Jump to content

Talk:Green Bay Packers/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3

There is evidence that the G stands for both Greatness and Green Bay. Its inside Lambeau Field itself. There is a plaque inside the tunnel that the entire teams trots past. Mike Sherman relocated the concrete there during the 2003 renovation. Part of the plaque reads: "Proud generations of Green Bay Packers players have run over this very concrete to Greatness." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.209.170.254 (talk) 10:26, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

The article states: However, since its inception in 1961, the Packer's "G" has been redesigned several times and now looks like Georgia's original 1964 "G."

The logo image caption says "Packers logo 1961-present".

If the "G" has been redesigned several times, the logo image caption is (slightly) misleading. It would be good to see a few examples (either photos of logos, or drawn) of these redesigned "G"'s to see how it changed.

142.36.45.136 (talk) 20:35, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Also, the article who talk about who designed the original G. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kramer14 (talk • contribs) 02:48, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

One more thing... The "G" actually stands for "Greatness". Here's a link to a reference: [http://shar.es/3Wdn8] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dreammaker182 (talk • contribs) 18:08, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

The reference above for the "G" standing for "Greatness" is circular. That reference references back to an earlier incarnation of this page.

There is NO EVIDENCE ANYWHERE, other than internet hearsay and gossip, that it ever stood for anything other than "Green Bay", officially. It is not verifiable. Unofficially and somewhat humorously, it probably has been referred to as standing for "Greatness", or a good deal of other words or phrases beginning with "G". In fact, a Packers fan page suggests that it stands for "God's Chosen Team".

Please correct this and make note that Tiki Barber, in doing his piece for Yahoo "News", did not do his homework on sources. All he accomplished was making some Packer players look foolish for no reason whatsoever. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Twintwelve1484 (talk • contribs) 12:42, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

It's now doubly circular, since the Sioux City Journal article uses Barber's video and "a google question search" as evidence. A Google search which returns this Wikipedia article and all the various sites which cut-and-paste Wiki content to pad their text. Which means that the source for the assertion is now a newspaper website which cites this article as proof. I'm going to remove the citation, and consequently the assertion. SixFourThree (talk) 20:23, 14 February 2011 (UTC)SixFourThree
Instead of removing the citation, maybe we could put that Barber made the assertion, but is not verified by a reliable source, since it would help remedy the disinformation. Maybe something like "Although commonly believed to stand for "greatness" after a Tiki Barber segment, no official source states that it stands for anything other than "Green Bay"--Jeff (talk) 17:36, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
If it means anything, I was always taught (and I'll admit it is by definition unverifiable) that the line was given by the organization's president, or someone of similar position, at the end of the 1961 season, after Lombardi had brought them back to world champion status for the first time in well over a decade; something about a question as to whether it stood for "Green", or "Green Bay". Its real meaning is, just like the C for the Bears, the city name, as was basically the league standard of the time. --Chr.K. (talk) 02:03, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Untitled

It says: the Packers lost the francise in 1921 due to financial troubles. Not true! They lost it because they were caught using active college players from Notre Dame in a game and were forced by the league to forfeit the franchise to be made an example of. The Bears were the ones who squealed on Green Bay. Curly Lambeau went to ND, thus ND players playing for Grren Bay. That should be edited.

There is also a picture stating that the Pack wore the 1929 throwback uniforms in 2010. They also wore them in 2011 against St. Louis.

There should be something that states that the Green Bay Packers are a national franchise with a national following. Denying reality would be the only reason not to do so. They are a national franchise, extending well beyond the borders of Wisconsin. There are shareholders in all 50 states, Canada the UK and Japan. Green Bay is a national franchise. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.209.170.254 (talk) 10:43, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Dual, not duel

Fairly trivial, but near the end of section 2.7.3 1998–2006 there is the statement "Harlan felt the duel roles were too much for one man to handle and removed Sherman from the GM position in early 2005, while retaining him as a head coach."

It should be dual roles, not duel roles. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ftumch (talk • contribs) 12:46, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

I made the fix. Thanks. Useight's Public Sock (talk) 16:08, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

im sitting next to a boy/girl idk what he/she is it might even be a it — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.30.38.235 (talk) 16:56, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 14 May 2013

take off jeffsaturday and charles woodson 142.35.96.5 (talk) 20:58, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Not done: I see no current references to Saturday or Woodson in this article as current players (I assume this is what you meant). If you were referring to the roster table, I just reverted vandalism to that table; it's possible you saw a vandalized version. BryanG (talk) 21:20, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 25 July 2013

[1] http://www.packers.com/community/shareholders.html

Fans have supported the team financially through five stock sales: 1923, 1935, 1950, 1997 and 2011.

Today, 364,122 people (representing 5,014,545 shares) are owners of the iconic franchise.

The organization’s fifth stock offering, which ended Feb. 29, 2012, was a tremendous success with more than 250,000 new shareholders becoming owners. For the first time in a Packers stock offering, international sales in Canada were issued for a short while and accounted for approximately 2,000 shares.

