Talk:Super Bowl LII

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

Untitled[edit]

RESOLVED
See WP:CRYSTAL. Please do not start articles on future event until there is enough verifiable sources to warrant such a separate stand-alone article. Zzyzx11 (talk) 04:45, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Will somebody please start the Super Bowl LIII Wikipedia Page as soon as posiblie — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.102.58.146 (talk) 16:26, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Why the rush? Unless the bidding process gets underway, there is nothing meaningful to report and properly cited via reliable sources on a separate SB LIII article. The only thing we know that can be cited is which network will broadcast it, but that can be mentioned in one sentence on Super Bowl#Super Bowl on TV. Related policy is WP:CRYSTAL. See also Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2014 February 12, where consensus is to not start this article until then. Thanks. Zzyzx11 (talk) 03:11, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

We know CBS is broadcasting Super Bowl LIII. 68.102.58.146 (talk) 19:55, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What else do we know? As I wrote above, "The only thing we know that can be cited is which network will broadcast it, but that can be mentioned in one sentence on Super Bowl#Super Bowl on TV". Zzyzx11 (talk) 06:00, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No Super Bowl LIII Page In Sight It Has Not Started Yet But When Will They Start The Bidding For Cities For Super Bowl LIII Hopefully Soon. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.102.58.146 (talk) 15:17, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Super Bowl LIII article has not been created yet but when will they get it strated.68.102.58.146 (talk) 03:36, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As I have stated, when the bidding process gets underway, and there are legitimate bids submitted to the league. Thanks. Zzyzx11 (talk) 03:43, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That's Good there are legitimate bids submitted to the league right now but that's a good start and hopefully the article will be created sometime and hopefully soon.68.102.58.146 (talk) 13:16, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well I hope that they have some of the cities bidding for Super Bowl LIII. And I hope that article will start soon.68.102.58.146 (talk) 22:41, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What no article and no bidding in sight because of those Ray Rice and Adrian Peterson investigations. I hope that will be some cities that are bidding for Super Bowl LIII we know the game will be played on Feb 3 2019 and it will be on CBS. Come on people get your lazy buts in gear and start it soon. 68.102.58.146 (talk) 21:47, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Start the Super Bowl LIII article now. 68.102.58.146 (talk) 04:23, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please start the Super Bowl LIII article now. 68.102.58.146 (talk) 16:49, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Why is user Zzyzx11 on vacation. 68.102.58.146 (talk) 16:50, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What No Finalists For Super Bowl LIII The Article hasn't Started yet I Hope they will start it very soon. 68.102.58.146 (talk) 03:15, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Why Haven't you started the Super Bowl LIII Article. Cause there's no article in sight but if you don't start the article by December 1 it will stay red forever. 68.102.58.146 (talk) 16:16, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That's it looks like no Super bowl LIII Article in sight.68.102.58.146 (talk) 15:45, 1 December 2014 (UTC) With no bidding and no article in sight goodbye.68.102.58.146 (talk) 15:46, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please Start The Super Bowl LIII Page Now Because I Don't Want to wait 3 years to start it. 68.102.58.146 (talk) 21:18, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Either make an account or ask someone to allow the page to be created. VegasCasinoKid (talk) 04:08, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I removed the link, though the page should be a redirect and nothing else right now. VegasCasinoKid (talk) 04:12, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Despite my answer above regarding WP:CRYSTAL, this IP was blocked at least twice in December on grounds of disruptive editing for repeatedly asking the same question on WP:RD/E and other places and apparently ignoring the same WP:CRYSTAL answer. Zzyzx11 (talk) 05:13, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I've considered substing the template and leaving a black link, but that would leave a mess of code on the page and make editing difficult for those trying to improve 52. It's either a protected redirect or no link. "no link" is the only solution I am capable of. VegasCasinoKid (talk) 05:18, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
For your information. VegasCasinoKid (talk) 21:08, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Looks Like The Finalists For Super Bowl LIII Are Coming This Spring. They were supposed to be announced last fall but it didn't happen because of the Adrian Peterson Case. I should be happy that the finalisits for Super Bowl LIII should be announced in the spring. And the article for Super Bowl LIII Should be Coming Soon and then we can move on to Super Bowl LIV. 68.102.58.146 (talk) 04:12, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, the Super Bowl LIII and Super Bowl LIV were restarted after the NFL announced the finalists for both in May 2015. Again, as we have repeatedly mentioned over and over again to you, Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. We cannot start articles on future event until there is enough verifiable sources. Thanks. Zzyzx11 (talk) 07:22, 7 November 2015 (UTC).[reply]

