Talk:Super Bowl XLV

message: The logo hasn't been unveiled yet - this is as likely to be somebody's concept (who is "Dallas Brink"?) as the genuine logo.  I'm removing it from the article unless it's authenticity can be verified.  SixFourThree (talk) 19:28, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Deleting unverified logo 

message: MitchSparks (talk) 00:22, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Broadcasting 

message: In Argentina, Bolivia, Chile, Ecuador, Guatemala, Colombia, Venezuela, Peru, Honduras, El Salvador, Costa Rica, Mexico, Dominican Republic, Nicaragua, Panama, Uruguay and Paraguay,  the game will be broadcasted live on ESPN Latin America . --24.232.192.187 (talk) 17:04, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: International

message: Are you sure the name is gonna be XLV???? It could be just VL.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Trunks8719 (talk • contribs) 23:49, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Please read Roman numerals#Subtractive principle for such rules on roman numerals. iirc, using "VL" is not within the standard rules. Cheers. Zzyzx11 (talk) 00:54, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: So would Superbowl 50 be just L or XLX?? Trunks8719 (talk) 18:08, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: L = 50 AmericanLeMans (talk) 21:31, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Name 

message: February 6th is a Saturday. The first Sunday in February is the 7th.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.49.236.26 (talk) 03:15, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I think you are confused about the year this game will be played. Super Bowl XLV will be played on February 6, 2011, which is in fact a Sunday. The game played on February 7, 2010 between the Saints and the Colts is on the Super Bowl XLIV article. Zzyzx11 (talk) 03:28, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Date 

message: The ref formatting at the end of the third paragraph got screwed by the last edit before protection, is someone willing to fix it? Thanks 71.113.41.243 (talk) 08:35, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Minor edit request 

message: To add to the list of confirmed companies advertising during the game:
Audi - http://www.autoguide.com/auto-news/2010/12/audi-to-advertise-during-superbowl-xlv.html and http://www.i4u.com/43520/super-bowl-2011-ads
BMW (First time in 10 years)- http://www.i4u.com/43520/super-bowl-2011-ads and http://www.autoguide.com/auto-news/2010/12/bmw-to-advertise-during-super-bowl-xlv.html
Best Buy (First Time) - http://www.i4u.com/43520/super-bowl-2011-ads
Cars.com (2 spots) - http://www.cars.com/go/about/us.jsp?section=P&content=rel&date=20101018
Godaddy.com - http://www.i4u.com/43954/go-daddy-super-bowl-ad-2011-promote-new-co-domain
Homeaway (They have a sneek peak of the ad online) - http://www.brandweek.com/bw/content_display/news-and-features/direct/e3ifc4c9ce41adb968c16e099f49f6f25ac
Mercedes Benz (1st Superbowl Ad, 60 seconds) - (Link is in German) http://blog.mercedes-benz-passion.com/2010/12/terminanderung-der-neue-slk-wird-am-29-januar-gezeigt/ and http://www.brandweek.com/bw/content_display/news-and-features/direct/e3i685a5fab231b85c003b3871b4f03d622
Kia - http://www.i4u.com/43520/super-bowl-2011-ads
Also, all of these links state that an ad costs about 3 million dollars per 30 seconds.
Dj1ceberg (talk) 16:16, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Advertising 

message: Not exactly sure where to insert the text, but it might be worth noting that an episode of Glee will be the Super Bowl lead-out program (Glee Super Bowl episode is the tentative article title). --Another Believer (Talk) 05:05, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: It is now believed that the episode will be titled "The Sue Sylvester Bowl Shuffle". The article title has been updated accordingly. --Another Believer (Talk) 16:59, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text:  Added to "Entertainment" section. --Another Believer (Talk) 17:13, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  ''Glee'' episode 

message: In the article on Super Bowl XLV, the following sentence appears with a grammatical error:
Each team's flagship station will also carry their own play-by-play.
The correct sentence should be
Each team's flagship station will also carry its own play-by-play.
You can easily see that EACH will carry its own.  "Each" takes a singular possessive.
Thanks!
SteveC 
129.112.109.252 (talk) 15:24, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Done Logan Talk Contributions 15:51, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edit request from 129.112.109.252, 14 January 2011 

