Talk:Super Bowl LI/Archive 1

Archive 1

NRG Stadium playoff games

Is it worth noting that this will be the first time that the Super Bowl host site will also host at least one other playoff game since the 1998–99 playoffs? Jdavi333 (talk) 17:58, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

Logo image

Any reliable sources about the game's official logo?? Georgia guy (talk) 00:47, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

The official NFL Website. NHL49 (talk) 03:23, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

Favorites

Can someone put the patriots as favorites by 3 here's the citation. Chase, Chris. "New England Opens as 3-point Favorites over Atlanta in Super Bowl LI." FOX Sports. FOX Sports, 22 Jan. 2017. Web. 22 Jan. 2017. NHL49 (talk) 03:22, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

Yep, done, by others: [1], [2]. —Lowellian (reply) 23:54, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

50th anniversary

"represent the fiftieth anniversary of the first Super Bowl, played in Los Angeles on January 15, 1967" - this must have been part of the intro copied from Super Bowl 50, which was the 50th anniversary. Funnily enough, Super bowl 51 is not the 50th anniversary. 2.222.71.129 (talk) 19:28, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

Not true. Super Bowl I was in January, 1967. Therefore, even though it is 51st game, it will be the 50th anniversary of the 1st game, so the math is correct. Not this withstanding, I'm not sure just being the 50th anniversary of Super Bowl I is a signifigant fact to be included in the article. I'll leave that to others to discuss. Jdavi333 (talk) 19:40, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

While I think the mention of the 50th anniversary is completely unnecessary, it is accurate. 51 minus 1 = 50 (Super Bowl LI). Meanwhile 50 minus 1 = 49 (Super Bowl 50). Frank Anchor^Talk 12:53, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

Shouldn't the fiftieth anniversary be January 15, 2017? So Super Bowl LI is three weeks after the anniversary. Let's celebrate at the divisional round games! ⛐Boivie (talk) 14:07, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

Why not call it the first Quinquagenary so that no one will know what it is and be done with it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by NFL Buddha (talk • contribs) 11:58, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 February 2017

There is a typo on this page. It says "The Patriots will be staying at the JW Marriott Galeria" It should be "Galleria" But it's not actually even called that. It's the JW Marriott Houston, in the Galleria area. Jenntex72 (talk) 18:16, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

Done Sir Joseph ^(talk) 19:39, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

References

Semi-protected edit request on 3 February 2017

Please change "the NFL announced it will not alter plans" to "the NFL announced it would not alter plans" This is a past decision and should not mix past and future tenses. 208.95.51.115 (talk) 13:06, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

Done JTP ^{(talk • contribs)} 14:12, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

BOWL

Who has sources for the halftime show.174.26.11.175 (talk) 05:50, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Team hotel sites

Under the Team Facilities sections, is it really a good idea to announce the hotel where each team is staying? Especially after last week's indecent in Foxborough, MA as well as many other past occurrences, one of which includes the Patriots in Arizona two years ago. Mushh94 (talk) 07:27, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

It's already publicly available, so we're not publishing private information. - BilCat (talk) 07:46, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

That's true I suppose, but I guess I'm thinking it might be prudent to wait to keep that information in a hidden tag until after the Super Bowl. No reason to make that information even more available than it currently is. Mushh94 (talk) 08:40, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

Unless it would violate BLP, NPOV, or United States law, Wikipedia is not censored. This is publicly-available information that is highly relevant to the subject of the article and does not violate BLP, NPOV, or U.S. law, so it should be retained. —Lowellian (reply) 09:45, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

The now-obsolete security concerns notwithstanding, could you actually explain why this is relevant at all (let alone, "highly relevant"). IMHO it is akin to what each player had for breakfast or other private information. Also, WP should not take part in advertisement for these hotels. It's unencyclopedic content. Str1977 ^(talk) 06:18, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Broadcasting in Poland

Please add Eleven Sports for a broadcaster in Poland.

source: http://satkurier.pl/news/156098/super-bowl-li-w-kanale-eleven-sports.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.4.168.197 (talk) 10:17, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

