Talk:Super Bowl XL

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Super Bowl XL has been listed as a good article under the good-article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can delist it, or ask for a review.

This article is part of WikiProject National Football League, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to the NFL on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.

Archived discussions:

• Archive 1 (February 2005-May 2006)

---

Contents 1 Note to IP 198.30.5.101 2 WP:3O 3 Good Article nomination has failed 4 The Ring 5 Added references 6 Meanlingless game

[edit] Note to IP 198.30.5.101

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

I'm IP 198.30.5.101. I forgot to sign in before making the edit. If you look at the other Super Bowl article background sections(most of which were edited by me), you'll see the background section here isn't too much longer then them. In some cases it's shorter. I think the background section should be based on the amount of relevent info, not the length. Length seems like a totaly pointless restriction.Chainclaw

OK, but I still think we should get a third opinion since it seems longer than other Super Bowl articles to me. Cheers. Aplomado ^talk 01:38, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

This article seems longer because of what I see as some sort of recency effect: everyone was putting so much tidbits and trivia as it happened in January and February. If you want to really cut something, we should start with the trivia section first (see my comment in the XL section above. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 01:45, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

I definitely agree with that, although I'm referring to the Team history sections themselves. Compare them to Super Bowl XXX, for example. Aplomado ^talk 01:51, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] WP:3O

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

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

Thanks a lot for the input. Would you like to add anything Chainclaw? Are you satisfied with this response or do you feel that more input is needed? Aplomado ^talk 23:31, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

I think "a bit of info on how each team made it to the Super Bowl" is exactly what's on this article right now. I didn't put both team's entire history, just some info on how the Steelers did in the previous seasons(only a few sentences on this) and how they had to overcome their misfortunes earlier in the season. With the Seahawks, I showed how the team turned themsevles from a non winning team 8 seasons in a row to the top team in the NFC. Sometimes, when describing how a team turned their fortunes around, you have to go way back. For example, in order to describe how the Packers made it the first Super Bowl in the 1966 season, I had to explain the steps they took to becoming a dynasty, which started in 1959. Basically I just put in whatever details are needed to show the team's road to the Super Bowl, regardless of length. The length really isn;t too much of an issue for me. Like I said, this is not the longest bckground section of all the Super Bowl articles. The articles for Super Bowl XXXIX and XXXVI are almost as long, if not longer.Chainclaw

Do you think the sections could be trimmed at all, or do you firmly believe they need to remain as-is? Aplomado ^talk 00:52, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

I think it should remain as it is.Chainclaw

Oh and as for Sbloemeke's comment about Pittsburg's offense, check out http://pro-football-reference.com/teams/pit2005.htm. As you can see, the Steelers ranked 5th in the NFL in both rushing yards and rushing touchdowns, but only 25th in passing yards and 15th in passing touchdowns. Therefore it seems obvouis that the running game was the main strength of their offense. To state it doesn't seem biased to me.Chainclaw

OK, I'll leave it be for the time being. I'm hoping to nominate this as a good article eventually, so we'll see what the Wikipedia community thinks a little farther down the trail. Aplomado ^talk 01:17, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Oh, I do not deny the Pittsburgh offense. I watch football, I know there running game is stronger. However, it still is a POV which both you and I share. Sbloemeke 23:54, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Well I don't think POV comes as much into play in sports articles. Writing about sports tends to be less neutral than other writing. I'm not saying POV doesn't come into play, but stuff like "their strength was their running game" aren't really violations I don't think. Aplomado ^talk 01:31, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Good Article nomination has failed

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

There are no references. Tarret 11:55, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Done. Aplomado ^talk 01:58, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

• Placing this on hold, 2 problems

• Article needs a good copyedit and please remove or merge the trivia section as it's considered bad writing.

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

Where should the trivia section be merged? Also, any pointers on exactly what areas need a good copyedit, and why? Aplomado ^talk 22:06, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm working on the article, trimming unnessarry detail and trivia, and doing a copyedit, Thanks Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 22:20, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Great, I appreciate it. Let me know if I can be of any help. Aplomado ^talk 22:24, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

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

[edit] The Ring

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

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

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

[edit] Added references

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

[edit] Meanlingless game

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