message: I would love to just excise this right out; the entire point of these folks submitting ads to Fox is to crow they got rejected and get attention they don't deserve. Anyone else agree? Nate • (chatter) 23:45, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I've removed the ads concerning adultery and "Jesus Hates Obama" twice now. They are clearly attention-getting ads, and do not deserve to be here. AmericanLeMans (talk) 05:07, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Normally I would agree. However, I (the person who put those there) cited outside sources who found them notable enough to report on them, extending them beyond spam. See, for instance, the ManCrunch controversy last year. This, in fact, is Ashley Madison's second rejected attempt at airing a Super Bowl ad. Attention seeking or not, someone found it notable enough to give the ad attention. J. Myrle Fuller (talk)  14:43, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: What about moving the information to Super Bowl advertising.  This article should be primarily about the game itself, and the build up to it.  The information on the advertising may belong at Wikipedia, it may be just not appropriate for this article.  --Jayron32 16:36, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm no expert, but this makes sense to me. Putting ads (and even more so banned ads) with the information on the Super Bowl itself is ridiculous. It's like listing every commercial that runs during the original airing of a TV episode. Encyclopedias are meant to summarize and paraphrase, not keep records. If we're going to start keeping records, we should hire a couple hundred full time typists to transcribe the news broadcast word-for-word. Also, it is worth mentioning that most people will be either looking for this information specifically (such as those who submitted ads, advertising companies, etc.), in which case they will probably be smart enough to take the suggestion under their search bar that says "Super Bowl advertising"; or they will be uninterested and will not care at all. Because of this, it is in the interest of the vast majority of both groups of readers for the information to be placed elsewhere, under a more specific interest. Finally, it is logical to assume, in our new, digital era, and especially with the recent explosion of streaming; that the Super Bowl will eventually be available for purchase without commercials through the streaming channel of a sports network (especially given that it was a very exciting Super Bowl). In ten years, most people will have no memory and less interest in which commercials were run (not to mention not run) during the original airing of the Super Bowl XLV. Thus, such information is totally irrelevant to this article's quality and completeness and should be moved to a more specific article. If someone wants to create a list of whatever they think is relevant to the advertising, they can do so in a separate article and link to it. Don't clutter up the article with useless information. The commercials are as relevant to the actual super bowl as the type of camera they used for each shot and the type of equipment each player wore. Such topics are specific enough to warrant separate articles when viewed in the context of the larger whole. Start by asking yourself "Would this be relevant or even interesting if I was researching the Super Bowl XLV?" If your answer is "No, but it would be if I was researching __________, which is related to the Super Bowl XLV.", then put it under _______, not Super Bowl XLV. All that to say, ads aren't part of the game, they're part of the show. Remember, the super bowl is not just on FOX. It is also a real event. People who attended the Super Bowl did not see commercials. Therefore, people researching the Super Bowl should not see them either.Bronsonboy (talk) 21:51, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Banned commercials really needed? 

message: The correct wording should read Fort Worth/Dallas area, Arlington is a suburb of Fort Worth in Tarrant county, the reading of such Dallas-Fort Worth area would suggest it was a suburb of that or closer to Dallas or in the Dallas County area, which it is not 
99.189.8.6 (talk) 02:05, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: The only reliable source to consistently refer to the Metroplex as Fort Worth/Dallas is the Fort Worth Star-Telegram, an affectation of local bias rather than the way anybody outside of Tarrant County refers to the area. Arlington, the 49th largest city in the United States, is not a proper suburb but rather the heart of the Mid-Cities between Dallas and Fort Worth. - Dravecky (talk) 07:23, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edit request from 99.189.8.6, 24 January 2011 

message: In American English we say "pit against" not "put against".  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.42.79.218 (talk) 05:10, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  "put against" vs "pit against" 

message: Could someone add that GB is the second #6 seed to go to the Super Bowl, (Seconded only to their opponent, Pit)? ONION96 (talk) 16:11, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: they were seed 5 188.221.79.22 (talk) 16:11, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Second #6 seed 

message: Until the game takes place, should the line score be blank, or should it have zeroes in all four quarters? Nhdrumline11 (talk) 16:41, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the zeros are defaulted into the template. Maybe dashes would be better though. ONION96 (talk) 16:56, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure it matters all that much.  Debating miniscule differences for an article which will change dramatically in two weeks makes little difference.  If there are dashes, zeroes, or spaces seems a rather small thing to fret over.  This is a Color of the bikeshed issue.  --Jayron32 16:59, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Score formatting in the infobox 