Thanks For The Information And did you Have A Happy Thanksgiving 68.102.32.17 (talk) 17:19, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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]

I have the logo for the game https://mobile.twitter.com/TheGolden_0ne/status/828557008328544258/photo/3 can somebody put this on the article because I don't have a computer right now 

NHL49 (talk) 16:50, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@NHL49: That does not seem to be an official source. Until we can get one from an official source (preferably in the SVG format), I think it is better to not have one. Elisfkc (talk) 18:42, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Premature advert[edit]

Is it worth mentioning the premature adverts for Patriots v Vikings - (google) 2A02:C7D:15A:AB00:F58F:B50A:77A0:10C2 (talk) 00:12, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Odds[edit]

http://www.nj.com/sports/index.ssf/2018/01/super_bowl_2018_early_line_for_patriots_jaguars_ea.html

Can somebody put this in for the odds? — Preceding unsigned comment added by KENGRIFFEY24FAN (talk • contribs) 02:58, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 22 January 2018[edit]

In the side box, the price of 30-second commercial comes for a site that doesn't list any sourcing. A better prediction is >$5 million, as referenced here: https://www.si.com/nfl/2018/01/11/super-bowl-lii-ad-cost — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.179.77.162 (talk) 19:49, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Devin McCourty doesn't play linebacker. 71.168.215.239 (talk) 23:44, 22 January 2018 (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. JTP (talk • contribs) 01:49, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 4 February 2018[edit]

Change "will host media day events and press conferences" to "hosted media day events and press conferences." Change "More than 5,000 media members are expected to come" to "More than 5,000 media members came" Change "The Patriots will practice at the Minnesota Vikings facilities in Eden Prairie while the Eagles use the University of Minnesota." to "The Patriots practiced at the Minnesota Vikings' facilities in Eden Prairie while the Eagles used the University of Minnesota." Change "The NFL will present the Super Bowl Experience at the Minneapolis Convention Center[31][23][34] from January 27 to February 3 with an entrance fee.[8] Kelly Clarkson will perform at the Minneapolis Armory and a U.S. Bank Stadium lounge on the day of the Super Bowl.[35]" to "The NFL presented the Super Bowl Experience at the Minneapolis Convention Center[31][23][34] from January 27 to February 3 with an entrance fee.[8] Kelly Clarkson performed at the Minneapolis Armory and a U.S. Bank Stadium lounge on the day of the Super Bowl.[35]" BDubbs21 (talk) 05:38, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

 Done EoRdE6(Come Talk to Me!) 03:30, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Citation requested[edit]

In regards to my edit yesterday about the BBC using NBC's feed requiring a citation, I'm not sure if a Twitter post counts, but it's from one of the hosts of the coverage.

https://twitter.com/Carlsonsports/status/960264692575895557

There's also this article but I'm not sure if the video clips contained within would be geoblocked. http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/live/american-football/42683852 — Preceding unsigned comment added by TIGHazard (talk • contribs) 11:32, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Records Set[edit]

Under records set, the Patriots are credited with setting a record for fewest punts. According to NFL.com, this event has happened many times before. If this is meant to be a post-season record, then the Eagles would share this record - neither team punted the ball the entire game. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Richterrell (talk • contribs) 15:08, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Error on punts during game: According to Yahoo Sports play-by-pay recap of the game, Donnie Jones [Phila] punted once at 13:16 in the 2nd Q on 4th and 8 from the PHL 22 yard line for 41.0 yards. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Huduuthinkiam (talk • contribs) 15:27, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the Eagles punted once.S Philbrick(Talk) 20:24, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the patriots 0 punts should be in records tied, not records set - unless it is supposed to refer to super bowl games only, in which case it needs a source to say that it's never happened before. 2A02:C7D:15A:AB00:E0B3:4A9:7976:1F29 (talk) 23:34, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The "Fewest Punts, both teams" record also needs clarified. I know there was a game with no punts, so firstly, this should be clarified as referring on to superbowl games - and second, it again needs a source. 2A02:C7D:15A:AB00:E0B3:4A9:7976:1F29 (talk) 23:36, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Lead Mention of Patriots' Repeat Appearance[edit]

