Talk:Super Bowl XXXIV

message: Hi. I seem to recall one of the dot-com adverts was two guys sitting on a porch in rocking chairs for about 25 seconds, and then in the last 5 seconds saying something like, "Do we know what we're doing here?" "I sure hope so, we spent a lot of money for this ad." Does anyone remember which company that was? Btw Superbowl 34 was a great game, the Titans QB was awesome. Regards & happy editing, Wile E. Heresiarch 17:02, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I think I remember that one as well, but like you I can't remember the company. That just proves that it wasn't an effective ad, considering the fact that neither of us can remember then company name :).--J.a.f.a.c. 05:57, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dot-com advert featuring guys sitting on  a porch 

message: :GA review (see here for criteria)
#It is reasonably well written.
#:a (prose):  b (MoS): 
#:: 
#It is factually accurate and verifiable.
#:a (references):  b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR): 
#:: 
#It is broad in its coverage.
#:a (major aspects):  b (focused): 
#:: 
#It follows the neutral point of view policy.
#:Fair representation without bias: 
#:: 
#It is stable.
#:No edit wars etc.: 
#:: 
#It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
#:a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales):  b (appropriate use with suitable captions): 
#:: 
#Overall: 
#:Pass/Fail: 
#:: </div>
  jj137 (talk) 22:04, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  with everything suggested. - Milk's Favorite Cookie 22:31, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Good article review 

message: I am glad to report that this article nomination for good article status has been promoted. This is how the article, as of March 28, 2008, compares against the  six good article criteria:
:1. Well written?: Pass
:2. Factually accurate?: Pass
:3. Broad in coverage?: Pass
:4. Neutral point of view?: Pass
:5. Article stability? Pass
:6. Images?: Pass
Looks like a good article overall. I'm passing it because it meets the requirements and there are no major issues with it. If you feel that this review is in error, feel free to take it to Good article reassessment. Thank you to all of the editors who worked hard to bring it to this status, and congratulations.—   jj137 (talk) 22:39, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Successful [[Wikipedia:Good articles|good article]] nomination

message: I see this article is at FAC. However, many of the issues raised there (link) mean it shouldn't be a GA, and I have thus delisted it. Issues such as referencing juvenile non-fiction books, poorly formatted and used references, and prose which really isn't that flash means this isn't GA quality yet. You can ask for a review if you disagree. dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 00:43, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with this delisting. Furthermore, I ask that the nominator withdraw the FAC within a few days after you receive a few more comments (I didn't look through the prose, so I might have missed some issues). I suggest you go to peer review afterwards. Nishkid64 (Make articles, not love) 00:48, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: GA delisted

message: Just a question here - I'm not entirely sure of the official rules, so perhaps someone can explain this or correct me here - but in the 3rd quarter the Titans had a field goal blocked before the line - and it was then recovered by the Rams.  Now as I understand it, a field goal blocked before the line is a fumble - so why is this not a fumble recovery (making a turnover)? 188.221.79.22 (talk) 21:13, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: No, a field goal that is blocked before the line of scrimmage is still literally considered a "blocked field goal", not a fumble. Both are considered "loose balls" that can be recovered by either team. A more recent example that comes to my mind was this blocked field goal return for a touchdown during the 49ers-Vikings game on September 27, 2009; it was still scored as a "return of a blocked field goal", not a fumble return. I think this confusion comes in when some fans and broadcast announcers tend to group any type of "loose ball", "muffed punt" or "turnover on downs" as turnovers, even though they are not officially scored that way. Zzyzx11 (talk) 03:57, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the clarification 188.221.79.22 (talk) 15:06, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  No turnovers? 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Super Bowl XXXIV. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080325115257/http://www.colts.com:80/sub.cfm?page=football_dynamic&id=174 to http://www.colts.com/sub.cfm?page=football_dynamic&id=174
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20030202112709/http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com:80/football/nfl/2000/playoffs/conf_afc/news/2000/01/23/titans_jaguars_ap to http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/football/nfl/2000/playoffs/conf_afc/news/2000/01/23/titans_jaguars_ap/
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20140630063441/http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xVBVJNex8co to http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xVBVJNex8co
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 16:56, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Super Bowl XXXIV. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20051206230144/http://www.sportingnews.com:80/archives/superbowl to http://www.sportingnews.com/archives/superbowl/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 14:31, 27 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Super Bowl XXXIV. 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:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160203174011/http://weekendamerica.publicradio.org/display/web/2008/01/31/superbowlad/ to http://weekendamerica.publicradio.org/display/web/2008/01/31/superbowlad/
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.tampagov.net/dept_Mayor/Presentations/atlanta_journal_article.asp
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:57, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: This article states the LA Rams And the St Louis Rams won. Are they the same team. Why do they have different names. 198.48.172.115 (talk) 19:47, 22 December 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Who actually won.