More than 269,000 shares were sold during the offering that began Dec. 6, 2011. Exetor (talk) 16:50, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Not done: please make your request in a "change X to Y" format. As it is, I think this topic is pretty much already covered by Green Bay Packers#Public company. BryanG (talk) 21:12, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

"public company"

"but after the death of founder Lambeau in 1965, on September 11, 1965, the stadium was renamed Lambeau Field."  ???? someone fix please —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.6.208.88 (talk) 00:38, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Will do, my apologies. I will slap a citation needed tag on it forthwith. Maraniss should have this, if not him, at least one other, see Vince Lombardi. Being it September 11th and I am from New York, trust me, I got this one. The clinker in all this is that when they renamed City Field to Lambeau Field it absolutely enraged Lombardi(of course that statement should never ever go in Lambeau Field or Green Bay Packers - it is strictly a Lombardi factoid - which I have not put in yet because the Lombardi article is suffering tremendously from too much inclusion of the Ice Bowl which I have been working diligently on.
Good job here. Let's tackle the easy stuff first :) 66.234.33.8 (talk) 00:28, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
My bad. The article is locked :( 66.234.33.8 (talk) 00:30, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

"The fifth sale in the team's history, which will finance further renovations to Lambeau Field, began on December 6, 2011 and will run through February 29, 2012" - This needs to be updated as February 29, 2012 has passed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.101.72.2 (talk) 01:28, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Public Company section

The first sentence of the public company section reads "The Packers are the only community-owned franchise in American professional sports major leagues." However, the citation provided only states that they are the only such franchise in the NFL, not for all major leagues. I think that this sentence should either be changed, or that a better citation needs to be found, if one exists. 216.80.140.25 (talk) 19:30, 30 October 2011 (UTC) 

                                                                                                                     A false listing under 'Public Company' exists. It states that the stock owned by shareholders has no equity. That is pure fiction. It also states that the stock is not protected under securities law, also not true. Those both need to be deleted please. Thank you. 24.209.170.254 (talk) 08:06, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Update needed

With the ending of the season just a day ago i believe this page needs to be updated in order to include the 2013-2014 season. It was a season of ups and downs with the emergence of a running game in Eddie Lacy and the loss of a passing game for about six weeks due to the collarbone injury of Aaron Rodgers. There should be some mention of Matt Flynn's return to Lambeu along with the awarding of rookie of the year to Eddie Lacy. This update should also include the loss to the San Francisco 49ers in the NFC wildcard game, which i see has been updated on the table but not in its own section. Also while reading back through the article i realized there wasn't much discussed about Lombardi. I believe that this section should go into more detail considering the superbowl trophy is named after one of the Green Bay Packer's old coaches.User:Ppatel61 —Preceding undated comment added 03:21, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 February 2014

-need to add 1993 playoff record against detroit lions 28-24 and loss against dallas 17-27 any sports almanic will tell you that or even the packers own website. its missing from the playoff records on wikipedia. the playoff wins and loses do not add up without 1993's games 68.187.112.112 (talk) 06:42, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. — {{U|Technical 13}} (t • e • c) 01:37, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

History 2011-2013

The last sentence in 2011-2013 says, "In 2013 the packers lost to the New York Gaints in playoffs game one." They lost to the San Francisco 49ers not the Gaints. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.187.112.112 (talk) 05:51, 27 February 2014 (UTC) 68.187.112.112 (talk) 06:17, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 February 2014

Under history 2011-2013. The last sentence says "In 2013 the Packers lost to the New York Gaints in playofs game one". In reality the lost to the San Fransisco 49er. Please change or remove the sentence.68.187.112.112 (talk) 06:28, 28 February 2014 (UTC) 68.187.112.112 (talk) 06:28, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

I have corrected the wrong sentence, after fact checking. --Sine Cera, Infobesity (talk) 08:00, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 December 2014

Citation for claim that Packers are the only "non-profit, *publicly-owned* major league professional sports team in the United States":

Please change "The Packers are the only non-profit, community-owned major league professional sports team in the United States.[citation needed]" to "The Packers are the only non-profit, publicly-owned major league professional sports team in the United States.[2]" Webbhorn (talk) 18:24, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Done --Mdann52talk to me! 18:27, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Cite error: The named reference undefined was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  2. ^ Zirin, Dave (January 25, 2011). "Those Non-Profit Packers". The New Yorker. Retrieved December 28, 2014.

Hello, I registered to point out that the dead link to "NFL Chronology," item 5 in the "Notes and references" section is available via the Wayback Machine. The latest available date for the document is March 9th, 2012. The URL is: http://web.archive.org/web/20120309110019/http://static.nfl.com/static/content/public/image/history/pdfs/History/Chronology.pdf.

I don't have the authority to edit this page, and even if I did I can't figure out how I would/could edit the reflist. If someone could update the aforementioned link to the URL I provided or another one with the same data for reference, it would be greatly appreciated.

Thanks, Gadidae. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gadidae (talk • contribs) 11:17, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 January 2015

In the playoff history section both the wildcard and divisional results of the 1993 season are missing. The Green Bay Packers beat the Detroit Lions in the wildcard game and lost to the Dallas Cowboys in the divisional game. Please enter this information to make this page correct. Packerman12 (talk) 18:30, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. — {{U|Technical 13}} (e • t • c) 20:40, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Defeated Detroit Lions in 2008 season finale

Under the section titled 2008, in which the team's 2008 season is described, "The Packers began their 2008 season with their 2005 first-round draft pick, quarterback Aaron Rodgers, under center, as the first QB other than Favre to start for the Packers in 16 years. Rodgers played well in his first year starting for the Packers, throwing for over 4000 yards and 28 touchdowns. However, injuries plagued the Packers' defense, as they lost 7 close games by 4 points or less, finishing with a 6–10 record. After the season, eight assistant coaches were dismissed by McCarthy, including Bob Sanders, the team's defensive coordinator, who was replaced by Dom Capers." should be changed to say, "The Packers began their 2008 season with their 2005 first-round draft pick, quarterback Aaron Rodgers, under center, as the first QB other than Favre to start for the Packers in 16 years. Rodgers played well in his first year starting for the Packers, throwing for over 4000 yards and 28 touchdowns. However, injuries plagued the Packers' defense, as they lost 7 close games by 4 points or less, finishing with a 6–10 record. After the season, eight assistant coaches were dismissed by McCarthy, including Bob Sanders, the team's defensive coordinator, who was replaced by Dom Capers. On a positive note, however, they won their final game of the season 31-21 against the Detroit Lions, giving their opponent the first 0-16 season in league history. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.28.129.216 (talk) 02:32, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

please change ((dividends)) to dividends
the link is surprising

 Not done - why, when discussing Packers ownership and stock, would a link to dividends surprise you? - Arjayay (talk) 17:55, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 11 external links on Green Bay Packers. 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).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 06:21, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 29 August 2015

