Jump to content

Talk:New York Giants/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Doused

[edit]

This article needs of course the list of its coaches, standard fare for a sports page. Who was the coach that got doused? It wasn't Parcells, was it?--McDogm 00:32, 24 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

If you wish to add a list of head coaches, be my guest. And also feel free to create an article on the Gatorade Bath since it has not been created yet. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 00:39, 24 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I believe the Gatorade Bath is an important part to our history and should be included in here somewhere. I would try to make it as short and sweet as possible. --NYGiantsNYMets91 22:11, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

New Jersey Giants

[edit]

We should also have a section dedicated to a few people from New Jersey who call them the New Jersey Giants. They are a part of the fanbase, and it is part of the teams current history, the controversy that they play and operate in New Jersey, but yet still have New York in their name. --68.196.38.13 5 July 2005 04:44 (UTC)

I am a New Jersey native and decades-long Giants fan. Except for some hub-bub in the late seventies after the current stadium opened, and the occasional grouse from a fellow fan, I have hardly heard any mention of a "controversy" over having the Giants refuse to take New Jersey as part of their name. Certainly no organized grass-roots activism. Al 15:28, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I agree - there should be mention to the fact that they are a New JERSEY team and not New York and SHOULD be called the New JERSEY Giants. Believe me, this issue is far from dead. This also goes for the Jets too. --JerseyDevil 07:00, 12 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
It's a NON-ISSUE. Always have been NEW YORK GIANTS, always will. And those NY on the helmets look great. brooklynboblives —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 163.192.21.41 (talk • contribs) .
It is inaccurate to call a team with headquarters and a playing stadium in NJ a NY team. Mention that they are called NY, but that they are a NJ-based team. This is an encyclopedic entry, not an emotional fanboy piece. SteelyDave 23:27, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The Giants' offices are located in Manhattan. —Wrathchild (talk) 15:38, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Whether or not it's logical call a team that plays in New Jersey the New York Giants is immaterial, in my opinion, since their official team name is The New York Giants, and-to the best of my knowledge, this has never been a source of widespread controversy, except-as someone alluded to above-among some disgruntled New Jerseyans. Ruthfulbarbarity 23:43, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There is an article dedicated to this subject. Feel free to edit it, at New Jersey Giants. --Dr Seuss 91 21:12, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is a ridiculous argument. Many sports teams are based in a different city or state, but are known under the umbrella of whatever the big city or state they represent. Example; Dallas Cowboys —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.241.202.8 (talk • contribs)


ok, only people who live in new jersey call this team the new jersey giants, the skyline of nyc is easily within view being only several miles away. if the team was required by nfl rules to name the team based on the exact place of its home stadium the giants would redily move back into ny, the largest tv market in the country, there is a reason the new jersey nets will soon be the brooklyn nets —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.215.214.238 (talk • contribs) 23:49, May 17, 2006
I agree.... what's next, the Auburn Hills Pistons or the Landover Redskins? Everyone knows the larger market that the team is representing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.169.183.39 (talk • contribs)

the dolphins werent called the london dolphins when their home field was wembley, the bills arent going to be called the toronto bills for the games theyll play in canada. doesn't matter what a teams called, the fact the giants are called 'new york giants' only means they get two superbowl victory parades which surely is a good thing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.15.149.209 (talk) 22:11, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

They play in the 'burbs of NEW YORK, like that other guy said. What's next? Arlington Rangers St. Pete Rays Orchard Park Bills Foxbourgh Pats Uniondale Islanders Glendale Coyotes


It's a dumb arguement. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Seattlehawk94 (talk • contribs) 02:19, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hall of Famers

[edit]

Should Tom Landry really be in this list? Yes, I know he played for the team and was extraordinarily successful as a defensive coordinator, but he is enshrined primarily and is most known for being the head coach in Dallas. Mayhap Tom and Mr. Mara (co-owner) could be moved to a subcategory, since "Hall of Famers" is in the "Players of Note" section. Al 15:34, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Since Tom Landry's career as a player and a coach were with the Giants, I see no reason why he should be excluded. IF he had only coached for the Giants for maybe a few seasons, and nothing else, probably not. BUT, he spent 1949-1959 with the Giants, and certainly leaves a legacy there before moving on to Dallas.

What about Cal Hubbard - his rookie season with the Giants they won the NFL title largely on the strength of the line which included HOFers Steve Owen and Pete Henry - also HOFer Joe Guyon was on that team. Hubbard played in 1928 with the Giants and again in 1936. Revmoran 14:13, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's not BASEBALL, I go nuts everytime some brings this up! You don't go in as a "team name here" because you don't have a hat with that logo on, you get a bust of your head and go in as yourself. The teams you played on are listed on the plaque.

Hence Joe Montana is listed on both the Chiefs and Niners. Rice is going to be listed by the Niners, Raiders, Seahawks. Unitas is listed as a Colt and Chargers. Etc.

