) and have won 3 out of 4 consecutive title games beginning with their first Super Bowl win (XXXVI).
— Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.163.0.41 ( talk • contribs) 16:21, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
List of Super Bowl champions has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please change the 50 on the list of super bowls to an L so it is consistent to the rest HatboyRSS ( talk) 20:30, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
List of Super Bowl champions has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Second paragraph, third sentence (current):
Super Bowl III in January 1969 was the first such game that carried the "Super Bowl" moniker in official marketing, the names "Super Bowl I" and "Super Bowl II" were retroactively applied to the first two games.
Second paragraph, third sentence (edited):
Super Bowl III in January 1969 was the first such game that carried the "Super Bowl" moniker in official marketing; the names "Super Bowl I" and "Super Bowl II" were retroactively applied to the first two games.
Edit: The comma separating the two independent clauses should be changed to a semicolon to fix the run-on sentence error.
Second paragraph, fifth sentence (current):
Nineteen franchises, including teams that relocated to another city, have won the Super Bowl.
Second paragraph, fifth sentence (edited):
Twenty franchises, including teams that have relocated to another city, have won the Super Bowl.
Edits: Since the Eagles won the Super Bowl for the first time this year, there have now been twenty franchises to win the game. Inserting "have" improves the diction of the sentence.
"Teams with no Super Bowl appearances" section, first bullet point, third sentence (current):
The Baltimore Ravens were an expansion team created in 1996 with former Browns players.
"Teams with no Super Bowl appearances" section, first bullet point, third sentence (edited):
The Baltimore Ravens was created as an expansion team with former Browns players in 1996, and have since won two Super Bowls.
Edits: The Ravens is a singular team, and therefore should use the singular verb "was." The fact that they have won two Super Bowls since being relocated to Baltimore is interesting because the team was created from the old Browns players and staff and has been consistently good since, while the team that stayed in Cleveland has been continuously bad ever since reentering the league in 1999. The sentence has been restructured to accommodate this additional fact.
-- PacchMann ( talk) 02:59, 23 March 2018 (UTC) PacchMann ( talk) 02:59, 23 March 2018 (UTC)
A point of correction. The Baltimore Ravens were not an expansion team. The Cleveland Browns moved to Baltimore after the Colts moved to Indianapolis.The city of Cleveland retained the rights to the "Browns" name. That's why the team was re-named "Ravens". But there was no expansion at that time. Later, the current Cleveland Browns were added to the league as an expansion team. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Loosedogs ( talk • contribs) 23:59, 29 April 2017 (UTC)
So does the NFL have the right to fictionalize it's history? It is true that the NFL franchise in Cleveland changed it's name and moved to Baltimore. Also it is fact that later a new team using the "Browns" name started in Cleveland. I have no patience with groups who want to revise history through press releases. Why would we here on Wikipedia want to help them with their fictional revisionist history? The film industry says they moved to Hollywood to get away from gangs who were extorting money from them. The truth is that the Edison company had patents on the filming process and the 'gangs' were agents of Edison trying to collect the patent royalties he was entitled to. Industries and businesses often try and write their own histories, It's up to such as us to keep them honest. Corumplex ( talk) 17:37, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
I propose that the situation involving the Browns and the Ravens be recorded to indicate that in order to make record keeping easier the NFL chooses to regard the Browns as one continuous franchise though the franchise did in fact move to Baltimore and was replaced by a new franchise of the same name. Corumplex ( talk) 02:57, 2 September 2018 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
List of Super Bowl champions has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
It's shows the Arizona cardnails/st louis for Superbowl appernces. Only the AZ cards have been to a Superbowl not St Louis cardinals. Please change! 97.124.121.202 ( talk) 01:49, 15 December 2018 (UTC)
The sentence currently reads ... "Four current NFL teams have never appeared in a Super Bowl, including franchise relocations and renaming: the Cleveland Browns, Detroit Lions, Jacksonville Jaguars, and Houston Texans, though both the Browns (1964) and Lions (1957) had won NFL championship games prior to the creation of the Super Bowl." ... which makes it seem as if both the Browns and Lions had each previously won just one NFL championship game. Actually, each had won four previous NFL titles - Cleveland in 1964, 1955, 1954, 1950 and Detroit in 1957, 1953, 1952, 1935.