In the "Quick Facts" box the Division Championships should read 22 and not 17. The Packers won Division Titles for the following: West: 1936, 1938, 1939, 1944, 1960, 1961, 1962, 1965, 1966 Central: 1967, 1972, 1995, 1996, 1997 North: 2002, 2003, 2004, 2007, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014

Titletown1919 (talk) 05:35, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Not done. Please gain a consensus first. The NFL from 1950 to 1966 was divided into Eastern and Western Conferences, not two divisions. In 1950, as a result of the merger with the All-America Football Conference, the American and National Conferences were created to replace the East and West Divisions (see http://www.nfl.com/history/chronology/1941-1950#1950) In 1953, the names of the American and National conferences were changed to the Eastern and Western conferences -- but again they were still conferences (see http://www.nfl.com/history/chronology/1951-1960#1953) It was only until 1967 that the NFL realigned into two conferences with two divisions each: the Capitol and Century Divisions in the Eastern Conference and the Central and Coastal Divisions in the Western Conference (http://www.nfl.com/history/chronology/1961-1970#1966) Thus, using this convention, the Packers won NFL Western Conference titles in 1960, 1961, 1962, 1965, and 1966 -- not division titles during those seasons. And this is what is currently reflected in the box (emphasis added):
  • Conference championships (9)
    • NFL Western: 1960, 1961, 1962, 1965, 1966, 1967
    • NFC: 1996, 1997, 2010
Zzyzx11 (talk) 07:42, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Practice facilities in Infobox?

Why do we have the three practice facilities in the infobox? No other NFL page does this. Worse yet, the clutter up the top of the box. References are a good idea, so I'm moving them into the main body of the article. SixFourThree (talk) 17:09, 11 September 2015 (UTC)SixFourThree

Third oldest team? Really?

In the introductory paragraph, this article claims that the Packers are the third oldest team in the NFL. I am unable to verify this assertion, and would love for someone to substantiate it. The Cardinals are clearly oldest, having been founded in 1898. Who is the second oldest? The only candidate I can come up with is the Bears. But while the fact that the Bears were founded as the Staleys in 1919 is well documented, I have been utterly unable to lay my hands on a more specific date, and without said date it is impossible to tell if the Bears or Packers are older. If someone knows the answer to this, please email me: rich@world.std.com. (note that I am more interested in acquiring the datum than in advocating any particular changes for the Wikipedia pages). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.18.203.194 (talk) 04:14, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

The Bears and Cardinals are definitely the two oldest teams, as they are the only current NFL teams on the original NFL Charter. The Packers, Giants, and Redskins all followed a few years later, but I am not sure in what order. (my source: "Papa Bear: The Life and Legacy of George Halas" by Jeff Davis.) Regardless, the intro paragraph now says they are the 'second oldest team' and this is clearly incorrect. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.202.200.144 (talk • contribs) 19:24, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Actually, the Packers were also founded in 1919, but, like the Cardinals, were originally founded as an amateur athletic club. The Packers did not actually join the NFL until 1921. IMO, I think the "controversy" comes into play when the Chicago Bears' official team and league records started to cite Halas as the "founder" as he took over control of the team in 1920, NOT when the Staleys were actually founded in 1919. I mean the Bears official site does not even mention one peep about their 1919 season,[1] while the Packers official site makes a big deal about their August 11, 1919 founding.[2] Therefore, I'm not at all surprised that there are no reliable sources that can give a specific date as to when the Staleys were founded in 1919... Zzyzx11 (talk) 04:30, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
Agreed. Even if the 1919 Staley team was the same as the one which eventually became the Bears (which the Bears deny), was that team founded before August 11? I think the Packers should be considered the second oldest unless and until some evidence can place the Staleys before that date. SixFourThree (talk) 20:32, 2 February 2011 (UTC)SixFourThree


Another point, in another section of the article, "Today "Green Bay Packers" is the oldest team-name still in use in the NFL". The Cardinals have been the Cardinals since 1901, when they changed their name from the "Normals". They have moved cities, but their team-name has been the Cardinals since 1901, meaning they beat the Packers by a few years. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 153.31.113.21 (talk) 19:52, 4 February 2011 (UTC)


Well according to the article, it says "Green Bay Packers" not just "Packers". So it is not referring to the actually name of the team, but the name of the team with the city they're in. So Cardinals wouldn't be the oldest because they moved cities, so they have a completely different name. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.84.166.79 (talk) 20:21, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
If you want to get legal and technical with the wording, the exact phrase that is currently cited on the Arizona Cardinals article is "the oldest continuously run professional American football club in the United States". Zzyzx11 (talk) 20:55, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

There's no doubt that the Packers are the oldest same name/same city team in the US. I'm unsure whether the Packers or the Staleys were founded first. They both started their first season in late 1919.

Here's the scores printed in a Oct. 3, 1921 Rockford, IL newspaper:

  • Green Bay Packers, 49; Rockford Olympics, 0.
  • Rock Island Independents, 0; Detroit Tigers, 0.
  • Staleys, 35; Waukegan, 0.
  • Cardinals, 20; Minneapolis Marines, 0.
  • Evanstons, 7; Rogers Parks, 0.
  • Downers Gorve, 7; Logan Squares, 0.