In the NFL register if you played on a team even for a game and you are in the HOF, you are listed on that team's HOFers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Seattlehawk94 (talk • contribs) 02:22, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It sounded like the consensus was that Landry SHOULD be included, as a former player and assistant coach for the Giants. So then why isn't he on the list in this article? Bramton1 (talk) 18:16, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Improvement drive

[edit]

National Football League is currently a candidate on WP:IDRIVE. Vote for it if you are interested in contributing.--Fenice 20:04, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

History

[edit]

The history bit seems a little too detailed. The Fassel era section especially seems awfully long. And, are we really going to do a game-by-game update of the 2005 season? That doesn't seem very encyclopedic to me. (That's what ESPN.com and its ilk are for.) Shouldn't the history just be the highlights (or lowlights) of the franchise? Al 21:06, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You might want to also ask that question to the people editing New England Patriots and some of the other NFL team articles :-) Zzyzx11 (Talk) 21:59, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I did a lot of the work with both this article and the Patriots. What I have tried to do is not focus on individual games (unless they are milestone games, i.e. Pisarcik's game) but briefly summarize each season, what the highs and lows were, etc. As far as it being too detailed, I think it's better to start with that, and then pare it down from there. But I do definitely think the article is much better and useful to folks now, than when we started it. Just my 2 cents. --Seadog1611 04:25, 26 October 2005 (UTC):o)[reply]

--From an unregistered user: I like the history section the way it currently is and I would prefer if it was kept this way.

Retired numbers

[edit]

According to my official Giants calendar, the first number the Giants retired was Tuffy Leeman's #4 in 1940. (Which doesn't make any sense, because he was still playing in 1940, but it brought me down this path.) NFL.com says that Ray Flaherty's #1 was retired, but not a year nor any mention that it was the first number retired in any major league professional sport. Other sites I've looked at (e.g., About.com) appear to only parrot what NFL.com. Flaherty's bio on the Hall of Fame website barely even mentions his playing years (he was enshrined as a coach) and certainly nothing about his number being retired. The Giants site doesn't make any mention of retired numbers. Anyone have a source? --Wrathchild (talk) 14:41, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

At the end of this article by Gil Brandt (Aug. 30, 2005) is such a claim, but that's all I have to go on: http://www.nfl.com/news/story/8787315 . Heck, he may have gotten it from Wikipedia. --Wrathchild (talk) 14:45, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
According to the team, the Giants don't retire numbers, but they don't necessarily give them out again. I don't think they'll ever retire 56, for example, but I doubt anyone will ever wear it for the Giants again.
In the back of the Giants 75th Anniversary Book (written by Jerry Izenberg) it has the following section on retired numbers (p.178) #1 Ray Flaherty 1935 (but Frank Cope was #1 in 1946); #4 Tuffy Leemans 1940 (although as mentioned he was #4 through 1943 and Leland Shaffer was #4 in 1945); #7 Mel Hein 1963; #11 Phil Simms 1995; #14 Y.A. Tittle 1965; #32 Al Blozis 1945; #40 Joe Morrison 1972; #41 Charlie Conerly 1962; #50 Ken Strong 1947; #56 Lawrence Taylor 1994 Revmoran 20:16, 19 March 2007 (UTC)Revmoran 15:30, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pictures

[edit]

What would a New York Giants article be without a picture of the ferocious Lawrence Taylor (L.T.)? Put one on! -Amit —Preceding unsigned comment added by 164.106.195.48 (talk • contribs) 09:22, February 3, 2006

Updated Roster

[edit]

I've made a ton of changes and fixed the roster that hadn't been updated in about 2.5 months. I'll make sure to delete people as they are cut —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.191.34.157 (talk • contribs) 21:27, August 6, 2006

Roster Current as of 10/23, updated and reformated the roster template slightly.Bigblue1222 19:33, 24 October 2006 (UTC)Bigblue1222[reply]

So, random question, but why was the roster section deleted? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bigblue1222 (talk • contribs)

Dek Bake and Travonti Johnson are not on the Injured Reserve/they have been cut from the team because they suffered an injury. The would'nt be waived if they were not injured. But the team did not put them on I.R. because they would not make the team anyway and weren't in the team's interset in the future. Giantsrock 14:53, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is incorrect. They were both waived/injured. This is a process in the NFL where rookies and first-year players who weren't drafted in the first few rounds of the draft, in order to be placed on IR, must first pass through waivers. This is to prevent teams from stashing young players on IR with questionable injuries for other teams can't have them. Both of these players were waived/injured. They passed through waivers yesterday and were placed on Injured reserve. You have already broken the Three-Revert Rule and are subject to a 24-hour ban, but I will not report you as long as you do not revert again. Pats1 00:59, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
However, I would like if you'd revert your latest two edits to the roster. I can't because I would then be in violation of 3RR. Manny Wright, unless his article name is changed, should be kept as Manuel Wright. Pats1 01:07, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why was Travonti Johnson taken off of the Injured Reserve? Ositadinma 15:58, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

He reached an injury settlement yesterday. Pats1 22:17, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Charrod Taylor and Marcus Bell were waived off of Injured Reserve Ositadinma 14:04, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have a source for Taylor? I have one for Bell, but not Taylor yet. Pats1 19:36, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Check out bigblueinteractive.com and there you will find that Bell and Taylor were both waived off of I.R. Ositadinma 14:51, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Giants gave Will Demps an injury settlement today, taking him off of I.R. Reuben Droughns is a fullback/running back since Robert Douglas (the only FB on the team) got hurt. Grey Ruegamer is strictly a center. He only plays guard when somebody is hurt. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ositadinma (talk • contribs) 22:43, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Great, but please include this in your edit summary. It's that box underneath the code you are editing. Also, please remember to sign your posts on talk pages with ~~~~. Pats1 23:03, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The Giants have signed all of their exculsive-rights free agents. Ositadinma 20:19, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Logos and Uniforms

[edit]

This section includes long blank area, it looks very awkward and unprofessional. I'm not sure how to get rid of it, but I'll try. Quadzilla99 14:22, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I moved the long blank area to the bottom of the section but wasn't able to eliminate it. It looks slightly better now, it really needs to be eliminated altogether though. Quadzilla99 14:33, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Team Lore

[edit]

Nothing about why the Giants always have their bench on the sunny side of the field at home games? The tradition has it that they lost a championship game early on in their history (not sure which one), but the owner's wife (Mrs. Mara, presumably) said it was because the players caught cold because the other team was in the sun. From that day forward the Giants have always had their bench on the sunny side of the field for home games.