I can't help but notice the following statement in the lead: "The Patriots were the first team to appear in consecutive Super Bowls since the Seattle Seahawks in Super Bowls XLVIII and XLIX." This describes a gap of a single year since the last time it happened; in the last five Super Bowls, only Super Bowl 50 was not part of a consecutive repeat appearance by a team. Rather than say it's the "first time" this has happened since one year before, I think it would be better to note that this was the Nth time a team made consecutive appearances. That's not a statistic I have handy, but would be easy enough to look up. Do other editors agree that change would be a improvement? --DavidK93 (talk) 17:51, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that definitely would be more meaningful to put it in those terms...as it is it does sound odd now (kinda like saying "it was the first time the Patriots have been to the Super Bowl since...last year".) I think the more pertinent stat is "the Pats were the trying to be the first team to win back to back Super Bowls since 2005," that was always the significance of their repeat appearance when it's been talked about. 70.91.35.27 (talk) 18:39, 5 February 2018 (UTC)Tim[reply]

Wording on the Ertz catch[edit]

The wording on the Ertz catch needs to be tidied up. At time of Writing, it says "as Ertz lost the ball while diving towards the endzone" - this is misleading at best. The first time he 'lost' the ball was when he hit the ground over the goal line. And as ambiguous as the catch rule is these days aside, describing as losing before the endzone is not accurate. I'm not entirely sure how to word it myself, but the current way definitely isn't the right way. 2A02:C7D:15A:AB00:E0B3:4A9:7976:1F29 (talk) 23:31, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This seems to have been fixed. Can you double check the new wording and see if it fixes the problem? --Jayron32 03:28, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 6 February 2018[edit]

In the game summary you said Jake Elliott's extra point was missed wide right, when it was actually missed to the right. Just a subtle thing, but all content of the article needs to be true and I wanted to point that out 2001:48F8:1004:D9D:ADD3:A8F8:FC3:B4D4 (talk) 03:20, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done The common phrasing for a missed field goal is to call it "wide right", "wide left", "short", or "off the goal post". This is idiomatic in football, and there's no functional difference between "missed to the right" and "missed wide right". They mean exactly the same thing. --Jayron32 03:27, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Talk: Super Bowl LII[edit]

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"Super Bowl LII was the championship game of the 2017 season of the National Football League (NFL), the 52nd Super Bowl overall, and the 48th championship game of the league's modern era. " If this is correct then the first 4 Super Bowls are not part of the "modern era". Aside from the obvious error (48-52=?) the question of the modern era's beginning point is not really answered simply with Super Bowl history, either. If you watch Gale Sayers score 6 touchdowns in one game against the 49ers one Sunday, Muddy Sunday; or watch Jim Brown annihilate some poor guy's attempted tackle; it's actually very much the same (type of thrill?) as watching Marshawn Lynch do his thing; or . . . well, nobody does a Gale Sayers impression . . . but one wouldn't want to relegate these two, among others, to prehistoric times. Would one? Of course, like EVERYTHING, it depends how you look at it. I'd suggest the "Modern Era" and "Passing the Ball" are simultaneous, synonymous, and simply delicious together. . . . . . . It was pointed out that the "48th...of Modern Era" matches the timeline of "Monday Night Football" telecasts. Obviously, we are not going to HAVE a noteworthy telecast of the game supplant the game itself in terms of relevance within this context. ARE WE. (!?!) . . . If any one of "us" achieves the ability to say with a straight face that the Modern Era Of Professional Football Began With The First Monday Night Football Telecast, then the entire planet should be destroyed and penalized 15 yards. With a 10-second run-off. 2600:1700:DF41:5990:9C9D:EABA:F53B:1660 (talk) 05:49, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The "modern era" is called as such not because of MNF, but because the AFL-NFL merger was completed before the 1970 season.
"The merger was announced on the evening of June 8, 1966. Under the merger agreement, the leagues maintained separate regular-season schedules for the next four seasons—from 1966 through 1969—and then officially merged before the 1970 season to form one league with two conferences."
Super Bowl's 1 to 4 were branded as the AFL-NFL World Championship Game's and were not rebranded as the Super Bowl until after the two leagues had merged.
TIGHazard (talk) 11:51, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's not exactly true. The first game to be called "The Super Bowl" officially was Super Bowl III, played 1.5 years before the full merger of the leagues. Modern Era, however, still usually dates from 1970, when the league's fully merged. --Jayron32 14:00, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Riots[edit]