(Note: Detroit Tigers are not related to the Detroit Lions.)

Dan20001 (talk) 06:31, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm not disputing the fact that the Packers are the oldest team to have never relocated to another city. The original question is whether the Packers or the Bears are the second oldest continuously run team after the Cardinals. And if the Bears officially want to deny their first 1919 season, and we cannot find any reliable sources that cite a specific date of the Staleys' founding, then we should probably go with the Packers based on the "verifiability, not truth" rules of Wikipedia:Verifiability. Or just completely avoid the issue altogether and just mention their "never relocated to another city" record. Zzyzx11 (talk) 06:55, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
This argument is as old as the hills, and is one cornerstone of the rivalry between the two teams. The Packers' entrance into the NFL was delayed by objections from the Bears (either over the quality of the Packers' club, a personal grudge of Halas', an argument over an unpaid debt, or some other cause depending on the myth believed.) The Packers, who had expected to be able to enter the NFL in 1920, failed to field a team that year after the NFL rejected their first application for membership. The Bears consider themselves the older franchise by virtue of having been continuously in operation since 1919, and by virtue of having entered the NFL as a charter member in 1920, while the Packers' entrance into the league was in dispute. Green Bay began continuous operation in 1921; but, prides itself on an earlier date of foundation, and on having been the unfair victim of the Bears' "dirty tricks." The trouble is finding sources for this -- there are few, if any, unbiased sources in this rivalry. Both teams' programs are famous for spreading misinformation regarding each other. The best thing to do is to remove all claims of precedence from Packers and Bears articles. This is how the NFL's own materials and websites currently treat the question. Best wishes, Xoloz (talk) 21:09, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
I don't think your information is correct. The Packers "began continuous operation" in 1919, not 1921 (1921 is when they joined the NFL). The Packers' entrance into the NFL is not "in dispute" - league records clearly indicate that the Packers were granted a franchise in the league for the 1921 season. I think you're conflating the Packers' temporary expulsion from the NFL after the 1922 season for using college players in a game[3] (a common occurance at the time, even in Chicago). That expulsion was orchestrated by George Halas, and did indeed fuel the rivalry between himself and Lambeau. Finally, the Bears do not consider "1919" as their date of founding - they trace their own history back to 1920[4], which must mean they separate the earlier Decateur Staley team from the one which Halas ran. SixFourThree (talk) 20:18, 14 February 2011 (UTC)SixFourThree
Packers were formed in 1919. Cardinals in 1898. Bears were also technically formed in 1919. People consider them second because of the fact that they were a founding team in the NFL while the Packers were not inducted until 1921. Giants were formed in 1925.

I've always thought the Packers were second oldest behind the Cardinals and did not realize the Bears were formed in 1919. I thought the Bears formed as the Decatur Staleys in 1920. 207.177.213.110 (talk) 14:04, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

That's because, as I mentioned above, the Staleys/Bears seem to want to totally deny their 1919 season, and officially say they were "founded" by Halas in 1920. While on the other hand the Packers officially tout their 1919 establishment, even though they did not actually join the NFL until 1921. Zzyzx11 (talk) 21:50, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
There might actually be some justification for that on the Bears' part. Historian Larry Names has made the claim (unsuccessfully) that the 1919 Packers should be considered a continuation of the previous town team, and the founding date is properly a couple years earlier. That doesn't hold up, because although the 1919 Packers were Green Bay's "town team," they weren't the same team as the Green Bay Whales of the previous years. If the Staleys brought Halas in to replace their existing football team, not simply take it over, then the Bears can rightly say that their founding date was 1920 and their founder was Papa Bear. Halas's book does not make this point clear, and that seems to be the only evidence offered to "correct the Bears' mistake" on their Wiki page. SixFourThree (talk) 14:33, 24 February 2011 (UTC)SixFourThree

Why not call a truce and move it out of the introductory paragraph :) ? At least us readers can read for a little while in peace :) It looks like there is a fight over the definition of the word franchise and team. I would much rather get into an argument on what is the greatest rivalry in the history of the nfl than which team went first w unreliable sources all over the place :) Anyone want to (rhetorically speaking) get into a historical debate over whom the Packers biggest rivals (based on notable and reliable sources) are the Chicago Bears or the, whats those other 2 teams names in the Black and Blue Division? (i barely even watch football and I am certainly not a bear or packer fan :) ) 66.234.33.8 (talk) 00:15, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

The sentence should be revised or eliminated. Even if one considers the 1920-present Staleys/Bears franchise to be a continuation of the 1919 Staleys (which is questionable for reasons others have already stated), no one has yet proven that the original Staleys were founded before August 11, 1919. So there is no apparent basis for claiming the Bears were founded before the Packers. The fact that the Staleys eventually joined the APFA before the Packers did is completely irrelevant to which franchise (or team, if you like) is older. So, at the very least, we don't know which franchise was founded first, which renders the article's description of the Packers as "the third-oldest franchise in the NFL" factually unsupported. Moreover, if we must break the tie somehow, the only principled way is to consider which team began play earlier in 1919. And the Packers played their first game in 1919 before the Staleys did (compare http://www.profootballarchives.com/1919greenb.html with http://www.profootballarchives.com/1919dec.html). The historical record may be incomplete if we look to dates of founding, but if we turn to actual football games, the Packers are older than the 1919 Staleys franchise. (And again, if the Bears want to claim Halas as their founder, then their franchise really only began with the 1920 Staleys.) So there are at least two reasons to consider the Packers the NFL's second-oldest franchise: The Bears' lineage does not include the 1919 Staleys, and even if it did, the Packers have been playing football for longer. Unless some new source surfaces to place the 1919 Staleys' founding before August 11 of that year, there is no reason whatsoever to imply that the Bears are older than the Packers. Therefore, absent new information, continuing to describe the Packers as the NFL's third-oldest franchise is indefensible. Someone needs either to change the disputed sentence to read "second-oldest," or get rid of it entirely on the ground that the 1919 Staleys' founding date is unknown. 128.84.233.195 (talk) 11:22, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