Here's the reference from: Wellington, the Maras, the Giants, and the city of New York by Carl DeVito, Triumph Books, Chicago, 2006, p.20 "The first home game was at the Polo Grounds... Tim (Mara) paced the sidelines. He had brought 17 year old Jack with him, who sat on the sideline. Lizette (Tim's wife) and nine year old Wellington sat in the stands. "We were sitting on the Giants side, and it was a little chilly," said Wellington years later. And Lizette complained to Tim that the team's side was in the shade. Why couldn't the home team sit on the other side of the stadium, Lizette reasoned, in the sun, where it was nice and warm? "So the nest game, and from then on, the Giants sideline in the Polo Grounds was in the sun." Revmoran 18:19, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Best team evar

[edit]

Does anyone know how long "They are the best team alive" has been in the article, under franchise history? No way I'm deleting that.Thegreathal 15:33, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see it, nor do I see it in recent history. Are you perhaps looking at a cached copy? —Wrathchild (talk) 15:53, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Current players fan club

[edit]

I am involved in an edit war on some of the current players articles. They are one sided, fawning articles that even the players themselves would not write. Please keep an eye on them.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antonio_Pierce

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chris_Snee

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luke_Petitgout --Truest blue 20:34, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fight song

[edit]

Is there music to the Giant's Fight Song? Any idea on where to find it? --Dialecticas 19:25, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cleanup

[edit]

This article requires massive cleanup. The logo and uniform info is inordinately long, while the history section is now too short. See the Chicago Bears article for a better example of how to orient an FA quality football team article. I'll start cleaning it up if no one else does. Quadzilla99 17:16, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Okay I eliminated the massive, trivial history of the team's uniforms. See logo sections in the Chicago Bears and the New England Patriots (featured articles) for further info. If you want to create a separate article for that stuff go ahead, just cut and paste the old article into a new article dedicated to the topic. Quadzilla99 08:20, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I moved all the info to here for now. Quadzilla99 10:05, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
For more info why I made these changes see the two featured articles above. Quadzilla99 13:43, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Disbelief

[edit]

"Massive, trivial history of the team's uniforms." Quad, you might not be a uniform asthete, but I assure you the history of the Giants includes a history of their uniforms and logos. If there is some Wiki committee devoted to parsing hours of factual research about a football team's uniforms because they have deemed a team's uniform history to be trivial, show me that. Now, if you want to create a separate page for the "massive, trivial history," go right ahead and move it yourself. It's a lot easier to destroy than to create, and by wiping out that section entirely as if you and you alone had the say in what constitutes "trivial," you have reinforced that notion.

I am a hard-core Giants fan and you'd better believe the history of their logos and uniforms is important to me, and problably some other fans out there: the Giants own official website neglects their uniform history, while teams like the Bengals devote huge .pdf files to the matter. That section constitutes hours of research, is entirely factual, and is (in my opinion) informative. If you think it's long-winded or needs copyediting, go right ahead and improve it. Otherwise, I need to see, in writing, why a team with 80+ years of history cannot have the uniforms they wore during those years considered an integral part of that history. 808 13:46, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Have you even looked at the two articles I referred you to? They contain brief summaries of the team's logo and uniform, and dedicate most of the article to the team's history. The section could be expanded by a paragraph or two but the former size was out of hand. Like I said see the two FA's I exampled above. Quadzilla99 13:53, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No, Quad, I got the gist of what you were saying by your paragraph above. And the gist is: "uniforms and logos are unimportant." I heartily disagree, but thanks for storing the info in a sandbox regardless. The massive, trivial section is now its own page, and I can't wait until that is also designated for "cleanup." ^_^ 808 14:03, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well we disagree about the importance of the uniform history's importance but we both want to improve the Giants related articles. So let's just chalk this up to a misunderstanding, but I was saying the depth of detail was trivial not that any mention at all was unnecessary. Quadzilla99 14:12, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Giants fight song

[edit]