Requested/suggested 3rd paragraph, final sentence wording ... "Four current NFL teams have never appeared in a Super Bowl, including franchise relocations and renaming: the Cleveland Browns, Detroit Lions, Houston Texans and Jacksonville Jaguars, though both the Browns (latest in 1964) and Lions (latest in 1957) had each won four NFL championship games prior to the creation of the Super Bowl."
Thanks for your time. 108.28.198.56 ( talk) 14:28, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
The graphic of Super Bowl XX is also incorrect. Starterjacket ( talk) 13:58, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
Since there have been 53 Super Bowls, there should be only 53 data rows in the table. It's great that we already know the venues for future Super Bowls, but it's premature to put that data in the table. If we absolutely want to keep the data here, we could put it in a paragraph after the table. Or create another table that follows.
I would think that a new row should only be added once either an AFC or NFC Champion has been determined, but not before. Zonker.in.geneva ( talk) 16:51, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
Zonker.in.geneva ( talk) 21:28, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
There is a section on this page entitled "Consecutive Wins," which lists the seven teams who have won two SBs in a row. The second paragraph states "No franchise has yet won three Super Bowls in a row, although six of the above seven have come close." First, the recently added phrase "of the above seven" is redundant and therefore, unnecessary. But, that's not the discussion I want to have.
The phrase "comes close" is really vague and should be defined more precisely. As I read it, that phrase takes on about four or five different meanings, from "won two in a row but lost the preceding SB" to "won two in a row but didn't even make the playoffs the following season."
In my view, and I say this as a Pats' fan, only teams that reached two in a row and reached the SB a third straight time qualify as "coming close." I mean, before LIII kicked off, I didn't think to myself, "Man, if the Pats win this game, we'll *almost* have won three in a row." Naw. You lose the SB, the counter starts at zero.
With this more precise definition, not a single team has truly come close. The Dolphins lost the first of their three straight. Not close. The Pats were in three in a row, but lost in the middle. Sorry, but not close. And GB - this article is about SB champions, not seasons prior, so, not close. Losing in a Conference Championship? Not close enough, for me. To say nothing of losing earlier in the Playoffs or not reaching the playoffs at all, such as Pittsburgh in the 1980 season.
I know it makes some of us feel good to see our teams' name in the list of "comes close," but factually, no one has come close.
Perhaps this little section could be renamed to "Sustained Success" oslt. Zonker.in.geneva ( talk) 22:04, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
In some places, listed as San Diego/Los Angeles Chargers other places Los Angeles Chargers (played as San Diego Chargers in Super Bowl XXIX) should these be changed to be consistent? Sportooner1 ( talk) 19:08, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
It seems to me that the superscript symbols used on this page are not the best choice. Here is how they are currently being used:
- NFL‡/NFC*
- AFL^/AFC†
It seems strange to me that the NFL symbol was picked as one that closely matches the AFC symbol, when these are opposites in legacy. It would seem to make a lot more sense to have the strong similarity be between AFL to AFC, and likewise the NFL to NFC. And then the bigger question is why are cryptic symbols being used at all. We could simply use an 'N' to represent NFC and an 'A' to represent AFC. This could eliminate a lot of headscratching that is done by the average reader.