According to Professional Football Researchers Association, it says that the Decatur Staleys was founded at a meeting of the plant welfare society on September 19, 1919. http://www.pfraforum.org/index.php?showtopic=1568&view=findpost&p=18726 Sheenmeister (talk) 09:38, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, but that is a link to the PFRA's discussion forum, not an actual article by the PFRA itself. Posts from any discussion board are not considered reliable sources to use as references to verify facts in Wikipedia articles. How do we know that the first poster who mentioned the September 19 date on that discussion thread is an authoritative member of the PFRA? Looks like some random anonymous poster. There is no indication where he got that information from. We need something more reliable than that post. Zzyzx11 (talk) 16:05, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
You're right, of course, about that source's reliability. But whether the Staleys were founded on 9/19/19 or not, there is still NO evidence at all that they were founded before (the Packers' founding on) 8/11/19. How this article continues to refer to the Packers as the third-oldest team is beyond me. There's just no factual basis for saying that at all. If we don't know which franchise came first, that statement has got to go. Right? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.84.127.80 (talk) 04:20, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
Any answer to this query has to be linked with the rest of the Wikipedia. At present, the respective entries 1919 Green Bay Packers season and 1919 Decatur Staleys season have the Packers fielding a team for their first game 3 weeks before the Staleys did. Barring a clear determination of dates, I think you have to go by the date of the first game for the time being. However, the September 19 founding date cited above for the Staleys versus the August 11 date for the Packers is consistent with the times of first play: about 3 weeks' difference. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.89.130.90 (talk) 22:31, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

how come the first 2 superbowls the packers won are seperated?

Super bowls I and II to be more specific. the sidebar labels them "afc-nfc superbowls", which is overly pedantic and not representative of the general usage of the term "Superbowl" in modern NFL vernascular. such pendatry if must be included should only be in the article tet and not put into the sidebar as is generally used as a summary of information68.117.94.245 (talk) 09:39, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Sometimes pedantry is required due to Wikipedia being "the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit." Are you familiar with http://www.packers.com/history/super-bowls-and-championships.html which states that the Packers have an NFL high of 13 total championships? That count of 13 does not include the 1966 and 1967 NFL championships played during the same seasons as those Super Bowls prior to the 1970 AFL-NFL Merger. Unfortunately, we have had numerous people in the past, who are not familiar with the nature of the first four Super Bowls and the merger, end up either changing the number of league championships to 15, remove Super Bowls I and II from that list, or remove the 1966 and 1967 NFL championships from that list. Again, because of the nature of Wikipedia being something where anybody can come in and edit, several people who in the words of Jim Mora, "think you know but you don't know", end up adding/removing wrong information. Zzyzx11 (talk) 11:52, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Favre retired number year needs updating

In the retired number section Favre is listed as "Retired 2010". It's not meant to be the year he retired from the league, but the year his number went up at Lambeau Field. That just happened last night, on 11/26/15. Please update to "Retired 2015" as I do not have the ability to do so. Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.189.220.207 (talk) 15:33, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

Cheeseheads--orange??

Except for ones spraypainted as humorous headgear during hunting season, I don't think I've ever seen an orange cheesehead. They're all yellow. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.75.212.6 (talk) 19:24, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

Comma Splice

There is a comma splice in the section on Community Ownership, where it says: "No one is allowed to hold more than 200,000 shares, approximately 4% of the 5,011,557 shares currently outstanding." I do not have edit authority on the article but ask that someone who does fix the comma splice with a semicolon or conjunction.

Fixed. Thanks for pointing that out.--NortyNort (Holla) 13:22, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request

Sportyguy03 removed some factually correct information with this edit. Although he was correct that the sentence (Packers are "the only publicly owned, not-for-profit, major professional team in the United States") was not supported by the cited source, there are other sources that do support that statement: a New Yorker article and ESPN. Could someone please restore the original language, using the sources I've provided? Thanks. 32.218.43.242 (talk) 03:32, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Working on it. Thanks, Shearonink (talk) 03:48, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
Done. Shearonink (talk) 04:18, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

WP:DATERANGE - Date Ranges in Infobox

@Charlesaaronthompson: please stop changing the date ranges in the infobox. Per WP:DATERANGE, the second year is supposed to be shortened, i.e. 1919–22, not 1919–1922. Thank you, « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 18:34, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

@Gonzo fan2007: Fine. In order to avoid edit-warring with you over this, and in order to avoid being blocked from editing because of any potential violations of the three-revert rule, I'll leave the formatting in the Green Bay Packers article alone, for now. Just so you know, I read WP:DASH; it's fine to use (–) instead of having to type out –; that's all I was trying to do there. Charlesaaronthompson (talk) 18:51, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
@Charlesaaronthompson: It may be fine to use a (-) in an article, but there is absolutely no need to go through and change – to (-). It is absolutely pointless and even if it is not required, – is absolutely preferred. Regarding dates, WP:DATERANGE is pretty clear about how dates are supposed to be written. Just because you don't revert 3 times in a day doesn't mean you won't get blocked for disruptive editing or a slow edit war. I would recommend you not change it again. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 19:33, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

Retired numbers

The image in the retired number section needs to be updated to include Brett Favre's #4

Megacheez (talk) 03:10, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Green Bay Packers. 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).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:33, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 August 2017

Small spelling mistake

CHANGE Packers great Brett Favre, who played for 16 years in Green Bay, and had his #4 jersey retried by the Packers in 2015 TO Packers great Brett Favre, who played for 16 years in Green Bay, and had his #4 jersey retired by the Packers in 2015 Apshoemaker (talk) 15:33, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

Done DRAGON BOOSTER ★ 16:02, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Green Bay Packers. 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).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:19, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 December 2017

Please change Division Championships (18) to Division Championships (19) because the Green Bay Packers won a division title in 1982, according to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NFC_North. Under NFC Central, please add the year 1982.