As per WP:NOT, specifically Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, I removed the fight song lyrics from the page. Like I stated previously this level of detail is trivial. Also fight songs merit no mention in the FA Chicago Bears and New England Patriots articles. Basically this article was terrible when I started working on it so expect an overhaul. Look to the articles mentioned as examples. Feel free to comment. Quadzilla99 17:29, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Again, 4, I must heartily disagree with you deleting the Giants fight song(s). In subsection 8 of WP:NOT, it clearly states that so long as the article itself is not merely lyrics, and that the lyrics relate to the subject at hand, i.e., da Jints, the section should be good to go. Furthermore, the Philadelphia Eagles have mention of their fight song with a link to a page about nothing but the song - the former is Wiki-approved, while the latter is not. I acknowledge the Bears and Patriots do not have fight songs listed, but neither do the Redskins, and the non-mention of their iconic song on their page is a disservice to their fans who might want to use Wikipedia to further their team knowledge. Before I dredged up the Giant's fight song, I was ignorant the team even had one. Then, someone else found another. That's knowledge, man, knowledge. And you know what they say about knowledge. Perhaps a more high-speed solution would be uploading an .ogg file of the song, so it doesn't take up all that space? Whaddya think? 808 13:43, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The Eagles article is not listed as a featured article or even a good article. Better examples are the Bears and Patriots articles. Citing a poor article with a two sentence lead is not precedent. Quadzilla99 13:45, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
But you can't deny that the Eagles article is a football article. Or that the Eagles, and the Giants, both have fight songs. And I cited WP:NOT as well. It's true. Section eight, WP:NOT. Did you like my song upload idea? Didja? Would solve the matter, pretty much. Or, we could make a separate page about the fight song(s), but that would be in conflict with WP:NOT. I do not want to be in conflict with WP:NOT. 808 13:53, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You can only upload excerpts of songs see here:[1] Well there's two main points I'm making: First the articles I identified have been recognized as the "finest works in all of Wikipedia" therefore in general they should serve as a guideline for how to format an article (I've never worked on either of them), they don't contain large detail on fight songs or uniforms, second the song is copyrighted by the Giants. It's not in the public domain (That I'm aware of), you can print small excerpts of it not the entire song. See here:"Lyrics databases. Most song lyrics are protected by copyright. Exceptions include traditional songs whose lyrics are in the public domain. However, even in this case the article may not consist solely of the lyrics, but has to primarily contain information about authorship, date of publication, social impact, etc. Source text generally belongs on WikiSource."
Maybe a good idea is to start a small section that quotes a few lines from the song and includes a small audio clip. The section would have to discuss or summarize the song and it's history. Basically it's okay to include small amounts of copyrighted material if it's subject to critical commentary in the article. Quadzilla99 14:06, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, that's the conclusion I arrived at a minute ago - it isn't public domain, and it would need to be presented in a critical light - tough because it's essentially archaic. The only problem I have, and not a confrontational problem, mind you, is that these bits of information, such as fight songs or uniforms or whatever, are part of the team's history. I do feel they need to be part of the whole Giants experience Wikipedia can offer a researcher/curious surfer; in their absence, anyone looking for that info will be informed by other, less reputable websites. I'll store the works in a sub-page until I can figure out what to do with them, but they need to be in there somewheres. 808 14:22, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A Ways to Go

[edit]
Comment I moved this from my talk page:

Quad - hey, I finally checked the Bears' page you keep mentioning and learned a few things: 1.) The Giants page has a loooooong way to go (Stadium section, mascots, pop culture, etc.) 2.) I could potentially double the amount of content in the uniforms section (the Bears' section is full of trivial uniform details!) 3.) The Bears, Eagles, Redskins, Packers and Vikes all have separate pages concerning their fight songs. At least the Eagles and Bears both link the fight song page, with the Bears doing it in the content box on the right side. So, I'll get to researching the details of the song, but it looks like either these pages exist in flagrant disregard of WP:NOT, or the songs are being treated like the sports logos themselves: copyrighted material that is reproduceable in a limited sense. Keep on tranglin', 808 18:11, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's fine. I never said the logos section couldn't get any longer than it is just that it was too long before. Try to keep it on course with the Bears and Pats articles sizes. The Pats article doesn't have a pop culture section so it's debatable whether we need one here; a lot of times those sections get filled with trivia. Trivia is never acceptable on Featured Articles or Good Articles. I think either no one has noticed the song pages or else they only include (in the Bears case) short portions of lyrics. Recently I noticed a long list that was a copyright violation that had been here for a year, it's being deleted as we speak. Quadzilla99 18:41, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, par for the course - comments that are not commented upon but moved instead. Perhaps that was the comment? 808 18:35, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure if you're saying you proved me wrong or something but the Bears song pages is just as I said critical commentary with some quotes. I even stated that I was fine if the song section was included in the article. I also asked you to write a section on the logos along the size of the Bears and Pats articles. Quadzilla99 18:43, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Incidentally someone on the Pats article created a logos and uniforms article yesterday much like the one you created: Logos and Uniforms of the New England Patriots. Quadzilla99 20:05, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, Quad, I'm not trying to prove you wrong. We've had some disagreements, and I apologize if I've come off badly. I am a bit excitable, but never in bad faith. I look forward to improving the page and getting it to be as good or better than the Pats or Bears. Cheers, 808 20:20, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Okay I added an updated depth chart like the one in the Pats articles. I used Giants.com,[2] and espn.com[3]. The reason I had to use both is because Giants.com didn't have special teams and didn't have Strahan or Toomer on theirs (must have been from the end of the year when they were injured). Basically I used Giants.com for everything except special teams and put Strahan and Toomer in as the starters like they were on ESPN.com. I put updated 3/28/2007. If anyone updates it just go ahead and chnage the date to the current day. Quadzilla99 12:31, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't use the exact same format as the Pats article did, I eliminated several extra boxes and lines that were unnecessary. I think it's slightly better overall. Quadzilla99 12:34, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Roster changes

[edit]

I want to throw it out there that Kiwi was moved from DE to SAM LB —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bigblue1222 (talk • contribs)

Thing at the bottom?

