![]() | A news item involving Super Bowl XLIII was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the In the news section on 2 February 2009. | ![]() |
![]() | This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist.
Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. |
Reporting errors |
Nothing here on Comcast's porn interruption? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.218.220.25 ( talk) 01:33, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
Does anybody know what the two songs that were playing when the teams ran out onto the field? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.87.126.196 ( talk) 10:04, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
The Arizona Cardinals came out to "Ignition" by TobyMac. -- 66.206.186.102 ( talk) 05:23, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
Seriously, cut that shit out. Some of us come here for information. 68.52.243.143 ( talk) 02:26, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
That is why America has no faith in Wikipedia, because of idiots who graffiti and sabotauge the articles. 68.191.13.235 ( talk) 04:12, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
Oh please. Most of the article is junk, or POV, or both. That's what gives wiki a black eye.-- Reedmalloy ( talk) 08:11, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
I need someone to find out what the First Song was.
Someone can add this Spanish broadcasters?:
Spain --> Canal+ (TV) and Cadena Ser (radio). More info here: http://www.elpais.com/articulo/radio/television/Canal/SER/Superbowl/acontecimiento/deportivo/ano/EE/UU/elpepirtv/20070204elpepirtv_4/Tes/. Thanks.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.224.26.146 ( talk) 01:17, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
Taiwan --> Videoland Television Network TV. The info in the page is wrong. Super Bowl broadcaster in Taiwan is the sports channel of Videoland Television Network. Please correct this. Thanks!
—Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Chi3x10 (
talk •
contribs)
06:37, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
I wanted to add a trivia section, but the article is locked for some reason.
The piece of info I have is that this is the first Super Bowl since XVIII to feature two previous Super Bowl winning Quarterbacks (Warner with Super Bowl XXXIV and Rothliesberger with Super Bowl XL). I did my research for this on wikipedia, and I do not know how to site that. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.136.181.234 ( talk) 21:09, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
Super Bowls 13, 18, 43 all had previous Super Bowl winning qbs against each other. Bradshaw-Staubach, Plunkett-Theisman and Roethlisberger-Warner are the combos. Mjhammerle123 ( talk) 04:29, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
I forgot to also say Super Bowl 10 on the above statement. Mjhammerle123 ( talk) 19:42, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
Is the "Pro Bowl Move" section really notable enough to Super Bowl XLIII to include in this article? I mean, it's an unrelated game, and the section only serves to say it won't be related to this year's SB. -- Rividian ( talk) 11:23, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
I cut out a bunch of headers for the second time. They aren't needed for a single line of text. It's a waste of space and it extends the table of contents far more than needed. Grsz 11 18:42, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
I guess something was just won/announced? I have semi'd the page because of the flurry of people who think the decision on the finalists should be theirs. Rich Farmbrough, 03:27 19 January 2009 (UTC).
Super Bowl XL (February 5th, 2006)was highly controversial due to what many fans and sports journalists considered very poor officiating.
I feel this is an important subtopic of the Pittsburgh Steelers Super Bowl history. I would like to see someone write a non-partisan paragraph to be included in the Steelers section of this Wiki. I've been registered on Wikipedia since March, 2007, but haven't edited, so I'm locked out. Thank you in advance for any help in this.
Suggested links are referenced on this Wikipedia page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reaction_to_officiating_in_Super_Bowl_XL
Thanks, again!