message: Obama is doing an interview with Bill O Riley, this should be noted somewhere. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cooly123 (talk • contribs) 
:Not necessarily. The interview is only being televised by FOX. It is not officially part of the NFL or the Super Bowl pre-game entertainment. CBS did the same thing last year, televising an interview between Obama and Katie Couric on Super Bowl Sunday, but that is also not mentioned on the Super Bowl XLIV article either. Zzyzx11 (talk) 23:30, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Preshow 

message: "As of January 28, The Packers are two to three point favorites,"
should be changed to
"As of January 28, the Packers are two to three point favorites,"
because "the" shouldn't start with a capital T. 199.66.147.210 (talk) 15:18, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Baseball Watcher 16:42, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  edit request 

message: Esri has posted a live fan map where Packers and Steelers fans can vote for their favorite team and tag it with their zipcode.  The entire USA is mapped and you can see pockets of green (Packers fans) and pockets of gold (Steelers fans) across the country.  The area around Pittsburgh is almost solid gold, while Philadelphia shows significant green.  Interesting.  Right now (Feb 3) about 15,000 people have voted.  The link is http://thebiggame.esri.com. --Rajhawaii (talk) 00:57, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fan Map 

message: We all know everyone's excited for the game, but for the good of the article & it's viewers it's best to stop/slow down the editing of the article. The article receives 8-13 edits daily, which is way too much and it also affects the viewer's observation of the article. So please for the good of the article & the viewers like myself please stop/slow down the editing. Thank You!68.96.45.210 (talk) 04:05, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: You think 8-13 edits a day is too much?  You should see an article with real traffic. Editing will continue as it's needed. --Muboshgu (talk) 04:24, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, that is not how Wikipedia works. Under normal conditions, it is meant to be updated at any instant, around the clock, to help ensure that articles stay abreast of the most recent events. It is not a paper encyclopedia that stays the same until "the next edition". And in most cases, articles relating to current events change very rapidly as the event progresses – usually several hundred edits within a couple of hours. Cheers. Zzyzx11 (talk) 04:26, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Please Slow/Stop the Contant Editing Traits. 

message: I know it is not a major issue in regards to the game itself, but I think we need a full section on the weather and power issues that existed prior to the Super Bowl.  For example, six people were sent to the hospital after getting injured when ice and snow fell off the Cowboys Stadium roof.96.3.105.100 (talk) 08:03, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: This has been added. Krashlandon (talk) 03:54, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Weather Prior to Game 

message: This Super Bowl will also be broadcast on the Swiss TV network 'Schweizer Sportfernsehen'. See http://www.schweizersportfernsehen.ch .
--85.2.131.71 (talk) 16:49, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Broadcast in Switzerland 

message: Is it worth mentioning if a source is found?--v/r - TP 23:44, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: If a source is found, I would think so. JDDJS (talk) 23:45, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: You like how I used "fumbled"? huh? huh?  Great pun on words?  Alright, I'll just laugh by myself.--v/r - TP 23:46, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

text: Not quite.  Look at that edit, then click "Previous Edit".  You'll see that the edit you linked us to was made AFTER the performance. Daily Mail speculated, as they are a tabloid paper and should not be taken as anything less. --Muboshgu (talk) 02:09, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: The Wikipedia connection has now been picked up by other newspapers. But the Daily Mail also said the Super Bowl was in Dallas. StAnselm (talk) 04:02, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: But it's just regurgitating the inaccurate Daily Mail. It doesn't add anything, and repeats the mistake of assuming the Wikipedia entry preceded the performance. --Muboshgu (talk) 04:51, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: For the record, Christia Aguilera has made a comment saying that she just mixed up the line.  Not to sound accusatory, but could we possibly assume that the Daily Mail itself made the edit on Wikipedia and then published the article about it?  Perhaps it's just a hoax claim?  Aguilera has sang the National Anthem quite a few times without mixing it up.  Something makes me thing she didn't check Wikipedia moments before getting on stage.  I'm really calling the hoax-patrol on this claim.--v/r - TP 16:15, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: The Daily Mail is a tabloid, and should not be taken as reliable for anything. Any responsible publication would have seen that that edit was made after the performance. No mention whatsoever per UNDUE. Grsz 11 16:16, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: My bad, I hadn't realized it had already been removed from the article.--v/r - TP 16:24, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