[edit]

Sorry I'm not being specific, but once I explain I think you'll know. That thing that the Chicago Bears have at the bottom of their page, the table of contents looking thing that redirects the user to various parts of the franchise(history, coaches, stadiums, lore, etc)? Shouldn't the giants get one too, seeing as they're one of the more storied franchises in the league?

First round picks

[edit]

Do we really need all the first round picks listed here? Isn't that kind of trivial? I'm sure it's part of some mandate from WP:NFL but it seems unnecessary and a waste of space. Aaron Bowen 21:24, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Jints"

[edit]

A citation is needed for the football team being called "Jints" and that it rhymes with anything besides "pints". It comes from the baseball team that used to be in New York, which I can easily prove, as well as the rhyming with "pints" for the baseball team. If someone is rhyming it with "mints", they are either ignorant or they're trying to be funny, or both. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 21:44, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I live in New York and I've never once heard it said to rhyme with pints. Trevor GH5 18:19, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism

[edit]

This article either requires a ceanup or a rewrite- and possibly a lock- there is quite a bit of vandalism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.122.255.254 (talk) 00:00, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's 2007, not 2008

[edit]

It's the 2007 season.

NFL MVP Section

[edit]

I deleted Eli Manning from the NFL MVP chart. He is the Super Bowl MVP, not the overall 2007 league MVP. With the Giants now winning three Super Bowls, should we add a "SUPER BOWL MVP" chart? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shaner5000 (talk • contribs) 05:18, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"America's Team"

[edit]

I have once again deleted the "America's Team" article at the top, since it is written as POV (calling the article "riveting") and misleading (says "selected analyists" used the name, when only ONE writer has called the Giants "America's Team"). Since the poster of that article has vowed to keep undoing the deletion, I'm posting here to let everyone know about this and to prevent an edit war. Richiekim (talk) 14:46, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

GA

[edit]

Should I nominate this for GA? RC-0722 communicator/kills 22:20, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just thinking about that. There's no reason not to; if you think it's a good idea (I do) go ahead! -Señor Lelandro 03:28, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

200+ pictures available on Flickr

[edit]

FYI: There are 200+ Wikipedia-suitable pictures from the Bengals game today available here. Remember to upload pics to Wikicommons so other wikis may use them as well. BlueAg09 (Talk) 01:45, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Other notable alumni - gone?

[edit]

Why was the "Other Notable Alumni" section removed? It's been in the article for ages and is certainly not, in spite of the allegations in the edit summary, a single editor's list of "favorite players".

I don't necessarily disagree with its removal, but some discussion here would have been appropriate. —Wrathchild (talk) 14:08, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That was me (as you know). The section was removed because it was a subjective list without any objective criteria for inclusion. Further, it was uncited, because it is essentially unverifiable. It does, in fact, amount to a list of players who certain editors happen to like or find notable. Per WP:BOLD, prior discussion here did not seem necessary. — Bdb484 (talk) 15:54, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mara family

[edit]

I'm surprised there's nothing in either this or the history article about the feud between Wellington Mara and his nephew Tim Mara, which went on for several decades until Tim sold his share of the club. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 13:53, 9 December 2009

Agreed. It doesn't even mention that Tim inherited his father's half of the club, let alone that the disagreements between Wellignton and Tim were a big part of the reason the team was usually quite bad, until Commissioner Rozell actually recommended George Young's hiring, just to stop the infighting that was ruining one of the league's flagship franchises. Methinks the article may be a bit whitewashed in that regard. oknazevad (talk) 15:43, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see why it should be whitewashed, as it's history, not current events. Here's a Times writeup that discusses it: [4] ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 15:47, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I was saying that it currently is whitewashed in the article and shouldn't be, so we are in agreement there. If you can incorporate some of the material into the article from the Times piece, that'd be great. oknazevad (talk) 20:25, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Both articles, or just the history? I would say it could be reduced to a single-line statement of fact, linking to the Times article, but I think it needs to be said. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 20:45, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think briefly here, and elaborated upon in the History article, as is standard wikipractice. Over at the History article, it should certainly be a fairly sizable mention, as the feud is critical to a proper understanding of the history (and poor performance) of the team in the 70s. Problem is many official sources often downplay it, so newspaper articles from the era, especially around when George Young was hired, are the best sources. oknazevad (talk) 22:41, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I went ahead and wrote a short paragraph about it in the main article. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 22:57, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It actually does mention it in History of the New York Giants (1979–1993). Oddly enough, that writeup contradicts the Times source, which indicates that Rozelle took the initiative in hiring Young. The History of the New York Giants (1979–1993) writeup says it was the other way around. But if they could agree on having Rozelle do it, why the rift? Something doesn't add up. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 23:00, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(outdent)Looks good here. As for the other page, that may very well be an example of the whitewashing I wrote of earlier. It could simply be that Rozelle phrased it as a "suggestion" at first. Either way, Vescey's characterization in the Time piece is the way Ive always understood it, and the way I believe it should be portrayed. oknazevad (talk) 23:44, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]


training camp sites

[edit]
  • Pompton Lakes New Jersey 1933
  • Pearl River New York 1934-38
  • Superior Wisconsin 1939
  • Blue Hills Country Club Pearl River New York 1940
  • Superior Wisconsin 1941-42
  • Bear Mountain 1943-45
  • Superior Wisconsin 1946
  • Pearl River NY 1947-49
  • Saranac NY 1950-51
  • Gustavus-Adolphus Colleg St Peter Minn 1952-53
  • Willamette University (Salem, OR) 1954-55
  • St. Michael's College (Winooski, VT) 1956-57
  • Willamette University (Salem, OR) 1958
  • St. Michael's College (Winooski, VT) 1959-60
  • Fairfield University 1961-69
  • C.W. Post 1970-71
  • Monmouth College 1972-73
  • Fairfield University 1974
  • Pace University1975-87
  • Fairleigh Dickinson University 1988-95
  • University at Albany 1996-

Smith03 (talk) 17:46, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Blackouts?

