Talk:Super Bowl XLI/Archive 1

message: This article should include, preferably in the fact box, a listing of the anticipated time of kickoff, if known.  I see the articles shows that game coverage starts at 6:25... but after you announce the teams, the starting players, the coaches, the honorary captains, the game officials, the coin toss officials, the water boys, etc. etc... does anyone know what time they actually expect to kick off?!! 12.147.193.6 18:15, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The advertised start time by the TV and the NFL is 6:00. Then, following all the ceremonial wathavya, the actual kickoff is 6:25 p.m.—Twigboy 21:52, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Can this be added? I second 12.147.193.6's desire to see it in the fact box, in addition to mentioning it in the summary. I'm sure many people, like myself, will be checking this page today to see what time it starts. Morganiq 19:44, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

text: I went ahead and added this. Forgot that I could edit if logged in. Morganiq 20:48, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Kickoff time 

message: Cirque Du Soleil is listed as a reported pregame entertainment, but the only source is a ticket website and absent from CDS and NFL websites. It is also unclear, if this is true, if CDS would be the in-stadium pregame show, or if they are performing around the week-long events that are tied into the Super Bowl. I have not been able to find any other reputable source on this. —Twigboy 05:37, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: And I stand corrected . Since this is an official source, I will replace the ticket website reference with the NFL reference. —Twigboy 02:25, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cirque? 

message: I don't know if anyone noticed but it says New England is playing New Orleans, last I checked they still had to play the NFC and AFC Championship games before they dtermined who the teams playing are.
:Someone has been vandilizing the page.--CWY2190 22:53, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Well it's settled now, and the Patriots aren't going 22:22, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  THE TEAMS ARE UNDETERMINED AS OF YET 

message: Now!!!  even for just now!!!DPM 03:27, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Semi protect

message: The Dolphin Stadium website has been reported as compromised, with a keylogger installed on the victims' computers.
http://blogs.zdnet.com/security/?p=15&tag=nl.e589
http://www.websense.com/securitylabs/alerts/alert.php?AlertID=733
209.184.36.173 21:15, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Web site compromised 

message: I remember reading that the odds were either 7 or 6.5 to the Colts, never higher than seven.  I read it off that source right next to the odds number on the article. --ROASTYTOAST 04:23, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Odds 

message: We kept the SB article unprotected for the most part last year, and it worked out okay. I assumed we'd be doing that again this year, and only semi-protecting if it gets out of hand, most likely right after the game ends (which is when I've seen the surge worst on articles like 2006 World Series). I can practically guarantee there will be multiple admins sitting on this article during the game. --W.marsh 16:15, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As of now, 17:52, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I also question the reason why it was semiprotected under the comment, "Keeping this page protected until the Super Bowl has passed and the vandals have left." WP:SPP#When not to use semi-protection clearly states that semi-protection should not be used, "As a preemptive measure against vandalism before any vandalism has occurred." In my opinion, there was not enough IP anon vandalism before the smeiprotection to warrant it. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 18:14, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I won't rule out semi-protecting briefly if vandalism gets to an unmanageable level, which it probably will at some point, but protecting preemptively for the whole day is not a good idea, in my opinion. I suggest we unprotect for now. --W.marsh 18:58, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This message was left on my talk page by the admin who semiprotected the article. However, I do think it should be unprotected, at least before kickoff. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 19:25, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Protection 

message: The official Superbowl web page states that over 50 professional entertainers will be performing as part of this year's pregame show.  Does anyone know where the complete list of pregame show entetainers may be found? I guess I am not able to edit the main page, but I would like to note the following:
STEVIE NICKS AND WADDY WACHTEL WILL BE PERFOMING AS PART OF THIS YEAR'S PREGAME SHOW...ONE OF THEIR NUMBERS IS TO BE BROADCAST ON CBS. IF THERE IS AN ESTABLISHED MEMBER THAT COULD POST THIS INFORMATION THAT WOULD BE GREAT!...THANKS!Donnarq1 17:18, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I can't find a list either. It's playing right now on my new TV (50") and I definetely see more than 75. Øřêōş 22:53, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pregame entertainment 

message: I can't edit this because it is a protected page, but please can someone add the United Kingdom to the list of internation broadcasters?
Broadcasting on ITV1, Sky Sports 1, and Sky Sports HD 1 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 87.81.240.93 (talk) 21:26, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's already in the article. John Reaves (talk) 21:32, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  International - United Kingdom 