The rioting in Philadelphia immediately following the victory has been widely reported and deserves a segment here, or a separate article. Additionally, social media has been generating tons of controversy about the double-standard between the lack of police reaction to the rioting compared to the peaceful BLM protests before the game that were met with a large number of arrests. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.188.207.18 (talk) 18:50, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. --Matt723star (talk) 02:06, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Statistics[edit]

I was wondering whether the TD pass by Trey Burton is also a kind of record, for SuperBowl, playoffs or other matches, for the number of TD passes by a designated Tight End or other non-QB? 62.96.235.231 (talk) 11:26, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It's certainly NOT the first time a non-QB has thrown a TD pass in a Super Bowl. Just off the top of my head, the Steelers' Antwan Randle-El (a WR) threw a Super Bowl TD pass to Hines Ward, and the Cowboys' Robert Newhouse (a RB) threw a pass to Golden Richards way back in the 70s. I'm sure there have been others. --Jayron32 13:53, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Photo removal[edit]

"A New England Patriots player leaps for a first down during the first half, but is stopped short."

This photo is blurry and ineffective for this article. Needs to be removed.

TheLeeDavis (talk) 19:40, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Images[edit]

I think that what's happened to the images I spent hours adding to this and similar articles is instructive of the shortcomings of Wikipedia as a whole, and why I left in 2005. I wanted to see if things had changed, but at the time I wrote this, I think there were probably about 3 of 18 or so of the original images remaining. I only got as far as adding two images of the actual game before I stopped, because this is futile.

It's not like I added these images randomly - they were selected from hundreds and designed to tell a story. For example, the pre-game entertainment section, which is now completely removed, contained one image of each of the major events that occurred before the game: the NFL Honors recipients, America the Beautiful, the National Anthem, etc. Some of it, like the Honors recipients, wasn't televised and therefore wasn't available from many other sources. A reader browsing the article could quickly see what happened, in the order that it happened, especially in the case where they need a quick overview. With these images removed, readers now have to parse a wall of text, and the text does not even contain the same information that the images did.

There are probably better copies available of some of the events, the coin toss in particular, and they should certainly be replaced if there are free images available. If there are not better images available, I simply don't understand why this article is viewed as having better quality by deleting images that were specifically selected to provide the reader with a better understanding of this game.

I'll stop now instead of uploading the images of the plays, because I don't want to get involved in edit wars here. I just want to point out that these sort of edits are why contributors (like me) end up leaving. There are plenty of people who say "the images should be replaced with better ones," or "they should be used elsewhere" - and then they press the "delete" button without uploading a better image, or actually using them elsewhere. Quintin3265 (talk) 20:23, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure exactly what images you think belong there, but with a quick glance at the pictures you added under "first half", I'll comment:
  • Eagles handoff Does not show a hand-off. It shows a quarterback waiting to be given the ball. If it's in the process of being handed over, the angle does not allow that to be seen. That picture might be usable under a caption something like "Start of an Eagles red-zone play" or something like that, but I'd trim the bottom quarter of the image so we don't see out-of-focus foreground heads.
  • Patriots leap does not show a patriot leaping for the ball. It shows the back of someone's head and several players in movement.
I'm not sure what you think should be done with those pictures. The second one is simply a poor picture, one of many any photographer will take and discard. Neither image shows what your caption claims. Tarl N. (discuss) 00:59, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think he was talking about the large number of galleries; I'll copy and paste what I told him on the talk page here. I do not feel that I am a deletionist, I am merely following the guidance of WP:IG, which discourages large, indiscriminate collections of photos in gallery format; some of them just felt more like "vacation photos" rather than actually showing useful things (that photo of the reporters, if you know their names, could be useful on WLNE-TV's article, for one, and one or more of those images could work well on NFL Experience). Commons is better-suited for showcasing larger curated selections of images.