[edit]

Does anyone know the last Giants game to not sell out? I heard that they've have sold out every game since the Meadowlands opened in 1976. I'm guessing that the last blackout was in 1975, correct? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.101.159.64 (talk) 08:02, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's been even longer than that. While I have no sources to confirm it, I don't think the Giants have ever been blacked-out.oknazevad (talk) 16:41, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I guess the term non-sell out is more appropriate because games were always blacked out locally before 1973. I've been able to find out the year of last NSO for most NFL teams, but this one continues to elude me. However, I can't imagine the Giants didn't have at least one non-sell out during the '60s and '70s when they pretty much sucked. They also had an unstable stadium situation just before the Meadowlands opened. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.101.159.64 (talk) 21:37, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cleanup

[edit]

This article is in pretty bad shape. There are long unreferenced passages, tons of irrelevant info, and too many stubby sections—really too many sections overall especially in the history section. Then there's ninety sources for some trivial "Big Blue Wrecking Crew" comment, unformatted references everywhere, and a "Coaches of note" section which is essentially blank. Sections should never consist of a title and then a link to some information elsewhere. There is a ton of great sourced information in the NY Giants history series I wrote that's currently a good topic candidate. I won't have the time to work on this article for a long time most likely, but if anyone wants to take a look at those, they might be helpful. Quadzilla99 (talk) 07:51, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't directed at any editor in particular. So don't take it personal. There's just a lot of cleanup needed. Quadzilla99 (talk) 12:49, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed that the history section(s) here ought to be reworked as a summary of the series on the history of the franchise. Still think the edit summaries were a needless breach of WP:CIVIL. Not personally (actually, I haven't written much of this article at all), just as a matter of principle.oknazevad (talk) 14:11, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I was probably the main contributor on the article before I took a long break. I never really got this article that close to being nominated for anything (I always had other projects I was working on), and from the looks of this article I didn't think anyone was working on it. So I didn't violate WP:Civil as I wasn't directing the profanity at any user in particular. That said, might have been unnecessary. Quadzilla99 (talk) 21:22, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
WP:CIVIL is not necessarily directed at personal comments only, but in a general tone, which is where your mistake, born of frustration that the article hasn't moved forward, lay. Eh, we all make mistakes.
I only really keep the article on my watchlist to keep an eye out for vandalism, so I'm not really helping make it better. But, there are a few things that I could see as needing tweaks, such as some inconsistency in the descriptions of George Young's hiring (He wasn't appointed by the commissioner, which would have all sorts of favoritism issues, but he was on a list of suggested candidates for the job, which is actually somewhat common during sports executive searches.) Those sorts of details, inconsistently presented across redundant references are what need cleanup. If only I had the time. oknazevad (talk) 02:16, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This may be pedantic on both of our parts but civil directly states "directed at another user". You're definitely allowed to say the seven dirty words (just threw that in because I love Carlin). Getting above this triviality and back on topic I don't know about this article, because like I said its in pretty crappy shape, but the commissioner did choose Young. The owners asked him to step in with a recommendation when they couldn't work together, he recommended Young, and they hired him. He didn't directly appoint him but he did pick him. It's covered in the history articles. Here's the sources that were used in those articles:[5][6] Quadzilla99 (talk) 04:14, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Financial history and fan base

[edit]

I combined the financial history and fan base sections together again, because as I explained in edit summary I feel they are closely tied together. Its no big deal if anyone disagrees and wants to revert it though. Quadzilla99 (talk) 04:36, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]


[edit]

Many top European Soccer team's wiki pages include sections of celebrity supporters [proper ones, not the one who turns up once for a Champions League Final] and TV, Music and Film where the team has appeared or been referenced. Just mentioning this because Daniel Radcliffe has just expressed a deep and genuine support for the New York Giants while on the BBC's The One Show. Presenter: Are you a big Rugby fan? {he's appearing with the recently crowned England Women's Rugby World Champions} Radcliffe "I hope the girls aren't offended but I'm a big American Football fan. Not that I think the two sports compete, I just think they are both infinitely better than Soccer." When asked who he supports. "I'm a huge New York Giants fan, although they didn't do too great last season but I'm hopeful." So There you are. Harry Potter is an NY Giant. Captainbeecher (talk) 18:22, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on New York Giants. 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 07:50, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Stadium history in the New York Giants article infobox

[edit]

I sincerely believe that the city/state locations need to be represented in the infobox of the New York Giants article. This is especially because for two seasons (1973–74), the Giants played their home football games at the Yale Bowl, which is located in New Haven, Connecticut. Also, East Rutherford, New Jersey may be a suburb of New York City, but I believe that the geographical distance is significant enough to warrant being included in the stadium history section of the infobox of the Giants article, as it is in a neighboring state (New Jersey). Charlesaaronthompson (talk) 15:32, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

