Talk:List of Super Bowl champions

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

List of Super Bowl champions is a featured list, which means it has been identified as one of the best lists produced by the Wikipedia community. If you see a way this page can be updated or improved without compromising previous work, feel free to contribute.

	This article is part of WikiProject National Football League, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to the NFL on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
FA	This article has been rated as FA-Class on the quality scale. (If you rated the article please give a short summary on the comment page to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)

List of Super Bowl champions has had a peer review by Wikipedia editors which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article.

Contents 1 Phoenix 2 Pictures 3 No edit section 4 Excessive notes... 5 # of Super Bowl a City host 6 Seeds 7 Colors 8 Numbers in parentheses 9 Away from the Basics 10 NPOV

[edit] Phoenix

For some reason I thought Phoenix was hosting a Superbowl after the New stadium was built. Did that fall through? Falphin 30 June 2005 20:09 (UTC)

• Never mind I didn't see Glendale. Falphin 30 June 2005 20:09 (UTC)
  • Yes, it's Glendale, not Phoenix. Image:PhoenixSuns 100.pngPhoenix2 1 July 2005 02:32 (UTC)
    • Shouldn't Tempe count as the metro Phoenix areas first super bowl and Glendale count as the second? Pontiac and Detroit are both counted as Detroit super bowls. The cities of Tempe and Glendale both border the city of Phoenix. SkyWayMan 4 February 2006 00:17 UTC
      • Fixed. Paul^C/_T+ 03:09, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Pictures

The pictures on this page are only there to visually spice up the page, before adding so many that there is a huge blank space, consider replacing a picture of less significance. I created this list with the pictures only so that it could be featured, if it is causing problems remove them all together. Phoenix2 01:49, August 14, 2005 (UTC)

I think the pictures should be all the same width. Right now they have different sizes, and it doesn't look very good. Jacoplane 00:09, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] No edit section

Why does this article have those "_NOEDITSECTION_" thingies? They make it significantly more difficult to edit the article. All in 19:43, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

• A bit of history about this article: The user who first started this page split the content from the Super Bowl article for the primary purpose of getting it promoted to featured list status. The "_NOEDITSECTION_" was inserted in the very second edit of this article, and within a few moments afterwards, this page was posted on Peer review for advice before posting it as a featured list candidacy. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 20:37, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Excessive notes...

We have way too many notes at this point. Information regarding the locations relative to older stadiums in the same city should be noted, but only when there is more than one SuperBowl at the location (like Phoenix, unlike San Francisco). Additionally, notes about past controversies regarding the SuperBowl locations should be noted on their individual pages. Current notes about future locations will be removed once the games are played. Of course, this is just my opinion. I think these changes should be discussed so I'm going to revert them and open up discussion here. Paul^C/_T+ 14:53, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Actually, that second note about Miami isn't needed either as it is covered by the actual article as well. The Kansas City note is still needed as official confirmation of the location is still pending. Paul^C/_T+ 15:20, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] # of Super Bowl a City host

Why is Pasadena not included with Los Angeles, while they are in the same county and in the metro area, it would be not different then Detroit metro. slu2008 1 April 2006

Good call, I didn't know that or I would have added it earlier. I did change the wording of the note at the bottom tho. Nice additions. Paul^C/_T+ 21:08, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Seeds

What does everyone think about also including each teams seeding throughout the playoffs? Might be some intersting information to have. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ballz1340 (talk • contribs) .

I am not in favor of it. First of all, the NFL did not use a seeding system until the 1975 season; all home games were based on an annual rotation based on divisions. Secondly, in the playoff systems that were used between the 1975 to 1989 season, two teams from the same division could not play each other in the Divisional playoff round. This is probably why the NFL has never officially listed the playoff seeds from the 1975 to 1989 seasons in its annual Record and Fact Book, including the new 2006 edition (ISBN 1933405325)

With those issues in mind, I would rather have them kept on the individual playoff articles rather than risk this current featured list be put onto WP:FLRC Zzyzx11 (Talk) 16:00, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

I see your points, I didn't think about the fact that the seedings didn't start until 1975. If you want to remove this discussion please feel free to ballz1340

[edit] Colors

Is it just me or is the color scheme on this page better suited for a post-Easter-egg-hunt-tea-party or a gay pride rally? Nothing against those things at all . . . but neither event would appreciate being adorned in black, grey, red, forest green, etc. Neither should a list of superbowl champions be adorned in colors that appeal to demographics in many ways opposite of the average football fan IMHO. Interested in other opinions on this before I put up a greyscale color code :) Hholt01 10:07, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

• iirc, the colors were put there as an aid so that this would be promoted to featured list status. You may change the colors, but please do not remove them completely. Thanks. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 15:12, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree, that is the first thing I noticed when I looked at the page-hideous. Quadzilla99 19:24, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

That Red Color for AFC is flat out an eyesore. KyuuA4 07:31, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

I mean don't get me wrong, the page is exceptional—the colors could just be replaced. Quadzilla99 05:22, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Numbers in parentheses

I think that posting the number of times a team has lost a Super Bowl in parentheses is just dumb. Wins? Of course. Appearances? Yeah, sure. But posting the number of losses is dumb. In a real sense, there are 31 losers every year. I would reorganize this table, with columns to show appearances and victories, or just take off the number of losses. Unschool 23:43, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

This is a good point. I was just thinking about this myself. However, before we remove the losses I think we should build a third list for total appearances below the wins list. This way it will be easier to calculate the total number of appearances for each team. Paul^C/_T+ 01:51, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

OR, since we already have a list of wins, would it make sense to just put appearances for each team in the main table and drop the wins? Paul^C/_T+ 01:54, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Away from the Basics

Let's not get away from the basics that got this article featured and add statistics "because we can". Phoenix2 02:34, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] NPOV

I've placed the NPOV tag on the yearly results section because I'm concerned the current view favors one team over another in a game that has yet to be played. In previous edits I have merged the relevant cells to display the upcoming matchup but that has been modified several times to place the Chicago Bears in the "Winning team" column. I do not think this is appropriate but have not been around this article for previous Super Bowls so I don't want to continue reverting without checking with the more experienced editors of this article first. PSUMark2006 talk | contribs 00:15, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Dealing with featured lists like this one can be tricky because the current view is one of the primary reasons it was promoted in the first place. As with any other featured list, if you change "the basics" that got this article featured, you risk getting it listed on Wikipedia:Featured list removal candidates. I do not know if some of the other pages listed on Wikipedia:Featured lists#Sport and games have been affected by the same problem here, where there is a pending match to be played, and there is a conflict about how this pending game should be displayed. It is only about 13 days from now, so I would like to keep something like "Colt v. Bears" in a cell that spans three rows. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 14:29, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

That was what I had in mind as well - the way it's displayed right now is how I had originally formatted it earlier on Saturday, and it was changed at one point to put one team in each column, hence the concern in my original comment. It looks fine to me now, and I agree with your assessment. PSUMark2006 talk | contribs 14:36, 22 January 2007 (UTC)