Richeee (
talk)
00:56, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
Funny how both of you are Pittsburgh fans!—Preceding unsigned comment added by Richeee ( talk • contribs) 01:30, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
I guess we'll never know... but may the best team win, Grsz11, and that the officiating is accurate. I forgot to sign my comment... Richeee ( talk) 01:45, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
Both Super Bowls involved bad calls against the Steelers but the Steelers won anyway. I agree bad officiating is a problem, but if the Steelers, the ones on the losing end of those bad calls, won anyway, does it merit special attention? 69.253.219.207 ( talk) 10:16, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
Fact of the matter is Seattle was guilty of the penalties (by rule) called in Super Bowl XL. I have never heard anyone argue otherwise. The best arguments I heard were "let them play," and the officials shouldn't have such an impact in a big game. Then the whole "controversy" got a life of it's own, and some people started to buy the idea that Seattle was the victim of bogus calls as fact. Maybe if Seattle would have concentrated on catching passes instead of whining about the officiating, maybe they would have had a chance. Furthermore, the NBA loses so much respect because they let so much go uncalled (traveling, double dribble, etc.). What were the officials supposed to do....not call anything....or only call penalties when it didn't reverse a positive play? The fact that Seattle was flagged for legitmate violations of the rules (penalties) does not make it controversial. The fact that Seattle was dumb enough to commit penalties at the worse possible times is what made it controversial. If anyone caused a controversy, it wasn't the Steelers or the Officials, it was Seattle & their lack of discipline & poor timing in when they committed penalties. They have no one to thank or to blame but themselves. Take my word for it, it isn't beneath the NFL to admit when a mistake was made in a game. They do it all the time. Where was the apology from the league in this case? There wasn't one. Where is the controversy? Sorry, people who don't know their butts from a hole in the ground (even in the sports entertainment media) whining, and people who can't think for themselves, do not a legitimate controversy make. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.244.30.178 ( talk) 13:29, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
Without belaboring the obvious... any controversy over Suber Bowl XL belongs in that article, not this one. 24.8.252.164 ( talk) 11:32, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
This is a minor point, but I've removed the text under the "international" section regarding the fact that US commercials won't air in Canada during the broadcast. This is not notable, given that it is no different from any other series airing in Canada, but the original poster ( User:CrazyInSane) disagrees. Thoughts? -- Ckatz chat spy 05:39, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
“ | Canadian English language network CTV will air NBC's feed of the game live throughout Canada. As with its other American programming broadcast throughout the year, CTV is expected to request simultaneous substitution for the game, meaning most Canadians watching NBC (which is available in Canada) will see Canadian commercials during the game rather than the much-hyped American ones. [1] This has become the subject of public controversy over the years. [2] The game will also air on the French cable channel RDS. | ” |
. — `CRAZY`(lN)`SANE` 05:49, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
Simultcast on CTV I live in Quebec city and I watched the Superbowl on Sunday on both CTV and NBC and there was no simsub on WPTZ the local NBC station. VincentG ( talk) 01:12, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
Just get DirecTV like I did and you'll have no regrets. All you need is a valid US address for subscription purposes and then you'll get the direct US feed up here even in Canada. Don.
References
Reference 17 - the link goes to the wrong page. The website is http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/other_sports/american_football/7018632.stm - the current revision has an l at the end (as in stml). Would change it myself, but article is locked. 86.149.200.10 ( talk) 19:45, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
I wanted to reference the opening line posted in the Super Bowl pre-game notes section to this source: http://www.point-spreads.com/football/012609-current-super-bowl-odds.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by Oddspub ( talk • contribs)
The spread needs to be changed in this article. The popular line at almost all large sportsbooks was 7 for the steelers, not 6.5, at game time.
announcement here: http://sport.france2.fr/sports-us/51060773-fr.php (live starting at 00:10h CET) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.89.176.73 ( talk) 11:09, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
Channel 10 are televising Super Bowl XLIII starting at 10am Monday AEDST. Go Cardinals! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.23.239.106 ( talk) 12:02, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
I've found a lot of articles that supposedly say this game has been dubbed "The Recession Bowl" because of the economy's effect on commercial advertising and even ticket prices for the game. Here are links. I don't know where to put it all in the article, but I thought I'd help out and give a warning instead of having somebody delete it and say it wasn't relevant. I believe it is relevant to include the effect of the recession on the game. NFL lockout real possibility in 2011, Super Bowl feels boot of global recession, Goodell: NFL, partners not immune to recession, Super Bowl Parties, Corporate Functions Fall Victim To Economy, Super Bowl XLIII Commercials Have No Best Bets: Advertisers’ Buzz Not a Sure Win in the 2009 Recession Bowl, Finding meaning in Super Bowl darkness
conman33 ( . . .talk) 20:48, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
Personally, I like to call that Antarctica. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 161.6.149.74 ( talk) 18:54, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
I've changed it since the Wikipedia article is titled "Antarctica". « O73» 20:36, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
TV3, Ireland is broadcasting the Superbowl —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.42.118.152 ( talk) 21:58, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
Viasat SportN is broadcasting the Superbowl every year, also in 2009, from near midnight. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.17.132.50 ( talk) 22:08, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
Sport Klub is broadcasting the Superbowl in Serbia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shobra ( talk • contribs) 02:55, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
Gen. David Petraeus should be listed as being involved with the coin toss, as he was actually responsible for tossing the coin. I can't edit since I just registered.
In the Broadcasting section, under Television and then United States, it states that "this will be the Final Super Bowl." I think that's a bit of a stretch, and I can't find anything that corroborates this. It would be great if either a citation could be posted or the blurb itself removed.
Thanks. FxChiP ( talk) 00:25, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
Done
I have noticed that many sections need some work with grammar. I don't have the time to do it which is why i am not but it needs work. Some sentences had 2 periods which I corrected, but others are like this:
(USA). And need to be (USA.)