See my response at Talk:New York Jets. But specifically here, the grouping by city breaks the chronological order, which is what the infobox template documentation calls for, so it is a misapplication of the infobox as designed. oknazevad (talk) 03:01, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Scandals/Cheating Allegations

[edit]

Time for a "Controversies" section I believe, in wake of the recent news items concerning the Giants. Two fines and a draft move for Walkie-Talkie-gate, and then the to-date unpunished Deflategate 2. Anyone have any suggestions for phrasing before the addition? Hidden Tempo (talk) 04:36, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note that "Deflate-gate II" was an accusation against the Steelers, not the Giants; there will be no punishment of the Giants, as no one is claiming they did anything wrong.
As for the Walkie-talkies, there's no real evidence of cheating (meaning an intention to gain a competitive advantage); the coaches improvised their use because the normal radio communications system suffered a technical failure (the issue is that the walkie-talkies don't have the automatic cutoff that the official system has, which is why they're not authorized, hence the fine. It was actually a pretty light fine all things considered. At most, though, it deserves a brief mention here, with some more detail in the 2016 season article. More than that would be WP:UNDUE; a separate section would be totally excessive RECENTISM considering the 80 year history of the team over one game. This isn't something that has dragged out for months like the original Deflate-gate, nor is it a repeat performance for the coach (remember the Belicheck video taping controversy?) oknazevad (talk) 05:01, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, I'm fine with a brief mention of Walkie-talkie gate. Maybe a two or three sentences? You're probably right about Deflategate 2 - that would make more sense on the Steelers' page. Hidden Tempo (talk) 16:37, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 8 external links on New York Giants. 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) 18:09, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hatnote

[edit]

@Sabbatino: You reverted my edit with comment "Reason?". The reason is to comply with Wikipedia:Hatnote "If at all possible, limit hatnotes to just one at the top of the page" and to correct History of the New York Giants (NL) which is a redirect to History of the New York Giants (baseball).

Before my edit the hatnote looked like this:

This article is about the current American football team. For the baseball team, see San Francisco Giants and History of the New York Giants (NL). For other uses, see New York Giants (disambiguation).
"New Jersey Giants" redirects here. For other uses, see Jersey Giant.

After my edit the edit looked like this:

This article is about the current American football team. For the baseball team, see San Francisco Giants and History of the New York Giants (baseball). For other uses, see New York Giants (disambiguation). "New Jersey Giants" redirects here. For other uses, see Jersey Giant.

(Essentially the same, but without a line break). Satisfied? Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 08:01, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 29 November 2017

[edit]

2017 Struggles --> Odell Beckham FRACTURED his fibula. Not tore. That's not possible. http://www.nfl.com/news/story/0ap3000000859127/article/odell-beckham-undergoes-surgery-on-fractured-ankle

Change "tore" to "fractured". 2601:182:CD01:B0A6:2835:7277:9189:1784 (talk) 02:01, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Done Gulumeemee (talk) 03:50, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on New York Giants. 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) 13:00, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Edit request for Hall of Famers

[edit]

Whilst they didn't have long Giants careers, Morten Andersen (#8, K, 2001) and Kurt Warner (#13, QB, 2004) should be added to the Pro Football Hall of Famers section. Both were inducted into the HOF in 2017. https://www.profootballhof.com/heroes-of-the-game/franchises/

Kbusch22 (talk) 05:42, 26 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Team Colors

[edit]

@Sabbatino: Considering that the pants on both versions of their uniform are gray, shouldn’t gray be listed as one of their colors? SportsFan007 (talk) 19:33, 5 April 2019 (UTC)SportsFan007[reply]

@SportsFan007: The gray color is only listed in a source from 2013, which is most likely outdated since the newer sources do not list it. More editors need to make comments here since you and me most likely have different opinions. – Sabbatino (talk) 18:38, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Sabbatino: Fair enough. SportsFan007 (talk) 18:56, 7 April 2019 (UTC)SportsFan007[reply]

My 2¢. Grey pants doesn't prove anything. By that logic, all Major League Baseball teams would list grey as a color. Grey isn't a team color, it's just the color of the pants as that was how the old uniforms that the modern ones are modeled after were made, as it was a neutral color. And frankly, the Giants wear white pants just as often, if not more, than the grey ones. (The uniform illustration here is dated, as it doesn't even include the all-white, 80s-throwback style alternate uniforms, let alone the version with the blue jerseys worn with white pants.) oknazevad (talk) 16:54, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Rivalries?

[edit]

An IP has restored the recently deleted section on the supposed rivalry with the 49ers. I assume good faith but it's entirely unsourced. As a decades-long Giants fan, I ask: What rivalry? Sure, they met a couple of times in the playoffs and since they've been in the league together for something like sixty years they've played in the regular season a couple dozen times. Where are the interviews with players where they say how much they hate the other team? Where are the giant (no pun intended) headlines in the newspaper after one team ekes out a win over the other? Cowboys/Eagles/Redskins makes sense, since they're, you know, division rivals. So does a rivalry with the Jets (although I'd suggest that rivalry is more in the minds of the fans than the players). I suggest that the "rivalry" is no more significant than that between the Giants and other teams that have been in the league a long time. How many times were the Giants competing for the Championship with the Bears in the pre-Super Bowl era? Can anybody show why this is a significant rivalry? —Wrathchild (talk) 18:52, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. So they've had a habit of being good teams at the same time in the past couple of decades. That's not a rivalry. The Giants have more of a rivaly with the Patriots at this point. (That is NOT a suggestion to add a section on the Pats!) oknazevad (talk) 00:00, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Ugh. Someone removed the section and then another IP has restored it. At what point to we protect the article? —Wrathchild (talk) 12:13, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I reverted, these IPs are refusing to provide sources on why the rivalry are notable and now they adding the Packers as well. I told them to discuss in talk, which probably be unlikely. Issues like this is why I don't like dealing with team articles. Secret account 05:11, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Can someone change the giants/jets rivalry record from "five of the last six" to "five of the last seven" Adacci (talk) 02:32, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 21 April 2020