Proposed change:
- NFLv/NFCN
- AFL^/AFCA
Here the '^' is a symbol that looks kind of like an 'A', so there's continuity there. And then the 'v' is the opposite of '^', and if you're into Greek, then you can read it as the letter 'nu'. This is a minor change being proposed here, but it could go a long way toward eliminating confusion. -- Breezy Foal ( talk) 23:27, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
This discussion started with an unexplained reversion by Bonesdonahue of the existing table. I reverted this change with the following explanation in the edit summary:
Undid revisions 829779527-829781887 by Bonesdonahue ( talk). The primary sort for this table is based on the number of appearances. It follows that the next most important item (after winning percentage) is how long each team has had that number of appearances and then that number of wins. It is easy to sort on other values by using the arrows at the top of the table, but this is the default. Regardless, removing the sort values entirely just because you don't agree with the order is not appropriate. Lets discuss this further on the talk page if you have questions or concerns about changing the default sorting options, I'm sure we can come to an agreed upon understanding of how the sorting should work. Thanks!
Bonesdonahue then posted the following to my talk page:
No you decided to change the sort from the original. When you sort by wins it has been and will remain wins/apperances/last time to appear. If your going to try and change that you need to at the very least change it correctly. The Panthers shouldn't end up below teams who haven't won a Super Bowl. Just because you disagreed with how the page was originally was set doesn't mean you get to change it. I will continue to reset your sort order cause it's done incorrectly and doesn't make sense.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Bonesdonahue ( talk • contribs) 04:14, 15 March 2018 (UTC)
I moved the discussion here to keep this back-and-forth all in one place. My response is below.
Appearances sort: Appearances/Wins/Years since last Appearance/Years since last Win/Years since last championship game prior to 1970 (if necessary);
Wins sort: if Wins>0 Wins/Years since last Win, if Wins=0 Wins/Appearances/Years since last Win/Years since last Appearance/Years since last championship game prior to 1970 (if necessary);
Losses sort: Losses/Appearances/Years since last Loss/Years since last Appearance/Years since last championship game prior to 1970 (if necessary)
Paul/Psantora - I'm not Savvy in how to create sort orders in Wiki and reverting the changes wasn't vandalism seeing as it was the default of how the page was originally set. I still believe that when you sort by wins that that it should be based on wins then appearances. Example the Steelers appear first with 6 wins and 8 appearances followed by the Patriots 5 wins 10 appearances and so on but the only way I know how to do that is to revert the change. Maybe something you can look into. Thanks, Bonesdonahue — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bonesdonahue ( talk • contribs) 04:57, 22 March 2018 (UTC)
This article is about Super Bowl Champions. When you win the Super Bowl, they hand you the Lombardi Trophy. They do not hand out Participation Trophies. So in what universe does the number of Appearances count more than the number of Wins? Where is the backlash from every single football fan who knows that the Super Bowl trophy is named for a man famous for his quote about what winning means? If you understand football, if you understand the NFL, if you understand the Super Bowl, if you understand Vince Lombardi ...then you know that if he had made a table himself, it would have only TWO COLUMNS: Team / Wins. And if he were pressed to have a 3rd column added, he would label that one TRIVIA.