So if anyone has time to correct this it would be good Stealth ( talk)
Change the score already, Steelers are up 20-7. 76.111.67.200 ( talk) 02:04, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
I have a suggestion: Can anyone have the list of players for touchdowns, field goals, etc per team for Superbowl XLIII? RYAN 3000 ( talk) 02:16, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
Arizona scored a touchdown! Steelers leading 20-14 against cardinals —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ryansworld100000 ( talk • contribs) 02:27, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
I have a request for semi-protection in case of vandalism, because Super Bowl XLIII is is a popular sports event (I think) RYAN 3000 ( talk) 02:35, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
Just saw the article with the introductory paragraph removed, and the line "St. Louis has won 23-20 with 48 seconds to go." near the top of the article. Meanwhile, the scoreboard shows the Steelers at 27... 24.23.245.246 ( talk) 03:02, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
St. Louis? What? ROFL.
We need to archive this tomorrow... Stealth ( talk)
The following statement, "The game was noted for the amount of questionable calls favoring the Steelers and some "unfair" calls aimed at the Cardinals" is pure crap and needs to be removed. It's completely subjective and totally without merit. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Microphobia10 ( talk • contribs) 04:04, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
The penalties in Super Bowl XLIII that went against the Cardinals were rather questionable, so put a statement about it in there somewhere! 123.2.87.23 ( talk) 04:09, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
Exactly why I said the statement is subjective and without merit. End of story. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Microphobia10 ( talk • contribs) 04:13, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
OK fair enough but REALISTICALLY IF there are any major news stories that come out later on that contain substantiated criticism of the officiating in SB XLIII (which I believe to be somewhat likely, although not as likely and to the extent of the officiating in SB XL), then that should DEFINITELY be added to this article. My suggestion. 123.2.87.23 ( talk) 04:18, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
It's not without merit but there isn't any news articles about it. Gune ( talk) 09:33, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
Under Game Summary the points scored section, it has times all over the board. pick a timezone and stick to it please. Stealth ( talk)
Somebody should include this. Neverfades ( talk) 07:54, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
"Ford, Chrysler and General Motors, the Big Three automobile makers, decided not to purchase television advertisements following the three companies' business struggles in 2008 and early 2009." I heard from a friend of mine that they were required not to advertise as part of the bailout. Does anyone have any information on this? It wouldn't make sense with all the Cadillac advertising on the NFL website. kevinthenerd ( talk) 11:17, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
All slots were sold? I counted atleast 7 local commercials. Were those always intended to be local programming or were they unsold slots? Grsz 11 Review 18:32, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
This is a section that in my view should be added to the page. It is definetly a point popping out in more and more sources. I am new to wiki editing, and i don't know how to add it myself, so i wrote it here.
With five seconds remaining in the game, the ball was knocked out of Cardinals' QB Kurt Warner, and, after falling to the ground, caught by a Pittsburgh player. It was ruled a fumble on the field, which resulted in a change of possesion and consequently ended the game. Many football fans and news outlets [1] [2] [3] [4] noted that a booth review should have been conducted, since there had been a chance that Warner's arm was moving forward at the time the ball came out, which would have changed the play call from a fumble to an incomplete pass. If proved true, that would have given the ball back to the Arizona Cardinals for a play from Pittsburgh 29 yard line, with five seconds remaining. While there were other ambiguous calls made by the referees during the game, this was the most debated. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.190.223.139 ( talk) 11:27, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
References
The sentence below that reads the fifth one scored (safety) is incorrect. It needs to be changed to the 'sixth' one scored. But this article is semi-protected, so I am unable to make the correction.
Statistics In Super Bowl XLIII, Arizona and Pittsburgh combined for the fewest rushing attempts (38) and the fewest rushing yards (91) in Super Bowl history.[45] The Cardinals outgained the Steelers in both passing yards (374 to 234) and total yards (407 to 292), but committed 11 penalties for 106 yards. Arizona's safety in the fourth quarter was only the fifth one scored in Super Bowl history,[46] and the first one earned by a penalty against the opposing team in the end zone.[citation needed] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Superbowlfanatic ( talk • contribs) 18:01, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
The other safeties in previous Super Bowls were in IX (Minnesota QB Fran Tarkenton covering a botched handoff), X (Dallas punter Mitch Hoopes getting a punt blocked out of his own end zone), XX (New England QB Steve Grogan tackled attempting to pass), XXI (Denver QB John Elway sacked), XXV (New York Giants QB Jeff Hostetler sacked). NFL Films recaps covered all of these fairly well except XX (probably since it was the last points of a 46-10 blowout). Since none of these plays had penalties associated with them, the article's assertions about the number of safeties (six) and the unique nature of the sixth safety are correct. Hope this helps. RomeoMike ( talk) 06:01, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
It was a Force Fumble if you look at the video you can see one of the steelers player pushing or hitting the ball out there fore the Steelers got the ball and Card lost the game. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.205.78.38 ( talk) 19:20, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
Hungary's Sport1 is wrongly listed among radios, it's a TV. Their presenters Richard Farago (play by play) and Sandor Szabo (color comm) were in Tampa. It was a full length live broadcast starting 23:45 CET Sport1 is the home of NFL in Hungary for 5 years and they have just signed a contract to broadcast NFL for the next four years in Hungary Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.131.218.12 ( talk) 22:27, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
Should there be a reaction or "reception" section?