text: I know it's already been removed but AP does have an article on her messing up the lyrics: http://hosted2.ap.org/APDefault/*/Article_2011-02-06-Super%20Bowl%20Aguilera/id-b892241514dd4bb7a50e6026b57a600a. Would it be worth mentioning outside of the falsified WP reference? Snump (talk) 20:46, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: A fairly random place to leave this comment, but I wonder how often we link to the Daily Mail as if it is actually a source for anything at all?  The number of times we should do so is really quite small - for most things they are just useless.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 18:38, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed, the Daily Mail is not really a very reliable source for anything.  It has a very low standard of veracity. Jezhotwells (talk) 01:39, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

text: Can't we just use a video of her (there's one on the NFL site) to say that it was wrong - or is wikipedia not allowed to put together "those are the words she sung, this is what it should have been thus she got it wrong?" 188.221.79.22 (talk) 16:16, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Christina Aguilera fumbled the lyrics 

message: And why can't I edit the main article, if this is restricted etc. then we should know.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Delver23 (talk • contribs) 02:10, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: The page is up to date.  And it's protected from editing by anonymous users and non-confirmed users due to persistent vandalism. --Muboshgu (talk) 02:12, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hello, writer - please update! Now 21-17! 

message: The halftime performace has been widely recognized as "The Worst Superbowl Halftime Show of All Time."
NilesMonkey (talk) 03:35, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: By whom? Without a source, this information does not belong in the article. The UtahraptorTalk/Contribs 03:38, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edit request of halftime show, 7 February 2011 

message: So the 3,000 or so people WHO WATCHED THE GAME ON TV Outside the stadium count as people in Attendance?  But isn't that is like saying I attended Game Six of the 2009 World Series, simply because I walked by Yankee Stadium, and stopped for five minutes to look at a TV monitor? Just Asking.--Subman758 (talk) 06:47, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: The NFL itself made this exception, presumably to aid Jerry Jones' attempt to break the Super Bowl attendance record. Of course it turned out to be a moot point since the record was not broken.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.216.200.145 (talk) 07:36, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text:  * If Jerry Jones wanted the Attendance Record, why didn't he just go out and build a stadium that had 105,000 seats in view of the playing field, instead of trying to get the NFL to cook the books for him?  Gee like it would have cost all that much more.--Subman758 (talk) 15:11, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Attendance Question? 

message: I'm not sure how significant it is, but I've seen factoids of lesser significance on Super Bowl articles - This is the first Super Bowl in 10 years (the last was the Ravens' win in SB XXXV) to never have a lead change. Green Bay never trailed in the game. Perhaps it should be mentioned in the recap or scoring summary area?
*True But I'd kinda like to forget that Stuper Bowl XXXV.  My team was, how do you say; On the receiving end of that Ass Whooping.  Oh yeah, just like that.--Subman758 (talk) 08:20, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Factoid, and question 

message: Does anybody know what the timings of the Superbowl were? What time did the national anthem take place, what time did the game start, and when did it finish? Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 12:55, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Timing question 

message: "The host Cowboys Stadium, completely less than two years earlier, is the home of the Dallas Cowboys and the largest domed stadium in the world, with a capacity of 110,000."     -   completely should be "completed".  (can't edit due to protected status - remove from talk after corrected) 65.220.13.2 (talk) 19:54, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Took care of! Snump (talk) 20:50, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  small typo 

message: "This was the Packers' fourth Super Bowl victory out of five total appearances and a record thirteenth overall NFL title when including the pre-Super Bowl era. On the other hand, despite the loss, the Steelers still hold the record for six Super Bowl victories, out of eight total appearances."
:This doesn't appear to make any sense. 24.24.151.13 (talk) 20:45, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: This was the Packers' fourth Super Bowl victory out of five total appearances and a record thirteenth overall NFL title. Even with this loss, the Steelers still hold the record for six Super Bowl victories, out of eight total appearances.
Better?Snump (talk) 20:50, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Weirdness in the opener: 

message: Can someone please add a new section with the following info:
PACKERS !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
w00t!
Suck it up Pittsburgh!
Yah, I know it's not encyclopedic - but it sho' nuff was fun.
Heh heh heh heh.      HammerFilmFan (talk) 05:37, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: You know, it is so funny, Packer fans I have run into are running their mouth as if the Packers greatly upset the Steelers.  I guess these fans forgot, the Packers were favored to win.  Now when my Giants beat the Patriots a few years back, that was an upset.  At least to everyone that was not a fan of the Giants.--Subman758 (talk) 19:00, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  edit request 

message: "In the Super Bowl game itself, the Packers led from start to finish." This might be what is commonly said, but it is technically incorrect. At the start of any game, the teams are always level. It would be more correct to say "In the Super Bowl game itself, the Packers never trailed." Cymruisrael (talk) 07:20, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Does this need editing? 