[edit]

Under "Ownerships, financial history and fan base," update value of the team from 2012 Forbes to 2020. This is outdated LGM205 (talk) 17:22, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

 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. —KuyaBriBriTalk 18:48, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 27 September 2021

[edit]

Please just add Eli Manning to the Ring of honor list. thank you! :D 68.237.24.83 (talk) 04:28, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

 Done. ◢  Ganbaruby!  (talk) 05:58, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Are we gonna update this?

[edit]

Whoever has this protected might want to update this sometime soon 2601:200:8101:6B80:11E0:19E:B51F:825C (talk) 05:40, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 8 July 2022

[edit]

Please add Kurt Warner to the list of Pro Football Hall of Famers section (wore #13 played for the Giants in 2004, enshrined in the Pro Football Hall of Fame in 2017). Also please move Morten Andersen to the top of the list so it is alphabetical. 149.152.60.43 (talk) 18:27, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 23:56, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki Education assignment: Research, Writing, and the Production of Knowledge

[edit]

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 13 June 2022 and 6 August 2022. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Dimitri425 (article contribs).

— Assignment last updated by Dimitri425 (talk) 22:50, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Bibliography[edit]

[edit]
  • Jordan, Raanan. Big Blue Throwback: Giants to don ‘80s-’90s unis. ESPN, 2022.
    • This is an article recently published in July of 2022, talking about the New York Giants bringing back their throwback uniforms from the 1980s-1990s, for the 2022 NFL season.
  • Danny, Friedman. NY Giants 4-Year struggles summed In a nutshell. Fansided, 2021.
    • Here is an article talking about the recent struggles of the team from 2017-2021, it does a good job in talking about their struggles and what caused those problems for them. It also gives specifics on the scores and games from those seasons as well.
  • Gary, Davenport. Why the New York Giants Must Wait to Trade Saquon Barkley. Bleacherreport, 2022.
    • This is a great article about the 2020 season that does not get heavily talked about in the Wikipedia article, it talks about the Giants star player and his future with the team.
  • Jeremy, Portnoy. Giants news, 4/1: salary cap struggles, Saquon Barkley, more. bigblueview, 2022.
    • This article can help when adding to a part of a section on the page. This article here talks about a player that is mentioned on the Wikipedia page already, and how he left the team due to salary cap issues. This helps talk about the struggles recently with money and certain players.
  • Jordan, Raanan. Giants expect early impact class led by Kayvon Thibodeaux, Evan Neal. ESPN, 2022.
    • This here is talking about the teams 2022 draft class and the potential they have as players and how they can seriously impact the game.

References[edit]

[edit]
  1. ^ Jump up to:a b
  2. ^ Jump up to:a b
  3. ^ Jump up to:a b
  4. ^ Jump up to:a b
  5. ^ Jump up to:a b

Dimitri425 (talk) 16:28, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 21 October 2022

[edit]

Please specify that the Meadowlands Sports Complex is in New Jersey to avoid a misinterpretation about where the team trains on summer.

Change "The Giants hold their summer training camp at the Quest Diagnostics Training Center at the Meadowlands Sports Complex.[4]" to "The Giants hold their summer training camp at the Quest Diagnostics Training Center at the Meadowlands Sports Complex in New Jersey.[4] Rikrdocs81 (talk) 23:05, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the entire sentence from the lead as the location of the summer training camp is not important for the lead or at all. I don't think a double NJ is needed versus the previous sentence if retained, I would just add a run-on clause ", and hold their summer training camp in the adjacent Meadowlands Sports Complex." if someone feels this is important. --Mvqr (talk) 09:47, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The Giants are in the playoffs!

[edit]

Please add 2022 to the list of Giants playoff appearances. Thank you and go Giants! Kbusch22 (talk) 23:06, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 6 February 2023

[edit]

Jim Fassel's name is mispelled 207.38.164.100 (talk) 05:08, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

 Done 💜  melecie  talk - 06:28, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I fixed the dates

[edit]


  • The dates of when the giants won the superbowls {{textdiff}}):
  • The writer said they won in (XXI (1986), XXV (1990), XLII (2007), and XLVI (2011)) But they Won in (XLVI (2012), XLII (2008), XXV (1991), and XXI (1987)) :
  • [1]':

Tara mulvihill (talk) 00:55, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ http://www.espn.com/nfl/superbowl/history/winners
 Not done for now: Good question raised, however further investigations shows that the year listed is the NFL season's year instead of the game's year. I'm not sure why it's listed as such. If want you to request it to be changed, please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{Edit semi-protected}} template. — Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 13:16, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hall of Fame section

[edit]

If somebody can, Kurt Warner needs to be added and Morten Anderson needs to be moved to the top. TJ Reilly (talk) 02:39, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:New_York_Giants/Archive_1&oldid=1256777566"