-- Dtothediesel ( talk) 19:43, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
The NFL announced on Feb. 5, 2009, that after reviewing the game, Darnell Dockett had 3 sacks, tying Reggie White for most sacks in a Superbowl. Can someone edit this in the main article.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Raiderbarry ( talk • contribs) 00:32, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
There are four big ones that I've noticed sports WRITERS AND BROADCASTERS (not just bloggers and pissed off fans, so don't go there) discussing:
Does anyone else think that that's enough for a section on the officiating? Helltopay27 ( talk) 03:53, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
@Helltopay27 - "the Cardinals set a Super Bowl record for penalties" - The refs did not make Gandy take three holding penalties, nor did they make Adrian Wilson (it was him, right?) level Mitch Berger, and they certainly did not cause Holmes' face mask to be grasped. That's 50 yards right there, all on objective no-brainers. "the only talk about the officiating has been that the referees blew it for the Cards" - of course. The media likes to create controversy, and the losers want to feel like they are the rightful winners. There's simply no reason for anyone to come out with an article talking about the non-calls against the Steelers.
It's been said before that there was a booth review; it just wasn't phoned down to stop play because they felt it wasn't necessary. NFL Network addressed the Holmes celebration...they said that the ref watched him for about ten seconds. Holmes did his thing after that. It was obviously a penalty, but it just wasn't seen on the field.
With the advent of 434382904 photographers and HD cameras at all angles, the subjectivity of officiating has been exposed. No official in any sport ever gets every call right, and with every objection in this game, it can be explained away or countered with a call that went the other way. Wikipedia could open controversy sections with every single NFL game played, but it'd be pointless. -- 66.206.186.102 ( talk) 05:38, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
Apparently alot of Steelers fans edit Wikipedia. To say this game had no controversy is absolutely ridiculous. And this is coming from a Saints fan. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.74.189.250 ( talk) 06:40, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
If there is going to be a game summary in the lead, I don't really care, can it at least be written without all the POV color commentary thrown in for effect? I trimmed some of it, but it really could use a complete rewrite. Thanks, -- Tom 19:54, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
can someone please fix the last paragraph of the "game summary" section, which currently incorrectly states:
"Pittsburgh got the ball back on their own 22-yard line with 2:37 left in the game and two timeouts remaining. On their first play, a holding penalty pushed them back 10 yards. Roethlisberger then completed two passes to Holmes for 27 yards. After an 11-yard reception by Nate Washington and a 4-yard run by Roethlisberger, he completed a 40-yard pass to Holmes at the Cardinals 6-yard line. Two plays later, Holmes caught a pass in the corner of the end zone and managed to land his toes down right before falling out of bounds for a touchdown. After a booth review, the touchdown pass was reversed with 35 seconds remaining. Following an interception, Warner completed a 20-yard pass to Fitzgerald and a 13-yarder to J. J. Arrington, moving the ball to the Steelers 44. With 18 seconds left, Warner prepared to attempt a Hail Mary pass with five seconds left. Warner threw a TD pass to Fitzgerald sealing the Cardinals' first Super Bowl title."
obviously incorrect. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.91.118.68 ( talk) 16:39, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
I put in a link under game summary for a couple of websites (on of them was SI.com) proclaiming XLIII to be the best Super bowl ever. If that view holds up (I suspect we will see the usual rash of such lists as Super bowl XLIV approaches) we can perhaps consider putting better references (meaning: not snap decisions by reporters the day after the game) and moving it up to the lead section. -- Legis ( talk - contribs) 20:24, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to 2 external links on
Super Bowl XLIII. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
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 19:10, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to 6 external links on
Super Bowl XLIII. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
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 23:24, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to 2 external links on
Super Bowl XLIII. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. 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 22:45, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 10 external links on Super Bowl XLIII. 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.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 02:53, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 15 external links on Super Bowl XLIII. 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) 17:42, 9 September 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 7 external links on Super Bowl XLIII. 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:
{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://www.pittnews.com/opinion/letters_to_the_editor_response_to_the_riots-1.1355106{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://www.pittnews.com/news/1.1370808-1.1370808{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://www.pittnews.com/news/rioting_not_just_a_pitt_thing-1.1372667When 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) 16:03, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
The following Wikimedia Commons files used on this page have been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 22:07, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
![]() | A news item involving Super Bowl XLIII was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the In the news section on 2 February 2009. | ![]() |
![]() | This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist.
Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. |
Reporting errors |
Nothing here on Comcast's porn interruption? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.218.220.25 ( talk) 01:33, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
Does anybody know what the two songs that were playing when the teams ran out onto the field? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.87.126.196 ( talk) 10:04, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
The Arizona Cardinals came out to "Ignition" by TobyMac. -- 66.206.186.102 ( talk) 05:23, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
Seriously, cut that shit out. Some of us come here for information. 68.52.243.143 ( talk) 02:26, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
That is why America has no faith in Wikipedia, because of idiots who graffiti and sabotauge the articles. 68.191.13.235 ( talk) 04:12, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
Oh please. Most of the article is junk, or POV, or both. That's what gives wiki a black eye.-- Reedmalloy ( talk) 08:11, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
I need someone to find out what the First Song was.
Someone can add this Spanish broadcasters?:
Spain --> Canal+ (TV) and Cadena Ser (radio). More info here: http://www.elpais.com/articulo/radio/television/Canal/SER/Superbowl/acontecimiento/deportivo/ano/EE/UU/elpepirtv/20070204elpepirtv_4/Tes/. Thanks.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.224.26.146 ( talk) 01:17, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
Taiwan --> Videoland Television Network TV. The info in the page is wrong. Super Bowl broadcaster in Taiwan is the sports channel of Videoland Television Network. Please correct this. Thanks!
—Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Chi3x10 (
talk •
contribs)
06:37, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
I wanted to add a trivia section, but the article is locked for some reason.
The piece of info I have is that this is the first Super Bowl since XVIII to feature two previous Super Bowl winning Quarterbacks (Warner with Super Bowl XXXIV and Rothliesberger with Super Bowl XL). I did my research for this on wikipedia, and I do not know how to site that. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.136.181.234 ( talk) 21:09, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
Super Bowls 13, 18, 43 all had previous Super Bowl winning qbs against each other. Bradshaw-Staubach, Plunkett-Theisman and Roethlisberger-Warner are the combos. Mjhammerle123 ( talk) 04:29, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
I forgot to also say Super Bowl 10 on the above statement. Mjhammerle123 ( talk) 19:42, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
Is the "Pro Bowl Move" section really notable enough to Super Bowl XLIII to include in this article? I mean, it's an unrelated game, and the section only serves to say it won't be related to this year's SB. -- Rividian ( talk) 11:23, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
I cut out a bunch of headers for the second time. They aren't needed for a single line of text. It's a waste of space and it extends the table of contents far more than needed. Grsz 11 18:42, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
I guess something was just won/announced? I have semi'd the page because of the flurry of people who think the decision on the finalists should be theirs. Rich Farmbrough, 03:27 19 January 2009 (UTC).
Super Bowl XL (February 5th, 2006)was highly controversial due to what many fans and sports journalists considered very poor officiating.
I feel this is an important subtopic of the Pittsburgh Steelers Super Bowl history. I would like to see someone write a non-partisan paragraph to be included in the Steelers section of this Wiki. I've been registered on Wikipedia since March, 2007, but haven't edited, so I'm locked out. Thank you in advance for any help in this.
Suggested links are referenced on this Wikipedia page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reaction_to_officiating_in_Super_Bowl_XL
Thanks, again!