"Greatest Super Bowl" debate

This morning it looks like a great swathe of the media is describing the Super Bowl as the greatest ever played: see CBS Sports, Toronto Star, Guardian (UK), USA Today, BBC News. I think that level of reporting deserves to be in the lead. But I have been reverted once, so I'd rather it was discussed here than we get into an edit war, particularly the morning after. Other views? --Legis (talk - contribs) 13:26, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

I do agree with the revert to the limited extent that there should be a section in the body before including such an incredible statement in the lead section. I'm not familiar with previous Super Bowl articles, but perhaps a media reaction or historical significance section, or whatever else there's precident for. I don't doubt that the weight of sourcing is likely to lean towards supporting the statement which was removed, but it's highly likely to be reverted if made as a stand-alone statement in the lead. StillWaitingForConnection (talk) 13:41, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. But just to be clear - I absolutely agree one needs to wait a few years before saying whether or not a SB is one of the greatest of all time or not. But I think it is the press coverage of this SB that is notable. I certainly can't recall any similar kind of acclamation the morning after a SB. --Legis (talk - contribs) 13:58, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Oh, completely agree. I support both a section on said coverage and on inclusion of the claim in the lead section. But based on previous experience, for the statement to stick in the lead I presume a broader section in the body would be a prerequisite. Therefore if the intention is to prevent multiple reversions I'd suggest the new section come first. StillWaitingForConnection (talk) 14:02, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Oh please this might have been the greatest comeback in SB history it was not the greatest game.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2604:2000:c68a:c800:acef:abf9:fed0:9b9 (talk) 19:51, 6 February 2017‎ (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 February 2017

Cokonatliprens (talk) 20:48, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

0o error

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. SkyWarrior 03:13, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 February 2017

FinalForm (talk) 03:13, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Not done: @FinalForm: Your request is blank. Please indicate what you would like done in a change X to Y format. 331dot (talk) 03:21, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Add 51st Super Bowl in lead for those unfamiliar with Roman Numerals?

• (I expect this question has arisen before, and if so it might be helpful if anybody can supply a link to its most recent occurrence).
• I'm familiar with Roman numerals, but large numbers of our readers probably are not (perhaps especially if they are not from a Western background, which is one WP:BIAS problem here, though age, education, gender, nationality, and social class may be just some of the other sources of unfamiliarity). Yet if I didn't already know that LI meant 51 it would take quite a bit of effort with the article as it stands to find out what LI meant, and the same probably applies to all previous Super Bowls except Super Bowl 50. The problem would seem to be easily fixed by starting the article with something like:

Super Bowl LI (the 51st Super Bowl)

• This could then be repeated for Super Bowls I to XLIX.
• This incidentally arguably also has the advantage of providing a wikilink to the overall Superbowl article near the start of the lead (that wikilink can always be removed if it's thought to be overlinking, though I had to spend a little time looking for that wikilink as it wasn't where I expected it to be).
• Per WP:BOLD, I'm now going to make the above suggested change to this article Per Talk, and see what happens (the other 49 articles can wait until we see how this one fares). Tlhslobus (talk) 12:39, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

While it's not wrong to say that it's "the 51st Super Bowl," I feel it's unnecessary and a little awkward to do it that way. When read aloud, it says, "Super Bowl fifty-one (the fifty-first Super Bowl)" which is rather more repetitive than I think you intended. An incidental mention later in the article would be better.

More to the point, the question of whether to explain or annotate Roman numerals has seldom arisen and seems to be a non-issue as far as most contributors are concerned. I expect most readers here are indeed familiar with them, including those with non-Western backgrounds. I'm not convinced there's an issue of bias.

I am therefore undoing your change. Ed Oppty (talk) 17:02, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

I'm with Ed Oppty here. Thousands upon thousands of Wikipedia articles use Roman numerals with no additional commentary. I've never seen of nor heard of widespread confusion caused by this. It seems an illusory problem. --Jayron32 17:14, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 February 2017

Patriots rallied from a 25-point deficit, trailing 28-3, with two and a half minutes left in the third quarter (not eight and a half) Smack112 (talk) 03:45, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

@Smack112:  Done --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 21:37, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Problems with game summary section