It is utterly improper to have a table that defaults to presenting the NE Pats above the Steelers in an article about Super Bowl Champions. I can see that a lot of effort went into building it. And if the creator feels attached to it, then I suggest starting a separate article titled List of Super Bowl Losers. You can put your table there. It does not belong here.-- Breezy Foal ( talk) 17:25, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
Ok, the table has now been fixed so that it reflects an actual List of Super Bowl champions. Columns have been reprioritized by Wins first, then Appearances, and with teams that have the same SB W/L record, the team to have achieved it first is listed first. This change has been implemented with the need for this change having been highlighted more than 3 weeks ago. The only objection voiced during that time was by someone who did not understand the issue, saying that this problem would become moot if the Patriots won. The other grounds for objection was that this table had reflected the prioritization of appearances being counted more than wins since 2007. The rebuttal presented here is that something being broken for a dozen years does not qualify as valid grounds for not fixing it today. So it has been fixed. -- Breezy Foal ( talk) 06:46, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
I'll suggest that we resume this discussion at the new subsection just now created (below), with the idea that a clean re-start of this discussion would be helpful. 3 Options have been highlighted, including both proposals stated above. -- Breezy Foal ( talk) 14:42, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
New Option 2: Create a separate article titled List of Super Bowl Participants, and then get rid of that table from here, and move it to there. Those are the only two valid options I am seeing here. The table being discussed here is a table that is pertinent toward either losers or participants.-- Breezy Foal ( talk) 17:33, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
New title for this table: Lombardi Anathema Table. (proposed change, that from now on until its removal, this is what the table in question be referred to)-- Breezy Foal ( talk) 17:36, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
Fix now implemented (see subsection above). -- Breezy Foal ( talk) 06:46, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
There's been a lot of recent discussion in the subsections above. It might help to re-start with a clean sheet here in this new subsection. Two proposals are currently on the table. And add to those two the third option of keeping things as they are now. We can call these:
Q: The "QUICKER" option values the first team that achieved a certain number of wins ahead of a team that accomplishes this later, with zero weight given to how many times a team may have Appeared without winning. This option says that the most recent change, where Wins are now valued over Appearances, did not go far enough. Option Q says that the Steelers should be listed ahead of the Patriots, because they are the ones who were first to achieve 6 Wins. How many times you get there matters little. What matters most is who got the most wins and who did this first.
R: The REVERT option is to return the table back to the form where Appearances are valued over Wins. That is to say, the proper default presentation would show the 0-4 Vikings and the 0-4 Bills ahead of the 2-0 Ravens, and so on. (NOTE: It has been asserted that this is the way this table has been since 2007.)
S: The STABILIZE option says to keep the table in its current form. Hold the table's default ordering as it is presented right now. This can be seen as a "middle ground", where wins are valued primarily, but appearances also count. So Option S says to keep the Patriots listed ahead of the Steelers, as it stands today.
Extensive arguments have been presented in other subsections above. But it might be good to get some fresh opinions voiced here. For the time being, I myself will withhold my own position as it is today (previous comments I have posted have highlighted certain advantages to each of these three options). -- Breezy Foal ( talk) 14:40, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
Ok, the proper way to present this table is so obvious to me that this is starting to feel like a Twilight Zone episode. Because of that, I will take an extended break from this discussion. (If there is anyone who would like anything else clarified from me, I can post that on your own UserTalk page.) The quotes I've presented from Lombardi & Shula, etc, above make the point far more strongly than any words from me. It seems severely strange that anyone would prefer this Option R. So I am stepping back, and for the time being I will leave it to others here to see what I clearly see: a very broken table. Or not see that.
I've presented this argument as clearly as I can make it. I am now switching to "passive mode" here. Goodbye y'all. -- Breezy Foal ( talk) 23:46, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
I am back. And I'm met with deep disappointment to find that this table is still broken.
What do I think about Option 1?
I think you are still not clear on the fundamental problem which has been highlighted. This article is about Super Bowl champions. Then it presents this table where the Vikings and Bills are placed ABOVE the Ravens. Neither the Vikings nor the Ravens are SB champs. An argument can be made that those teams do not belong in this table at all. No legitimate argument can be made that these teams are to be listed above a team that has won the Super Bowl a single time, let alone listing them above a team which has won the Super Bowl multiple times. It has been thoroughly explained above that the table, as it appears now, is something which would be fitting for an article on Super Bowl participation. Not Super Bowl champions.
If you were clear on this fundamental problem, then you would not be asking me about Option 1. That does absolutely nothing to fix this broken table. The core problem has nothing at all to do with sorting options. It has everything to do with having this article about championships, and then listing "Appearances" in the first column. And the default presentation prioritizes appearances over wins.