Richeee (
talk)
00:56, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
Funny how both of you are Pittsburgh fans!—Preceding unsigned comment added by Richeee ( talk • contribs) 01:30, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
I guess we'll never know... but may the best team win, Grsz11, and that the officiating is accurate. I forgot to sign my comment... Richeee ( talk) 01:45, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
Both Super Bowls involved bad calls against the Steelers but the Steelers won anyway. I agree bad officiating is a problem, but if the Steelers, the ones on the losing end of those bad calls, won anyway, does it merit special attention? 69.253.219.207 ( talk) 10:16, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
Fact of the matter is Seattle was guilty of the penalties (by rule) called in Super Bowl XL. I have never heard anyone argue otherwise. The best arguments I heard were "let them play," and the officials shouldn't have such an impact in a big game. Then the whole "controversy" got a life of it's own, and some people started to buy the idea that Seattle was the victim of bogus calls as fact. Maybe if Seattle would have concentrated on catching passes instead of whining about the officiating, maybe they would have had a chance. Furthermore, the NBA loses so much respect because they let so much go uncalled (traveling, double dribble, etc.). What were the officials supposed to do....not call anything....or only call penalties when it didn't reverse a positive play? The fact that Seattle was flagged for legitmate violations of the rules (penalties) does not make it controversial. The fact that Seattle was dumb enough to commit penalties at the worse possible times is what made it controversial. If anyone caused a controversy, it wasn't the Steelers or the Officials, it was Seattle & their lack of discipline & poor timing in when they committed penalties. They have no one to thank or to blame but themselves. Take my word for it, it isn't beneath the NFL to admit when a mistake was made in a game. They do it all the time. Where was the apology from the league in this case? There wasn't one. Where is the controversy? Sorry, people who don't know their butts from a hole in the ground (even in the sports entertainment media) whining, and people who can't think for themselves, do not a legitimate controversy make. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.244.30.178 ( talk) 13:29, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
Without belaboring the obvious... any controversy over Suber Bowl XL belongs in that article, not this one. 24.8.252.164 ( talk) 11:32, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
This is a minor point, but I've removed the text under the "international" section regarding the fact that US commercials won't air in Canada during the broadcast. This is not notable, given that it is no different from any other series airing in Canada, but the original poster ( User:CrazyInSane) disagrees. Thoughts? -- Ckatz chat spy 05:39, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
“ | Canadian English language network CTV will air NBC's feed of the game live throughout Canada. As with its other American programming broadcast throughout the year, CTV is expected to request simultaneous substitution for the game, meaning most Canadians watching NBC (which is available in Canada) will see Canadian commercials during the game rather than the much-hyped American ones. [1] This has become the subject of public controversy over the years. [2] The game will also air on the French cable channel RDS. | ” |
. — `CRAZY`(lN)`SANE` 05:49, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
Simultcast on CTV I live in Quebec city and I watched the Superbowl on Sunday on both CTV and NBC and there was no simsub on WPTZ the local NBC station. VincentG ( talk) 01:12, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
Just get DirecTV like I did and you'll have no regrets. All you need is a valid US address for subscription purposes and then you'll get the direct US feed up here even in Canada. Don.
References
Reference 17 - the link goes to the wrong page. The website is http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/other_sports/american_football/7018632.stm - the current revision has an l at the end (as in stml). Would change it myself, but article is locked. 86.149.200.10 ( talk) 19:45, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
I wanted to reference the opening line posted in the Super Bowl pre-game notes section to this source: http://www.point-spreads.com/football/012609-current-super-bowl-odds.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by Oddspub ( talk • contribs)
The spread needs to be changed in this article. The popular line at almost all large sportsbooks was 7 for the steelers, not 6.5, at game time.
announcement here: http://sport.france2.fr/sports-us/51060773-fr.php (live starting at 00:10h CET) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.89.176.73 ( talk) 11:09, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
Channel 10 are televising Super Bowl XLIII starting at 10am Monday AEDST. Go Cardinals! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.23.239.106 ( talk) 12:02, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
I've found a lot of articles that supposedly say this game has been dubbed "The Recession Bowl" because of the economy's effect on commercial advertising and even ticket prices for the game. Here are links. I don't know where to put it all in the article, but I thought I'd help out and give a warning instead of having somebody delete it and say it wasn't relevant. I believe it is relevant to include the effect of the recession on the game. NFL lockout real possibility in 2011, Super Bowl feels boot of global recession, Goodell: NFL, partners not immune to recession, Super Bowl Parties, Corporate Functions Fall Victim To Economy, Super Bowl XLIII Commercials Have No Best Bets: Advertisers’ Buzz Not a Sure Win in the 2009 Recession Bowl, Finding meaning in Super Bowl darkness
conman33 ( . . .talk) 20:48, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
Personally, I like to call that Antarctica. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 161.6.149.74 ( talk) 18:54, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
I've changed it since the Wikipedia article is titled "Antarctica". « O73» 20:36, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
TV3, Ireland is broadcasting the Superbowl —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.42.118.152 ( talk) 21:58, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
Viasat SportN is broadcasting the Superbowl every year, also in 2009, from near midnight. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.17.132.50 ( talk) 22:08, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
Sport Klub is broadcasting the Superbowl in Serbia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shobra ( talk • contribs) 02:55, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
Gen. David Petraeus should be listed as being involved with the coin toss, as he was actually responsible for tossing the coin. I can't edit since I just registered.
In the Broadcasting section, under Television and then United States, it states that "this will be the Final Super Bowl." I think that's a bit of a stretch, and I can't find anything that corroborates this. It would be great if either a citation could be posted or the blurb itself removed.
Thanks. FxChiP ( talk) 00:25, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
Done
I have noticed that many sections need some work with grammar. I don't have the time to do it which is why i am not but it needs work. Some sentences had 2 periods which I corrected, but others are like this:
(USA). And need to be (USA.)