As of this writing, the Game Summary section has several serious problems which need addressing to improve the overall quality of this article. 1) The tone of the writing is not appropriate for an encyclopedia. Many turns of phrase and specific wording chosen is highly colloquial and the entire section is filled with the sort of slang one would expect in an amateur sports blog, and not in a properly written encyclopedia article. 2) There are, within the narrative, several examples of random trivia which, while true and referenced, really doesn't fit in this part of the article. Slapping a ref tag on something doesn't make it impervious to editing, and having a source doesn't make it relevant to the writing. I made two attempts to tighten up the language, fix wording, and remove tangential trivia from the section. Unfortunately, the editor who wrote it refuses to accept ANY changes to even a single word he wrote. I am seeking outside input and additional attempts to improve the tone of the section. Because it is very frustrating to make something better, and then find someone who refuses to allow any change, and merely assumes that their writing is as good as it could possibly be, and that no other editor could possibly have anything to do to improve it. Instead of continuing the edit war they seem to prefer, I would like a discussion here among uninvolved editors to get additional input. --Jayron32 13:24, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

I tend to favour the less is more approach. To give one example:

However, on 3rd-and-6, Brady threw a pass that was intercepted by Alford and returned 82 yards for a touchdown, increasing Atlanta's lead to 21–0. It was the first time in his career that Brady had thrown a pick-six in a postseason game,[108] and Alford's 82 yard return was the second longest interception return in Super Bowl history.[109] should IMO be

''However, on 3rd-and-6, Brady's pass was intercepted by Alford and returned 82 yards for a touchdown – the second longest interception return in Super Bowl history.[109] StillWaitingForConnection (talk) 15:45, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

Good luck with actually doing that. I made similar edits, and was blindly reverted every time by the editor who originally wrote those words. The reason I started this discussion was to avoid an edit war, but there is at least one person displaying WP:OWN-type behavior, and who has repeatedly refused to accept that any change to his words could possibly improve upon them. I had hoped he would participate in this dicussion so we could get his perspective, but as yet, nothing. --Jayron32 15:50, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

(ec)As far as trivia and keeping a running story of the scoreline goes, I think Super Bowl history is relevant. In the example above, 82 yards is an exceptional amount of distance for an interception return, though obviously we should present that sentiment as objectively as possible therefore the use of second-longest ever as an objective barometer. Whereas a milestone (positive or negative) in Tom Brady's career belongs on Tom Brady's article. Unless of course in the incident described he is setting a Super Bowl record.

And in response to the good luck, I have no intention of editing, beyond what I've done already as part of getting the page to ITN because no-one more knowledgeable than myself could be bothered. What should be done and what will happen over the next week or so are two wildly different things. Call me in April and I'll gladly make an effort though. StillWaitingForConnection (talk) 15:53, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

One final thought though for anyone brave enough to take it on in the meantime. The best way to write an NFL game summary is to actively avoid mentioning the quarterbacks under any circumstances, and save the edit. After you're done, consider where you've gone a bit too far and add him in there. StillWaitingForConnection (talk) 15:57, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 February 2017

Please add sony ESPN for a broadcaster in India.

the Vice President is at the game — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.127.115.248 (talk) 00:56, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

References

Not done: The page's protection level has changed since this request was placed. You should now be able to edit the page yourself. If you still seem to be unable to, please reopen the request with further details. JTP ^{(talk • contribs)} 01:17, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 February 2017

Please add to the game summary the previous record of teams losing by 19 points in the third quarter being at 0-93, e.g. every single team lost. FibroMyAlgebra (talk) 03:50, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Not done: The page's protection level has changed since this request was placed. You should now be able to edit the page yourself. If you still seem to be unable to, please reopen the request with further details. JTP ^{(talk • contribs)} 01:17, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 February 2017

Information in 'First Half' is incorrect. States holding calls aided drive that resulted in FG. Three successive holding calls occurred on series that ended in interception, not the series to end in field goal.

"New England was also aided by three defensive holding penalties against the Atlanta defense, each one giving them a first down on a third down play. The drive stalled at the Falcons 20-yard line, but Stephen Gostkowski kicked a field goal with a few second left on the clock to send the teams into their locker rooms with the score 21–3."