A big part of the reason why I took this extended break is because I had this expectation that just about everyone who follows football will see very clearly how this table is broken. And that there would be overwhelming input here in this talk section supporting this view. Not one single person has chimed in to that effect. The most that has been stated here, aside from my own comments, is this:
Even Bonesdonahue did not voice objection to the fundamental issue of prioritizing Appearances over Wins. Best I can tell from what's been presented here, the crux of that person's argument was centered on this sorting thing.
Because there has been NO SUPPORT voiced for this error which is so clear to me, my plan will be to take another extended break. Perhaps with the upcoming SB LIV there will be people revisiting this article, and people just as shocked as I am to see this table which places the Vikings & Bills above the Ravens. And some of them might come here to see that this failure has been highlighted. And some of them might go so far as to voice support for this fix. But that might not happen. It hasn't happened throughout all of this time.
Should it be an accurate assessment that the consensus is actually that people see this to be a good table to keep, and that it is not just the product of one person who keeps pressing for it to be this way, and no one cares enough to tell the Emperor that he has no clothes, then the fix could go in the other direction to support the nakedness consensus:
Change the title of the article to be List of Super Bowl participants.
Let's all be perfectly clear: That is NOT a table of Super Bowl champions. And it is not a table which belongs in an article on Super Bowl champions. The status quo here is that the public is being presented with an article reflecting Super Bowl participation. The title needs to reflect that, if anyone cares about being consistent.
I plan to be gone, away on another break. This time it may not be as long, depending upon what develops here over the next few weeks. If I don't come back, I will still be very interested to see how this broken article gets fixed. Either direction would make for consistency. Or folks here may decide to just let things remain broken. -- Breezy Foal ( talk) 17:00, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
And yes, as this article stands, it has Vince Lombardi and Don Shula turning in their graves.
Shula's not dead yet, you say? Well if Don were to see this "Participation Table", it might be enough to give him a heart attack.
So that might be the best argument. For the love of Don Shula, let's fix this table! --
Breezy Foal (
talk)
17:19, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
There are only 20 teams that are Super Bowl champions. If we want to show a table which includes the 12 other teams, then those 12 could be listed in a separate table of teams that never won a single Super Bowl. Or if we wanted to list these 12 in the same table as with the 20 who have won, then those 12 would be listed at the bottom. There is absolutely no justification to list any of these 12 teams who have never won above any of the 20 who have won. Not in an article that bears the title "List of Super Bowl champions". For an article by this title, this section
Super Bowl appearances by team has no place being here at all. This should be a section which totals the Wins by team, and presents a table with a default view of teams with the most wins at the top, and teams with no wins at the bottom (if listed at all).
THIS EDIT shows what the Wins by team section and table look like (reverted
here by
Psantora/Paul).
So fix the table, or change the title. Those are the only two reasonable courses of action I see here.
(And I've elaborated above on why the fixing the table makes a lot more sense than changing the title.) --
Breezy Foal (
talk)
18:19, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
Ok, with
this edit just now, I am done here for the time being. I wish you all the best. --
Breezy Foal (
talk)
18:41, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
Oops. I see I've inadvertently clobbered these new columns for "Years since last app/win". I am busy right now but will return to fix that, unless someone else beats me to it. --