So if anyone has time to correct this it would be good Stealth ( talk)
Change the score already, Steelers are up 20-7. 76.111.67.200 ( talk) 02:04, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
I have a suggestion: Can anyone have the list of players for touchdowns, field goals, etc per team for Superbowl XLIII? RYAN 3000 ( talk) 02:16, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
Arizona scored a touchdown! Steelers leading 20-14 against cardinals —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ryansworld100000 ( talk • contribs) 02:27, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
I have a request for semi-protection in case of vandalism, because Super Bowl XLIII is is a popular sports event (I think) RYAN 3000 ( talk) 02:35, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
Just saw the article with the introductory paragraph removed, and the line "St. Louis has won 23-20 with 48 seconds to go." near the top of the article. Meanwhile, the scoreboard shows the Steelers at 27... 24.23.245.246 ( talk) 03:02, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
St. Louis? What? ROFL.
We need to archive this tomorrow... Stealth ( talk)
The following statement, "The game was noted for the amount of questionable calls favoring the Steelers and some "unfair" calls aimed at the Cardinals" is pure crap and needs to be removed. It's completely subjective and totally without merit. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Microphobia10 ( talk • contribs) 04:04, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
The penalties in Super Bowl XLIII that went against the Cardinals were rather questionable, so put a statement about it in there somewhere! 123.2.87.23 ( talk) 04:09, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
Exactly why I said the statement is subjective and without merit. End of story. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Microphobia10 ( talk • contribs) 04:13, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
OK fair enough but REALISTICALLY IF there are any major news stories that come out later on that contain substantiated criticism of the officiating in SB XLIII (which I believe to be somewhat likely, although not as likely and to the extent of the officiating in SB XL), then that should DEFINITELY be added to this article. My suggestion. 123.2.87.23 ( talk) 04:18, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
It's not without merit but there isn't any news articles about it. Gune ( talk) 09:33, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
Under Game Summary the points scored section, it has times all over the board. pick a timezone and stick to it please. Stealth ( talk)
Somebody should include this. Neverfades ( talk) 07:54, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
"Ford, Chrysler and General Motors, the Big Three automobile makers, decided not to purchase television advertisements following the three companies' business struggles in 2008 and early 2009." I heard from a friend of mine that they were required not to advertise as part of the bailout. Does anyone have any information on this? It wouldn't make sense with all the Cadillac advertising on the NFL website. kevinthenerd ( talk) 11:17, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
All slots were sold? I counted atleast 7 local commercials. Were those always intended to be local programming or were they unsold slots? Grsz 11 Review 18:32, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
This is a section that in my view should be added to the page. It is definetly a point popping out in more and more sources. I am new to wiki editing, and i don't know how to add it myself, so i wrote it here.
With five seconds remaining in the game, the ball was knocked out of Cardinals' QB Kurt Warner, and, after falling to the ground, caught by a Pittsburgh player. It was ruled a fumble on the field, which resulted in a change of possesion and consequently ended the game. Many football fans and news outlets [1] [2] [3] [4] noted that a booth review should have been conducted, since there had been a chance that Warner's arm was moving forward at the time the ball came out, which would have changed the play call from a fumble to an incomplete pass. If proved true, that would have given the ball back to the Arizona Cardinals for a play from Pittsburgh 29 yard line, with five seconds remaining. While there were other ambiguous calls made by the referees during the game, this was the most debated. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.190.223.139 ( talk) 11:27, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
References
The sentence below that reads the fifth one scored (safety) is incorrect. It needs to be changed to the 'sixth' one scored. But this article is semi-protected, so I am unable to make the correction.
Statistics In Super Bowl XLIII, Arizona and Pittsburgh combined for the fewest rushing attempts (38) and the fewest rushing yards (91) in Super Bowl history.[45] The Cardinals outgained the Steelers in both passing yards (374 to 234) and total yards (407 to 292), but committed 11 penalties for 106 yards. Arizona's safety in the fourth quarter was only the fifth one scored in Super Bowl history,[46] and the first one earned by a penalty against the opposing team in the end zone.[citation needed] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Superbowlfanatic ( talk • contribs) 18:01, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
The other safeties in previous Super Bowls were in IX (Minnesota QB Fran Tarkenton covering a botched handoff), X (Dallas punter Mitch Hoopes getting a punt blocked out of his own end zone), XX (New England QB Steve Grogan tackled attempting to pass), XXI (Denver QB John Elway sacked), XXV (New York Giants QB Jeff Hostetler sacked). NFL Films recaps covered all of these fairly well except XX (probably since it was the last points of a 46-10 blowout). Since none of these plays had penalties associated with them, the article's assertions about the number of safeties (six) and the unique nature of the sixth safety are correct. Hope this helps. RomeoMike ( talk) 06:01, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
It was a Force Fumble if you look at the video you can see one of the steelers player pushing or hitting the ball out there fore the Steelers got the ball and Card lost the game. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.205.78.38 ( talk) 19:20, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
Hungary's Sport1 is wrongly listed among radios, it's a TV. Their presenters Richard Farago (play by play) and Sandor Szabo (color comm) were in Tampa. It was a full length live broadcast starting 23:45 CET Sport1 is the home of NFL in Hungary for 5 years and they have just signed a contract to broadcast NFL for the next four years in Hungary Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.131.218.12 ( talk) 22:27, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
Should there be a reaction or "reception" section?