message: I replaced the subst'ed in infobox with the a non-substed version.  This is in line with the boxes on all of the other recent bowl articles, and is MUCH easier for casusal editors to maintain.  In doing so, some information not historically presented in this box was removed.  See this diff for the information.  Some of it may be approriate in a section of the article if anyone wants to salvage it.  Thank you, — xaosflux Talk 00:01, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Xaos, you should call archive 1 "Pre-Game/Prelude". Real96 00:45, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Nah, I took the liberty to do so. Real96 02:35, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Infobox 

message: The game is being broadcasted live in China by CCTV on its sport channel CCTV-5. Can someone please add this to the article since its protected?
: John Reaves (talk) 03:05, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  International broadcast 

message: I'm just going to take a wild guess that some of the drunk, internet-savvy NFL fans will be targeting this article, as well as the Colts, Bears, and Rex Grossman articles. Protected? Hojimachong 03:02, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Already is? John Reaves (talk) 03:03, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's already semi-protected. Considering it's a current events piece which will likely be checked out by many people, it should be open at least to registered users. Just because something is high profile doesn't mean it gets an automatic protect, for example, FAs are encouraged to be open. I mean, maybe someone will make a godless killing machines joke or something, but considering it's also being monitored by many editors any vandalism will be reverted faster than anyone notices it. It harms wikipedia more to prot it than to leave it open to vandals -- febtalk  03:10, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Expected Vandalism? 

message: Please?  There is way too much vandalism occurring on here. (i.e. Bears vandal/Pope arrington vandal/etc.) Real96 02:01, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Nevermind, Jaranda has done that. Real96 02:02, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I don't understand why we protect it for like 10 minutes and then take it off, just to have to page vandalized again. Protection needs to stay on for all of tonight.--Surfaced 02:10, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  It is  semi-protected. Abecedare 02:17, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Umm, maybe I'm not seeing it (I'm trusting the edit summaries), but I only see one revert in the last hour. Being on the main page isn't a rationale for sprotection (see most FA pages, for example). There's certainly enough of us monitoring the article to obviate any attempt at vandalism. -Cmprince 02:56, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

text: My bad, I didn't see when the protect went on. Still doesn't look like it was that bad, but it's a judgment call. And I won't use a red hanky on this one :) Cmprince 03:24, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Can an admin protect this page? 

message: Can we please lock this page?? The Vandalism is getting ridiculous.
But I am a Colts fan! World Champs baby!!! w00t!! Soakologist 04:11, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It is NO LONGER semi-protected. I agree, this really needs to be semi-protected for a while. --Zimbabweed 04:20, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

text: agreed that this article should stay protected for the next day or so until this vandalism dies yuckfoo 04:41, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's been re-protected. John Reaves (talk) 04:43, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Lock Request

message: Myspace has a page with all of the superbowl commercials. They have been promoting it and i figured it should be added to the page but it is protected so i can't. The site is http://www.myspace.com/superspots Rosario lopez 04:45, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Myspace

message: In the middle of the second paragraph of Broadcasting - United States, there is a shift in tense from past to future (undoubtedly from an incomplete edit) that seems very awkward. I'd change it myself, but I don't feel like exerting the energy to remember my password. 75.73.41.56 07:28, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Shift in tense 

message: In the third paragraph of the opening remarks, the Super Bowl Firsts statements are made, one being that Tony Dungy is the first African American head coach to win the Super Bowl. I added to this comment that this is the first Super Bowl to have two African American head coaches. This is a tie-in to the first statement and also a first. Metamorphousthe 14:37, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Opening Paragraphs

message: *This was the first time since Super Bowl XXXI that both participants won two playoff games at home. However, the Colts also had to win a third playoff game on the road (AFC divisional playoff at Baltimore).
*At 164 miles apart, Chicago and Indianapolis are the geographically closest ever Super Bowl cities, narrowly edging out the 170 miles between Super Bowl XXXV participants Baltimore, Maryland and New York Giants (who actually play in East Rutherford, New Jersey).
*The Indianapolis Colts held pre-game practices for Super Bowl XLI at the Miami Dolphins Training Facility on the campus of Nova Southeastern University in Davie, Florida.http://www.miami.com/mld/miamiherald/sports/16594390.htm
*The Chicago Bears held pre-game practices for Super Bowl XLI at the Miami Hurricanes Football Facility, on the campus of the University of Miami in Coral Gables, Florida.
: Reintegrated into article. Butnotthehippo 16:20, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Trivia