Breezy Foal (
talk)
18:59, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
List of Super Bowl champions has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
May you go to https://teamcolorcodes.com/nfl-team-color-codes/ and make a pie chart and insert the teams by Super Bowl Appearances (Conference Championship Wins), Super Bowl Wins, and Super Bowl Loses? 2601:2C6:80:E650:B447:277C:2434:F8B8 ( talk) 00:49, 14 December 2019 (UTC)
{{
Pie chart}}
for one approach. But you might want to start a discussion to see if people think it's a reasonable idea to include. Personally, I don't think a pie chart is a good choice for a large number of items, each with some small, discrete value. –
Deacon Vorbis (
carbon •
videos)
04:17, 14 December 2019 (UTC)The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 00:22, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 20:25, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
NFC now leads AFC 28-27 following last night's victory by the Buccaneers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2603:7080:203:2F56:C49C:2CB1:2FD0:EA26 ( talk) 20:51, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
This article notes that the Vikings "won the NFL Championship in 1969" but then claims that "they have no pre-Super Bowl league championships." Isn't the 1969 NFL championship a pre-Super Bowl league championship? 74.71.77.137 ( talk) 12:59, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
@ Bergeronpp and Sabbatino:
Bergeronpp is making repeated WP:disruptive edits as seen 1) without any edit summary, [3] 2) misleading/inaccurate edit summary, [4] and 3) expressing this new layout as their aesthetic preference with a refusal to discuss. [5]
This prior format of "AFL/NFL (1967)" with AFL/NFL both linked and alphabetized, and "(YYYY)" appended as inline text seems to work very well. Markup like:
[[1967 American Football League season|AFL]]/[[1967 NFL season|NFL]] (1967)
The new edit(s) use non-alphabetized text and scope the YYYY to only one of two leagues. Both issues are resolved by the above example. UW Dawgs ( talk) 21:02, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
@ UW Dawgs: I think that the Date and Season should be separated into different columns. Bergeronpp ( talk) 21:48, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
List of Super Bowl champions has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
I think we should add an indication to the wild card teams (like the World Series article has) and change this:
Game | Date/ |
Winning team | Score | Losing team | Venue | City | Attendance | Ref |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
XV | January 25, 1981 ( 1980) |
Oakland RaidersA (3, 2–1) |
27–10 |
Philadelphia EaglesN (1, 0–1) |
Louisiana Superdome (2) [sb 1] | New Orleans, Louisiana (5) | 76,135 |
[2] |
to this (for all 10 wild card super bowl teams, can change Buccaneers after Super Bowl is over):
Game | Date/ |
Winning team | Score | Losing team | Venue | City | Attendance | Ref |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
XV | January 25, 1981 ( 1980) |
Oakland RaidersA (3, 2–1) [W] |
27–10 |
Philadelphia EaglesN (1, 0–1) |
Louisiana Superdome (2) [sb 1] | New Orleans, Louisiana (5) | 76,135 |
[4] |
And for the 1969 Chiefs change this:
Game | Date/ |
Winning team | Score | Losing team | Venue | City | Attendance | Ref |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
IV [sb 2] |
January 11, 1970 ( 1969 AFL/ 1969 NFL) |
Kansas City Chiefsa (2, 1–1) |
23–7 |
Minnesota Vikingsn (1, 0–1) |
Tulane Stadium | New Orleans, Louisiana | 80,562 |
[5] |
to this:
Game | Date/ |
Winning team | Score | Losing team | Venue | City | Attendance | Ref |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
IV [sb 2] |
January 11, 1970 ( 1969 AFL/ 1969 NFL) |
Kansas City Chiefsa (2, 1–1) [S] |
23–7 |
Minnesota Vikingsn (1, 0–1) |
Tulane Stadium | New Orleans, Louisiana | 80,562 |
[6] |
And add this after the references list:
S Indicates a team that made the playoffs as a second-place team (rather than by winning a division).
W Indicates a team that made the playoffs as a
wild card team (rather than by winning a division).