Thank you. 2600:8804:302:690F:34C2:C8F5:7183:DD2A (talk) 10:28, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

 Not done. The fact that Wikipedia can't use itself as a source notwithstanding, that page you linked to says no division championship was awarded that year. CityOfSilver 20:28, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 April 2018

In the 2017 season recap, it states that Aaron Rodgers was hurt during a Thursday Night football game against the Vikings. This is not correct. He was injured during a Sunday game on October 15, 2017.

http://www.espn.com/nfl/team/schedule/_/name/gb/index JHAACK47 (talk) 17:12, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

 Done — MRD2014 Talk 12:44, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 May 2018

It says that the Superbowl that the Packers won against is in 2011 but is actually in 2010. Tanay V (talk) 22:46, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

 Done I was a little unsure on this. The match itself was actually in 2011, but as part of the 2010 season if I'm reading that right, not a follower of American football. A random sampling of other team articles (New England Patriots and Denver Broncos) seem to list the Super Bowl wins by the season year, so I've reworded accordingly. NiciVampireHeart 23:08, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 July 2018

Green Bay Packers Pro Football Hall of Famers Gbp vanaku (talk) 14:52, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ‑‑ElHef (Meep?) 15:00, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 September 2018

Three suggestions:

1. The Hall of Fame section needs to be updated. In the first sentence of that section, the number "25" should replace "24" [1] (which accounts for the addition of Jerry Kramer to the Hall of Fame.

2. Also, the counting of players seems off for the Bears. According to the cited source, the Bears have 26 major players and 5 minor ones. So, the correct number (to be consistent with the total Packer number) should be 31 for the Bears, not 27. [2]

3. The chart on Packers in the Hall of fameshould include the line: No. Name Positions Years 64 Jerry Kramer OG/PK 19578-1968 [3] MicKades (talk) 20:19, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ http://www.profootballhof.com/news/breakdown-of-hall-of-famers-by-team/
  2. ^ http://www.profootballhof.com/news/breakdown-of-hall-of-famers-by-team/
  3. ^ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jerry_Kramer

Merge proposal

Closing per request at WP:ANRFC. Although there is limited participation with only three participants in this discussion, there is a weak consensus against a merge primarily because the proposed merge targets are judged not to be good merge targets.

Cunard (talk) 22:42, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

There is no need for a separate List of Green Bay Packers stadiums, as this article is basically redundant to Green Bay Packers#Stadium history. The table on that page easily fits in this section in the main article without being excessively long. Alternatively, as past stadiums are part of the team's history, the table could easily go in History of the Green Bay Packers with a new History of the Green Bay Packers#Stadium history section. The content should not be deleted, but it should not be duplicated either. It is already at Chronology_of_home_stadiums_for_current_National_Football_League_teams#Green_Bay_Packers as well, and there is no need to have a separate article for this too. Reywas92Talk 23:53, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

  • Oppose for multiple reasons:
  1. First, is the list notable enough to be a standalone list? Per WP:LISTN, yes it is. It is discussed as a group in multiple sources.
  2. Second, is the list long enough to justify its own separate article? Per WP:SUMMARYSTYLE, yes it is. Eight items is plenty long enough for a list, and it conceivably could get larger if the Packers build a new home stadium some day. To address the specific recommended move locations, History of the Green Bay Packers will obviously discuss all of the items in this list. But it will do so in prose form as a narrative. There is no need to add tables to this article. See History of the New York Giants, which is a current Good Article and used by WP:NFL as an example of a proper "History" article. Green Bay Packers will also discuss all of these items, but should do so in a very abbreviated manner, per WP:SUMMARYSTYLE. Green Bay Packers is already 123k bytes long. The problem is that Green Bay Packers goes in to too much depth on the stadiums and should be better summarized. The proper WP:SPINOFF would then be List of Green Bay Packers stadiums.
  3. Third, an WP:AFD just last month on List of Green Bay Packers retired numbers brought up the same exact concerns (AFD discussion); that this subject could be merged into Green Bay Packers. But, after I expanded on the topic, properly sourced it, and summarized the topic, there was no consensus to delete it. I know Wikipedia doesn't stick to precedent every time, but this sets a recent and concrete example that these type of lists are within our policy. And even though this isn't WP:AFD, this is essentially a deletion discussion.
  4. Last, Chronology_of_home_stadiums_for_current_National_Football_League_teams#Green_Bay_Packers provides no context or history of the Packers.
The rationale for the merge isn't founded in any policy of guideline. It just comes down to the belief that this list is too short. I would then ask how long this list would have to be for it to be justified? 10 items? 15 items? I believe eight items, with significant context is sufficient for a standaline list on this topic. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 00:58, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
  1. Just because something has sources that allow it to pass the WP:GNG does not mean that there needs to be an article for it, it could easily be covered in another article as referenced information.
  2. Of that 123k bytes, a huge portion make up the 100+ sources and several tables on the page. Of course a topic such as this will be long but if that's too much, the 1996-2017 seasons do not all need their own sections, and there is duplication in the Playoff record and Championships sections. An eight-line table does not break the article. The Giants history article does discuss stadiums in prose, as that's a perfectly appropriate place to discuss historic stadiums. It could totally have a table too though it does have them in a timeline at the top, and again it's also in the chronology article. Why not do the in either of these articles and just link to that then?
  3. Poor comparison. While there is not an appropriate place in either of these article to have such details about these players, either this article or the history article is the most apt place for a history of where the team played. Don't make readers go clicking through several articles when they can read it perfectly well in main topics.
  4. Again, such HISTORY would be well provided in the HISTORY article. There can be a table there too, it doesn't have to only be a link to that big table, or as you're suggesting, the big table on the chronology with nothing at all elsewhere.
These WP: links are guides of how to do things, not mandates to do such things in all cases that one could; there is likewise no rationale per policy to have a separate article, or by that logic, every team would be expected have a spun-off article for stadiums because they form a coherent topic of notable items which could be summarized and spun off. The question of number of items wholly irrelevant, rather I have supported merges of lists with several dozen items when they would fit well into a main article as this one does. Reywas92Talk 07:01, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
Again, I want to stress that WP:OTHERSTUFFDOESNTEXIST is not a good reason for merge/deletion. Also, WP:LISTN is exactly that, a guideline for when a list is notable enough to have its own article. Your concern about "making readers click through several articles" would only be heightened by merging this material into multiple articles, as it is easier to read an article focused on a specific topic, which is why we spin-off articles from sections of larger articles (read WP:SPINOFF, a guideline that is very applicable to this discussion). « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 17:49, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
And you literally just used WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS as a reason to have a separate article... Reywas92Talk 19:23, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
I am guessing you are talking about the AFD discussion I mentioned above? If so, I think there is a big difference between WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS and "we've discussed this issue before." Citing past deletion discussions as a reason to keep another article is pretty common and helps prevent the same discussions from occurring over and over again. That said, I specifically noted that we don't set or follow precedents at Wikipedia, I just thought it was a recent and relevant discussion. You also can disagree with me and say that discussion isn't relevant, which is perfectly fine. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 20:39, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Edit Request in Playoff Record (November 19, 2018)