Information in 'Statistics' is incorrect. States Matt Ryan was 17 for 28 when in fact he was 17 of 23 for the game. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.83.31.2 (talk) 19:36, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Should not the Tyree, Manninghan and Kearse catch be in the description of the Edeleman catch? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2604:2000:C68A:C800:ACEF:ABF9:FED0:9B9 (talk) 19:52, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Not done: The page's protection level has changed since this request was placed. You should now be able to edit the page yourself. If you still seem to be unable to, please reopen the request with further details. JTP ^{(talk • contribs)} 01:17, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 February 2017

Shouldn't The Edlemen catch bring up the Helmet catch the Manningham catch and the Kearse catch from Super Bowl XLIX be mentioned as it is mentioned in the Wikipedia Article of Super BOwl XLIX? 2604:2000:C68A:C800:3D0F:4CDC:DA63:AA4A (talk) 22:31, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

Not done: The page's protection level has changed since this request was placed. You should now be able to edit the page yourself. If you still seem to be unable to, please reopen the request with further details. —MRD2014 (talk • contribs) 02:42, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

impossible numbers?

Hey guys, how is it possible for one player to pass more than the whole team? are not the numbers switched? Most passing yards, player (game) 466 Tom Brady (New England) Most passing yards, team (game) 442 New England

The NFL counts sack yardage as passing yardage, unlike the NCAA where it counts as rushing. Therefore, it's possible for an individual to throw for more yards than his team actually gains via passing. The sacks are charged to the team, not the quarterback. 2606:A000:89C6:9300:95C6:DD97:94B9:D603 (talk) 06:16, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

Move request

Should we move this to Super Bowl 51? Gary "Roach" Sanderson (talk) 23:34, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

Why? The logo clearly states "LI". Super Bowl 51 is a redirect. 331dot (talk) 23:38, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

Exactly. Moving this would be ludicrous. – PeeJay 23:41, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

The movie commercial for Logan was the only one not included in the advertising section.

Does it matter if there's a source for a super bowl movie commercial listed in the advertising section (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Super_Bowl_LI#Advertising)? It's not like it didn't happen; MILLIONS of people saw it. I'm confused by this, so I decided to go find sources for each of the movie commercials being presented during the super bowl. If the person who undid my edit thinks it's unnecessary to include Logan because it doesn't have a source, then why not give all the movie titles sources for their own commercials, right?

So, here's a list of links to the sources. Feel free to add them, if it even matters. (NOTE: I originally added them to the official section, but moved them here because I didn't fully cite them.)

https://www.cnet.com/news/watch-logan-trailer-super-bowl-2017/

http://collider.com/fast-8-super-bowl-commercial/

https://www.wired.com/2017/02/guardians-of-the-galaxy-vol-2-super-bowl-trailer/

https://io9.gizmodo.com/captain-jack-is-back-in-the-pirates-of-the-caribbean-5-1792019948

http://www.thisisinsider.com/transformers-last-knight-super-bowl-trailer-2017-2

Also, I would like to apologize for any negative attitude I may have demonstrated in my original addition of these sources. It was unprofessional of me, and realistically it's not how I see myself as a Wikipedia editor.

- Theironminer (talk) 13:14, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

The primary reason I reverted your edit was because it included no citation, and included no edit comment explaining the edit. It looked like thousands of other fandalism edits I see, where some fan-boy adds his favorite subject to highly-visible articles, regardless of applicability. As for whether a citation matters, the whole point of Wikipedia is that we report what is reported elsewhere, and we say where found what we reported. We prohibit WP:OR, which can consist of saying "millions of people saw it." I watched that superbowl, and I don't have a recollection of Logan being advertised. That doesn't mean it didn't happen, but to include the comment in Wikipedia, it should have a WP:RS mentioning it. The original list of advertisements probably should not have been included in the first place without a citation, but I don't go around deleting old text for the fun of it. I do, however, push back when I spot text added without references - particularly when it looks like fandalism. Tarl N. (discuss) 20:58, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

By the way, those references cited above seem to mostly describe commercials filmed for the superbowl, do not document that they were shown in the superbowl. That's not a meaningless distinction - every year, many commercials are made "for the superbowl", and end up not being shown during that event. Tarl N. (discuss) 21:03, 22 January 2018 (UTC)