+ Super Bowl championships NFLfanforever ( talk) 19:21, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
Adding the above would make sense to denote which teams are wild card and second place NFLfanforever ( talk) 00:58, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
References
{{
cite web}}
: Missing or empty |title=
(
help)
SBAttendance
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).I agree with NFLfanforever when they say we should add an indication to the wild card teams (like the World Series article has) and change this:
Game | Date/ |
Winning team | Score | Losing team | Venue | City | Attendance | Ref |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
XV | January 25, 1981 ( 1980) |
Oakland RaidersA (3, 2–1) |
27–10 |
Philadelphia EaglesN (1, 0–1) |
Louisiana Superdome (2) [sb 1] | New Orleans, Louisiana (5) | 76,135 |
[1] |
to this (for all 11 wild card super bowl teams):
Game | Date/ |
Winning team | Score | Losing team | Venue | City | Attendance | Ref |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
XV | January 25, 1981 ( 1980) |
Oakland RaidersA (3, 2–1) [W] |
27–10 |
Philadelphia EaglesN (1, 0–1) |
Louisiana Superdome (2) [sb 1] | New Orleans, Louisiana (5) | 76,135 |
[3] |
And for the 1969 Chiefs change this:
Game | Date/ |
Winning team | Score | Losing team | Venue | City | Attendance | Ref |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
IV [sb 2] |
January 11, 1970 ( 1969 AFL/ 1969 NFL) |
Kansas City Chiefsa (2, 1–1) |
23–7 |
Minnesota Vikingsn (1, 0–1) |
Tulane Stadium | New Orleans, Louisiana | 80,562 |
[4] |
to this:
Game | Date/ |
Winning team | Score | Losing team | Venue | City | Attendance | Ref |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
IV [sb 2] |
January 11, 1970 ( 1969 AFL/ 1969 NFL) |
Kansas City Chiefsa (2, 1–1) [S] |
23–7 |
Minnesota Vikingsn (1, 0–1) |
Tulane Stadium | New Orleans, Louisiana | 80,562 |
[5] |
And add this after the references list:
S Indicates a team that made the playoffs as a second-place team (rather than by winning a division).
W Indicates a team that made the playoffs as a
wild card team (rather than by winning a division).
Sportsfanforlife (
talk)
18:55, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
References
SBAttendance
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).I believe that this is a good idea to add a flow between these pages. I will update this ASAP. MLBrockstar50 ( talk) 11:52, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
Also in the future please post your agreement as a reply and not as a post. MLBrockstar50 ( talk) 11:56, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
While reading through the article, I noticed that there is an error in the table that shows when each Super Bowl was played. If the Super Bowl will now be held annually on the second Sunday of February instead of the first Sunday of February, then that means the date for Super Bowl LVII (57) would be on February 12, 2023, not on February 5, 2023, as listed in the table. Someone should correct that. JdhWrGrad2020 ( talk) 20:56, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
@ Sabbatino:
user:Sabbatino says breaking out "Wins by conference" information is: "That's completely false. Super Bowl and NFL Championship Game are two different things + the win-loss by conference is already listed in the section below"
===Longest streak by conference=== *[[National Football Conference]] - 13 wins, [[Super Bowl XIX|XIX]]-[[Super Bowl XXXI|XXXI]] ([[1984 NFL season|1984]]-[[1996 NFL season|1996]]) *[[American Football Conference]] - 5 wins, [[Super Bowl VII|VII]]-[[Super Bowl XI|XI]] ([[1972 NFL season|1972]]-[[1976 NFL season|1976]])
This argument for removal is inconsistent. First, if it's false, then the win-loss record needs to be corrected in the rest of the article. If it's not false, but anything listed elsewhere is superfluous, then everything beyond the first section "Super Bowl championship (1966–present)" is superfluous.
The purpose of a listing article is to apply different algorithms to a table of information into smaller and more useful snippets of information without the reader having to physically calculate the larger table for each field themselves.
Breaking out a section for conference wins & losses is just as informative, if not just as superfluous as breaking out wins & losses by team, or calculating consecutive wins & losses by team.
The information in each of those sections is laid out in the table at the top, but has been broken out for ease of use, but if the reasoning for not including something is because it's already available, then all the sections beyond the original table is unnecessary and should be removed as well.