message: The game summary needs work.  First, "His return was so impressive that the Colts decided to squib kick their kickoffs for the rest of the game to keep the ball out of his hands." is incorrect (and poorly worded - impressive?) - after the first squib kick, Hester was moved up by the Bears - the Colts then kicked it deep. I'll try to fix it but am short on time. — Zaui (talk) 16:21, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I am just confirming this was the case.  In general, the Colts special teams tried to keep the ball away from Hester for the rest of the game.  The Bears special teams moved hester up and confused even Jim Nantz who thought he wasn't in on the return. 68.103.207.65 18:51, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Looks good now. — Zaui (talk) 21:10, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Game summery 

message: Does the botched XP count as a 2-point attempt? NFL.com lists it as "A.Vinatieri extra point is Aborted, Center-J.Snow, Holder-H.Smith."... Js farrar 00:29, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It does count as a failed 2 point attempt, according to NFL rules.JohnnyRush10 03:12, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Botched extra point 

message: I'm a bit confused right now, since what I saw in Germany on NASN was an NFL Network presentation and not the CBS presentation. Did both stations show the SuperBowl - and why are Europeans forbidden from watching the CBS show? Maybe someone can shed some light on this... --212.34.171.12 10:03, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Broadcast

message: I appreciate the article especially since it was made quickly, but don't forget to acknowledge the fact that Tony Dungy is the first African-American coach to win a superbowl.BlackIntellect 03:18, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Should make that point on his article as well as this one as well.  Real96 03:35, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Important Facts 

message: In my opinion, this article (and the other year-specific Super Bowl entries) should mention which participants had prior Super Bowl experience, like Adam Vinatieri, or Tony Dungy (as a player). -- ChaChaFut 17:34, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Participants who had appeared in previous editions

message: Is it prominent enough on the main page?  If the world cup soccer champ held sway for so long, this should be on for just as long.  After all, Wikipedia is headquartered in Florida. --216.9.250.62 04:18, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: world cup is bigger and a longer running event.Geni 19:01, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  news  

message: This section makes no mention of why the NFL required churches to be bound by the same rules other organizations are bound to, nor does it present the opinion of those in favor of this position.  It is written with a clear bias against the policy, and goes to lengths to show public disapproval of the policy. Jerimee 16:48, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As to why, the answer is copyright law. I will include this into the article. The policy is not in dispute and did not change. The policy was, and is, churches cannot charge admission to watch the Super Bowl at parties. What happened was a misinterpretation of the policy and then a clarification of it. In the media there was an emphasis on the public disapproval of the policy. Thoughts? Butnotthehippo 22:18, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It goes beyond just the admission charge. The NFL used an obscure part of copyright law to avoid lowering Nielsen ratings (which do not measure out-of-home use) which goes beyond the admission charge restriction. See, . —Twigboy 22:31, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Prohibiting church display 

message: Snickers Ad of Men Accidentally Kissing Pulled After Complaints From Gay Groups
HACKETTSTOWN, N.J. —  A commercial for Snickers candy bars launched in the Super Bowl broadcast was benched after its maker got complaints that it was homophobic. http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,250575,00.html Crocoite 23:44, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Commercials 

message: The article says it was broadcast in more than 200 countries. How is this possible if there are only ~192 countries in the world? 207.203.80.14 22:45, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually there are 243 countries. John Reaves (talk) 23:02, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I guess it depends on what you consider a country, but that does resolve it. Thanks. 207.203.80.14 15:48, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  200 countries? 

message: the following phrase is technically true "... Creedence Clearwater Revival hit "Proud Mary", the Bob Dylan composition "All Along The Watchtower"... ", however, I believe the intent (due the the style of both snippets) was the recall the Ike and Tina Turner version of Proud Mary, and the Jimi Hendrix version of All Along the Watchtower.  I am not sure how to incoprorate this without it getting awkward ("Proud Mary, with a second female singer, to evoke the Ike and Tina Turner version of the CCR song", etc). But it does read wrong to me just noting the authors and not the most popular covers of both songs. CodeCarpenter 16:23, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Prince halftime show. 