The St. Louis Cardinals have the wrong link. They have the link to the baseball team, not the Arizona Cardinals, who played in St. Louis from 1960-1987. — Preceding unsigned comment added by EngineerRebellionLeader (talk • contribs) 03:52, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 December 2018

That Super Bowl the Packers won was in 1997, you guys have 1996 Marioruta (talk) 03:53, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: its the 1996 NFL season --DannyS712 (talk) 04:33, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

Two more Packers rivals

The Packers have two more rivals: The Seattle Seahawks and The Atlanta Falcons.

Packers-Falcons rivalry:

Packers-Seahawks rivalry:

108.246.199.105 (talk) 01:45, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

Hi, you would need to write articles on the rivalries for them to be added to this page. Rivalries are tricky thing though, as past consensus on Wikipedia is that they need to be established, longstanding, well-written about rivalries. Not just a few notable games. Cheers, « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 18:41, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

4.4 Uniform Variations

If a paragraph such as 4.4 Uniform Variation is to exist, it seems that it most certainly should include the change in the sleeves following the Superbowl XXXI win, and the subsequent loss of Superbowl XXXII. Why a team would change anything in the uniform after a Superbowl win defies logic. Nothing short of the uniform change explains why such a heavily favored team, representing the conference that had previously won the last 15 Superbowls, could not beat a team whose running back was essentially blinded by migraine headache. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.18.150.37 (talk) 03:55, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

Super Bowl Wins

The Packers have won four Super Bowl championships (I, II, XXXI, and XLV). Why does this page only list XXXI and XLV as their only two Super Bowl wins? TigerThaGoat15 (talk) 15:08, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

Never mind, I see it says AFL-NFL as the other two. TigerThaGoat15 (talk) 15:09, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

The Super Bowl is the Super Bowl, it should not change. The NFL lists the Super Bowl I as 1966, therefore they have four Super Bowl Championships — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.102.185.15 (talk) 02:20, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 January 2020

Final line of introductory paragraph should be changed from "The Bears–Packers rivalry is one of the oldest rivalries in professional sports history, dating back to 1921"to the following:

"The Bears–Packers rivalry is one of the oldest rivalries in US professional sports history, dating back to 1921".

Reason: it's very far from being one of the oldest rivalries in WORLD professional sports history. 81.132.152.175 (talk) 11:35, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

 Done Interstellarity (talk) 15:28, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 January 2020

137.26.201.186 (talk) 16:35, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

the coach of the packers is 13-3

Semi-protected edit request on 28 May 2020

hi der guy. im from wisconsin and i wanted to add some au dem dere facts about our packers. Thanks guy. Larry LarryTheGamer (talk) 02:48, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

 Not done. It's not clear what changes you want to make. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 03:20, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

Removing the nickname Packerena

I was wondering if we could remove the nickname "The Packerena?" Nobody really calls them this, and it's basically impossible to find any citations showing they are called this. There was a song produced called The Packerena, but nobody called the team that. Shiny aegislash (talk) 22:39, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

Done. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 23:01, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

In the injured list, Aaron Rodgers is listed as Karen Rodgers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sent7 (talk • contribs) 18:41, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

Only team to win 13 games in 3 consecutive seasons.

They are the only team in nfl history to do this so I feel like it should be mentioned on the page. 2601:547:1100:A750:99AE:3DA9:1107:73DC (talk) 17:56, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Jmparr.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 22:43, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 1 September 2020 and 25 October 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Gonzaga509.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 21:58, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 19 January 2021 and 14 March 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): COML509.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 21:58, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

3rd oldest 1919?

how can we say the packers are 3rd oldest team starting in 1919 if we also say the bears are 2nd oldest starting in 1920??