In addition, I was looking at the image quality, especially the in-game photos (one has a person's head in the way), and on the halftime show. On the latter, low-light concert photography is pretty hard, but I think the Prince scene was probably the "iconic" moment of this halftime show (alongside Lady Gaga's drone flag and Katy shooting star finale). I do not intend to demean your efforts (they were quite admirable, and I'm sure you enjoyed the experience), but it just felt like the article was being overloaded. ViperSnake151  Talk  05:37, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

missing topics[edit]

here's a list of topics that appear to be missing:

  • Malcolm Butler being benched (widely covered and reported)
  • Fan reactions to the win in Philly (widely covered and reported)
  • Reactions to the various ads. I know that there was widespread negative reaction to the one that used MLK's voice (widely covered and reported), but there may be other ads where the reaction was significant as well.
  • The black screen (widely covered and reported)
  • Widespread criticism of the commentators, particularly Collinsworth (widely covered and reported)
  • The controversy surrounding Timberlake being picked as the halftime performer at all, and the fact that Justice For Janet trended on twitter during his show. (it trended on twitter) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Schnapps17 (talk • contribs) 04:35, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Images[edit]

The photos on this page at present are a ridiculous joke. You have photos of the quarterbacks that are years old. There is one gameplay image that is mostly the back of a guy's head. Surely to God the NFL would approve of the use of some of their imagery from the day.174.0.48.147 (talk) 23:55, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The NFL would most likely not approve of any material that would comply with Wikipedia's strict non-free content policy, which severely limits the use of any copyrighted or fair use images on Wikipedia. And it is those rules that explain the current selection of photos. Nobody has uploaded a recent photo of either of the two QBs, and released such images as free content instead. Most professional photographers usually are also unwilling to comply, and so we are left with a gameplay photo taken by some fan in the stands. Zzyzx11 (talk) 02:50, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Important enough for the intro?[edit]

@Zzyzx11:: Right now, the second sentence of this 11,000-word article is "The Patriots became the first defending Super Bowl champions since the 2014 Seattle Seahawks to lose in the following year's title game." I submit that a twice-in-four-years occurrence isn't even important enough to be in the intro, much less be the second thing we talk about. Thoughts? PRRfan (talk) 16:48, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'd agree, that's trivia that belongs well into the body, not in the lede. Tarl N. (discuss) 17:50, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Removed for now. I only added it because there is a similar line currently in the second paragraph of the Super Bowl XLIX article. The line there has however, ALL the instances up to that point where the defending Super Bowl champion lost in the following year's title game. Zzyzx11 (talk) 03:30, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that the list in Super Bowl XLIX is over the top and probably should come out. As far as this article, however, if you change the comment to something like With the loss, the Patriots became the fifth defending Super Bowl champions to lose after reaching the following year's title game, that comes across as describing a pattern. Ideally, you'd be able to cite a reference stating this, so the curious could find out which previous five teams did this, while not burning space in the lede. The problem with the removed comment was saying "first since 2014" when we're in 2018. Kind of like This is the first time since noon that I put sugar in my coffee :-). —Tarl N. (talk • contribs) 22:45, 21 February 2018‎ (UTC)[reply]

Blount/Ajayi?[edit]

I notice there's been a bit of back-and-forth over who started at running back for the Eagles in SB52. Notwithstanding the fact that we have a source that clearly states Blount started the game, I've just logged into NFL Game Pass and watched the Eagles' first play from scrimmage – the running back behind Nick Foles is clearly wearing jersey number 29, not number 36, and the name plate clearly says Blount, not Ajayi. While I wouldn't expect anyone to take my word for it, especially as it is a primary source, I invite anyone to put forward any evidence whatsoever that Ajayi started the game, as only that would be good enough to supplant an official NFL source in favour of Blount. – PeeJay 17:23, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, Ajayi doesn't come in until the Eagles' fifth offensive snap of the game. Even Corey Clement gets in before him. – PeeJay 17:27, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, that was my recollection. My only usable source (other than memory) was the NFL Game Summary. Glad you could add to that for when this article loses protection again. Tarl N. (discuss) 17:01, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 15:54, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Super_Bowl_LII&oldid=1208410198"