Finally, nowhere in the article is consecutive wins by conference calculated, however it is a valid question that should be answered without the reader having to physically calculate the streak every time they wish to figure it out (as happened to be the question posed in a bet the night before I added the information to the article. - 399scout ( talk • contribs) 22:33, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
Your argument conflicts with the commonly accepted (and retroactively applied by the NFL) standard that the first 4 Super Bowls have been recognized by both the individual teams and conferences as legitimate Super Bowl wins.– this can already be found at List of Super Bowl champions#Super Bowl championship (1966–present) ("Championships table key and summary" and "Super Bowl championships" tables). There is absolutely no need to repeat the information that is already present on the page. In addition, consecutive wins by conference can easily be listed at List of Super Bowl champions#Consecutive wins, because there is no mention that this section is solely about teams (however, I am still against listing such trivia). And keep your threats with WP:DRN to yourself, because you ignored WP:BRD and thought that WP:EW is the way to go. I also notified the editors of WP:NFL about this discussion (since this page is directly tied to that WikiProject), because you did not notify them (or did not want to). – Sabbatino ( talk) 15:42, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
...You're the one who started the personal attacks by stating my calculations were false...– that is not a personal attack nor did I say that anything is false. WP:BRD specifically says that you must start a discussion when you get reverted (ant not the other way around). I will repeat again that if you want to list the streak then do it at List of Super Bowl champions#Consecutive wins but do not create a new section that duplicates the already existing information. WP:NFL is a project that handles American football pages (articles, lists, categories, etc). You can read more about what a WikiProject is at WP:PROJECT. – Sabbatino ( talk) 15:40, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
...nor did I say that anything is false...- You literally said "That's completely false" at 17:19 on 23 January in the summary of your revert. Frankly, I'm over the lecture about proper protocol from you since you still deny accusing me of putting up false information, and that is absolutely a personal attack. Had you started out more diplomatically, followed WP:ROWN, and conducted this discussion in a civilized manor, there never would have been any suggestion of fanaticism. I couldn't care less about about this page or most of the stats presented here. I simply followed WP:BRD by adding information I came to wiki to find (how long was the NFC streak in the 90s?), and not finding it anywhere else, assumed someone else might be interested and boldly put it up on the one page that gave the information to calculate said information. Your actions have completely soured my experience here and don't care if anyone else comes looking for that information again, I want nothing to do with this page. If you actually want anyone to take your advice regarding wikipedia seriously, I suggest looking in the mirror and following your own advice rather than attacking other contributors. 399scout ( talk) 20:30, 5 February 2022 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
List of Super Bowl champions has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
I want to fix the box where it lists the NFC and AFC wins and losses and update them to 56, NFC 29 and the AFC 27 Bigman4566 ( talk) 18:18, 4 March 2022 (UTC)
As a Seahawks fan the Malcolm Butler Interception is still very present. The score is the wrong way around, the Patriots won 28-24 ( https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Super_Bowl_XLIX) TheoBa ( talk) 19:55, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
See above and correct.
I actually believed everything on wikipedia was “fact” 209.172.251.101 ( talk) 04:57, 19 September 2022 (UTC)
I'm well aware what it represents. The problem is, by combining the conferences' records with this legend, the overall conference records are unnecessarily confusing. How should the NFC/AFC records read?
It's fine to keep the "green" entry on the key to make clear what it represents. But I'd at least suggest separating the records to a position outside of the key to prevent this confusion. Jtrevor99 ( talk) 04:24, 13 February 2023 (UTC)
I updated it to hopefully makes more sense to you. That overall scores are separate from the green box, that is solely a key for the Colts because of their unique history. Derknasnort ( talk) 07:53, 13 February 2023 (UTC)
Also, there is a citation at the end of the green box that can be clicked on if someone requires more clarification. Derknasnort ( talk) 08:02, 13 February 2023 (UTC)
Thank you.
Jtrevor99 (
talk)
17:29, 13 February 2023 (UTC)
Cite error: There are <ref group=note>
tags on this page, but the references will not show without a {{reflist|group=note}}
template (see the
help page).
Cite error: There are <ref group=sb>
tags on this page, but the references will not show without a {{reflist|group=sb}}
template (see the
help page).