-- Dtothediesel ( talk) 19:43, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
The NFL announced on Feb. 5, 2009, that after reviewing the game, Darnell Dockett had 3 sacks, tying Reggie White for most sacks in a Superbowl. Can someone edit this in the main article.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Raiderbarry ( talk • contribs) 00:32, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
There are four big ones that I've noticed sports WRITERS AND BROADCASTERS (not just bloggers and pissed off fans, so don't go there) discussing:
Does anyone else think that that's enough for a section on the officiating? Helltopay27 ( talk) 03:53, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
@Helltopay27 - "the Cardinals set a Super Bowl record for penalties" - The refs did not make Gandy take three holding penalties, nor did they make Adrian Wilson (it was him, right?) level Mitch Berger, and they certainly did not cause Holmes' face mask to be grasped. That's 50 yards right there, all on objective no-brainers. "the only talk about the officiating has been that the referees blew it for the Cards" - of course. The media likes to create controversy, and the losers want to feel like they are the rightful winners. There's simply no reason for anyone to come out with an article talking about the non-calls against the Steelers.
It's been said before that there was a booth review; it just wasn't phoned down to stop play because they felt it wasn't necessary. NFL Network addressed the Holmes celebration...they said that the ref watched him for about ten seconds. Holmes did his thing after that. It was obviously a penalty, but it just wasn't seen on the field.
With the advent of 434382904 photographers and HD cameras at all angles, the subjectivity of officiating has been exposed. No official in any sport ever gets every call right, and with every objection in this game, it can be explained away or countered with a call that went the other way. Wikipedia could open controversy sections with every single NFL game played, but it'd be pointless. -- 66.206.186.102 ( talk) 05:38, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
Apparently alot of Steelers fans edit Wikipedia. To say this game had no controversy is absolutely ridiculous. And this is coming from a Saints fan. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.74.189.250 ( talk) 06:40, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
If there is going to be a game summary in the lead, I don't really care, can it at least be written without all the POV color commentary thrown in for effect? I trimmed some of it, but it really could use a complete rewrite. Thanks, -- Tom 19:54, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
can someone please fix the last paragraph of the "game summary" section, which currently incorrectly states:
"Pittsburgh got the ball back on their own 22-yard line with 2:37 left in the game and two timeouts remaining. On their first play, a holding penalty pushed them back 10 yards. Roethlisberger then completed two passes to Holmes for 27 yards. After an 11-yard reception by Nate Washington and a 4-yard run by Roethlisberger, he completed a 40-yard pass to Holmes at the Cardinals 6-yard line. Two plays later, Holmes caught a pass in the corner of the end zone and managed to land his toes down right before falling out of bounds for a touchdown. After a booth review, the touchdown pass was reversed with 35 seconds remaining. Following an interception, Warner completed a 20-yard pass to Fitzgerald and a 13-yarder to J. J. Arrington, moving the ball to the Steelers 44. With 18 seconds left, Warner prepared to attempt a Hail Mary pass with five seconds left. Warner threw a TD pass to Fitzgerald sealing the Cardinals' first Super Bowl title."
obviously incorrect. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.91.118.68 ( talk) 16:39, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
I put in a link under game summary for a couple of websites (on of them was SI.com) proclaiming XLIII to be the best Super bowl ever. If that view holds up (I suspect we will see the usual rash of such lists as Super bowl XLIV approaches) we can perhaps consider putting better references (meaning: not snap decisions by reporters the day after the game) and moving it up to the lead section. -- Legis ( talk - contribs) 20:24, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to 2 external links on
Super Bowl XLIII. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
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 19:10, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to 6 external links on
Super Bowl XLIII. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
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 23:24, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to 2 external links on
Super Bowl XLIII. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. 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 22:45, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 10 external links on Super Bowl XLIII. 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.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 02:53, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 15 external links on Super Bowl XLIII. 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) 17:42, 9 September 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 7 external links on Super Bowl XLIII. 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:
{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://www.pittnews.com/opinion/letters_to_the_editor_response_to_the_riots-1.1355106{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://www.pittnews.com/news/1.1370808-1.1370808{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://www.pittnews.com/news/rioting_not_just_a_pitt_thing-1.1372667When 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) 16:03, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
The following Wikimedia Commons files used on this page have been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 22:07, 22 January 2019 (UTC)