message: When I first read that the line judge was the first openly gay referee, I was like, "Oh, that's nice."  Then I remembered this is Wikipedia and noticed it was unsourced.  Yeah, that does not appear to be true.  I added a {fact} tag, but it probably needs deleted, unless somebody knows something I don't... --Jaysweet 23:41, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  First gay referee trivia item is probably a joke 

message: I'm not the the "twist of irony" is clear in this pargraph:
"One ad that drew criticism from the gay community was for the Snickers candy bar featuring two men accidentally "kissing" each other after sharing the product in question, then proceeded to rip chest hairs as a manly act. The ad was killed the next day by Masterfoods USA, Mars, Incorporated's snack food division and three other versions were deleted from the snickers.com web site. In a twist of irony, that ad was ninth in the USA Today ad survey."
Chaz! 17:51, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, there is nothing even slightly ironic about that.  The fact that it was 9th in the ad survey is interesting and I'm going to leave that, but I'm going to delete the "twist of irony" clause.  --Jaysweet 23:43, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ironic? 

message: Shouldn't the racist heckling of the Bears player Muhammed when he was announced in the stadium or whenever he touched the ball be mentioned in this article? --90.192.92.142 01:37, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Racist? I would highly doubt that the booing was "racist", but everyone just hates the Bears :P. It's a football game, I think the boos were just part of the normal course of crowd noisemaking. Hojimachong 05:24, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

text: I know this sounds like a lame joke, but it isn't. They weren't saying "boooooo" they were saying "mooooooooosh". --W.marsh 05:32, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

text: You have got to be kidding me. "Racist heckling?" Are you crazy? His name is Muhsin Muhammad. Moo Moo. Mooooooo. Anybody who's ever watched a moment of sports in their lives understand this phenomenon. What is a greater insult is spelling his name incorrectly (said the Pats fan). JHMM13  08:06, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What's funny is you spelled the player's name right, but the original poster didn't. Zing! --208.44.234.50 22:25, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

text: I take it from your comment that you've never been to a Bears game in Chicago. When he gets on the field or otherwise, we tend to chant "MOOSE" because that his nickname.[[Muhsin_Muhammad#Trivia] I can definitely understand why people misunderstand it, but it's actually a form of praise and not a racist attack as you think. --208.44.234.50 22:23, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Booing Mushlin muhammed

message: We need nore pics here. 70.22.38.231 02:00, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Pictures

message: Joe montana won 4, and everyone knows it.
*It says "Adam Vinatieri became the first kicker..." I didn't know Joe Montana was a kicker... --W.marsh 01:36, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Adam Viniteri is not the first person to win 4 superbowls

message: Can someone edit the score in the opening paragraph?  It reads 400-399.  The actual final score was 29-17.  It's an odd choice of vandalism
:Just saw a few moments ago "0-117".
:AppleMacReporter 01:53, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Score at the top

message: Congratulations; this article has passed its Good Article nomination review. I've posted initial comments, an item-by-item review, and suggestions for future improvement to the article.
Initial comments:
*Well-written introduction 
*The references are outstanding, and well formatted to boot. Excellent work!
*Text has been copyedited and the prose is great
*It seems like just about anything you wanted to know about this particular Super Bowl is on this page..wow!
: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>
While there aren’t any specific issues that prevent this article from meeting GA requirements, there are several small improvements that would be helpful as the article works it way towards FA status.
Suggestions for future improvement:
*In the last sentence of the “Chicago Bears” section, stick the word “including” before listing the special teams players who made the Pro Bowl, as in, “This unit sent three players to the Pro Bowl, including special teams ace….”
*In the first sentence of the “Indianapolis Colts” section, write out the number nine, as in, “…nine year long….” In general, it’s best to type out numbers ten and under, and there are other instances of this later on in the article.
*References #2 & #3 should at least have the websites where they come from in their citations. Also add a retrieval date for them; just make it the day you add in the website publisher.
*Some of the web articles cited don’t have their authors listed in the citations, like references #6 & #30, for example. I realize that not all web sources have authors listed, but these particular ones do, so I imagine there are other citations like this as well.
*It appears references #42 and #44 are broken links. If the websites that previously hosted these pages have removed them from their site, it’s no big deal, but you might as well double check to make sure the address link is correct. If not, consider finding alternative references for the cited information. 
*Consider quoting some of the participating players or coaches using quote boxes. It would be a great way to break up the text of sections that don’t have any pictures or stats boxes in them.
*Un-wikilink “Fall Creek Baptist Church” as the page hasn’t been created, and the red link is distracting to readers.
To anyone else reading this review, please consider reviewing an article or two at GAN to help with our current backlog of nominations. Thanks for your contribution to Wikipedia thus far, and I hope you continue to improve the article all the way up to FA status. Monowi (talk) 07:03, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  GA Review Passed