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chicago_Bears Snarevox (talk) 16:11, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 January 2022

In the tab at the top that summarizes the Green Bay Packers, there is a tab that says the team nicknames. I believe that someone should add Packies(current) because I am a big fan of the Packers and I use this nickname for them quite often with my friends. Also why isn't Packers(current) in there? That is one of the biggest nicknames given to the Green Bay Packers I guess it is just and abbreviation of there name but it is still something that confuses me. Thanks Logan5671111 (talk) 18:58, 24 January 2022 (UTC) Logan5671111 (talk) 18:58, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

 Not done please provide a reliable source to support your assertion that "Packies" is a widely-used nickname for the team. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 19:41, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
Yeah I understand why it hasn't been done the more I think about it the more dumb it sounds sorry for wasting your time. Logan5671111 (talk) 17:16, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

Smallest major league market in North America?

Regina, Saskatchewan metropolitan area is smaller than Green Bay. The CFL might be smaller than the NFL, but it is not a minor league in any way. I think the article should say the Packers are the smallest major league market in the United States (rather than North America), because the Saskatchewan Roughriders, who play in Regina, play in a smaller market. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 136.26.51.100 (talk) 23:36, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 30 September 2022

Divisional Round Sam Scarlett (talk) 16:41, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. – Recoil (talk) 17:04, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
Sorry I'm not sure why my first request did not fully show up.
In "Statistics and records", under "Playoff record", the 2015 Divisional Round game against the Arizona Cardinals should include (OT) after the score. This would mirror the way that the 2014 NFC Championship game against the Seattle Seahawks indicates it ended in overtime. I do not believe that this would need a reference, seeing as it should fall under the category of common knowledge, but if not here is the reference: https://www.footballdb.com/teams/nfl/green-bay-packers/teamvsteam?opp=1&adlt=strict&toWww=1&redig=B26094A1765E4A8E9360917E42EEBD8A#:~:text=01/16/2016,Box Sam Scarlett (talk) 17:22, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
 Done Thank you very much! —CX Zoom[he/him] (let's talk • {C•X}) 17:30, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 October 2022

In the introduction section, it says that "They have made the playoffs 22 times since 1993;", which is true. However, under the Playoff record section in the Statistics and records section, there are only 21 years listed. This is because the list is missing 1993, in which the Packers beat the Lions 28-24 in the Wild Card, and then were defeated by the Cowboys 27-17 in the Divisional Round. Please edit the bracket to include the year 1993 with the two games. Wild Card___Detroit Lions___W 28-24 Divisional Round___Dallas Cowboys___L 27-17 If you need a reference, here is one; https://www.footballdb.com/teams/nfl/green-bay-packers/results/1993 Sam Scarlett (talk) 15:43, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

 Done Aaron Liu (talk) 11:38, 24 October 2022 (UTC)

Did you know this?

Aaron Rodgers and Aaron Jones both play for the Green Bay Packers and were both born on Friday, December 2. 98.0.38.216 (talk) 19:17, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 January 2023

Edit request to add to the "In popular culture" subject. Would like to add that the comedy show Mystery Science Theater 3000 and their subsequent series Rifftrax and Cinematic Titanic have many dozens of references to the Green Bay Packers across their history, owing to them originating in Minnesota broadcast. There's a lovely article available here for citation and I would be willing to say it's noteworthy especially for their riff of the Wisconsin based horror movie The Giant Spider Invasion in which they unload a nearly gratuitous amount of Packers references which they still quote to this day - "Packers won the Super Bowl! Packers, WHOO!" --207.180.39.130 (talk) 20:07, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

Rockwood Lodge

Can someone add a link to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arson in the section about Rockwood Lodge burning down? 172.56.240.118 (talk) 18:51, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 April 2024

change League/conference affiliations: Western Conference (1953-1966) to (1953-1969) note: the Packers were in the NFL western conference until the NFL/AFL merger after the 1969 season. Cpanzer16 (talk) 01:31, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{Edit semi-protected}} template. From what I tell from the information in this article and at NFC North, the Packers were in Central division in 67,68, and 69. RudolfRed (talk) 04:49, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

Packers.com: "Please don't search Wikipedia for Packers history"

This article was taken off Packers.com after publication, reasons unknown, but archive.is has a copy in case editors here find its details useful. Ed [talk] [OMT] 17:11, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

Well, I just deleted that line about Cliff Lewis throwing interceptions. Otherwise their author claims we're unreliable but doesn't give details. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:50, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
I agree, but we also shouldn't be noting division specific records on players' articles even if they were true. Hey man im josh (talk) 18:53, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
I mean, they say "I made a copy of its Green Bay Packers site sometime in the last year and found six factual mistakes in the first 16 sentences." No, that's not calling out specific errors, but it gives someone a specific starting point in case they want to check the article's text-source integrity. Same for Don Hutson: "Under the "NFL career" sub-title, there was a mistake in five of the first eight sentences. On Curly Lambeau's page, they credited me as the source for two of the first six citations and yet both included misinformation that doesn't accurately reflect what I've written." Ed [talk] [OMT] 20:06, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
I think the writer of this article went way too far in their dismissal of Wikipedia's credibility when it comes to Packers' history. We can only document what there are sources for. @Gonzo fan2007, I think this is pretty relevant for you. Hey man im josh (talk) 18:51, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
The writer did go too far, and hopefully that's why they deleted the piece. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:14, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
Hahaha Cliff Christl is probably just mad I wrote an article about him...... :) « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 20:54, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
FYI, the article is back online. Ed [talk] [OMT] 17:16, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
Shameless plug, but I have Cliff Christl up at WP:GAN if anyone wants to do a review for me haha. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 17:26, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Green_Bay_Packers/Archive_2&oldid=1242191495"