message: It's Green Bay not Milwaukee.
:That is actually correct; Milwaukee is often used because it is the larger market among the two and the ratings for Green Bay are always abnormally high for any Packers broadcast (often in the 75-90% range) because of both a smaller sample size and the fact Green Bay is only rated mainly in sweeps months via paper diaries. As Milwaukee is a Nielsen Peoplemeter market with overnight measurements nightly, that rating is usually used for Wisconsin measurements. Nate • (chatter) 07:41, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Market share error  

message: Missing is the tidbit that they are the first #6 wildcard seed to win the bowl from the NFC.  Of course the Steelers were the first overall a few years earlier.  This was widely talked about ad nausea via Fox Sports, ESPN, Dan Patrick and Jim Rome shows respectively... etc.   It's just one of those nice little pieces of info that goes well with sports articles.  tyvm Pudge MclameO (talk) 23:28, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  First NFC, second overall 

message: Could a better logo be found for the game?--Cooly123 02:52, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: What exactly is the issue with the current one? Grsz 11 03:12, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Improvd logo? 

message: First of all the score's wrong, second of all it says the Jets played in the game, third it has the Packers losing.  WTF? 3.15.11 11:58 PM GMT-6  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.26.130.184 (talk) 04:58, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Um, I'm not sure where you're looking, but (1) the score is right, (2) I don't see it say the Jets played in the game, and (3) it says the Packers won. – Muboshgu (talk) 12:47, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: It was this bit of IP vandalism that was quickly reverted. - Dravecky (talk) 10:52, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Jets vs Packers? 

message: The phrase "the eighth such score in the last ten Super Bowls" could be slightly misleading, as three happened in one game back in Super bowl 37.  Perhaps reword to state the number of games that it has happened. 188.221.79.22 (talk) 10:46, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Interceptions for Touchdowns 

message: Should Tony Dungy be removed as a future Hall of Famer in the Super Bowl XIII article? He was inducted as a coach, but he played in that game. Fbdave (talk) 20:41, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Participants in the [[Pro Football Hall of Fame]] 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Super Bowl XLV. 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/20110209020841/http://www.sportsbusinessdaily.com/Daily/Issues/2011/02/Feb-7/Media/Super-Bowl-Fox-game.aspx to http://www.sportsbusinessdaily.com/Daily/Issues/2011/02/Feb-7/Media/Super-Bowl-Fox-game.aspx
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.af.mil/news/story.asp?id=123240484
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) 16:06, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 5 external links on Super Bowl XLV. 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  tag to http://www.glendalestar.com/articles/2007/02/21/news/news06.txt
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110708222401/http://www.dallascowboys.com/news/news.cfm?id=B4F2408B-E56F-5F4B-DAB3644206D02A55 to http://www.dallascowboys.com/news/news.cfm?id=B4F2408B-E56F-5F4B-DAB3644206D02A55
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110128061851/http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2011/football/nfl/01/24/super-bowl-roof.ap/index.html to http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2011/football/nfl/01/24/super-bowl-roof.ap/index.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110125225608/http://washingtonscene.thehill.com/in-the-know/36-news/7961--packers-star-needles-obama-on-super-bowl to http://washingtonscene.thehill.com/in-the-know/36-news/7961--packers-star-needles-obama-on-super-bowl
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110129040934/http://www.fox11online.com/dpp/news/president-obama-receives-two-packers-jerseys to http://www.fox11online.com/dpp/news/president-obama-receives-two-packers-jerseys
*Added  tag to http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_SUPER_BOWL_ADS?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2011-02-04-06-12-15
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110727110815/http://www.nad.org/news/2011/2/texan-sign-national-anthem-super-bowl to http://www.nad.org/news/2011/2/texan-sign-national-anthem-super-bowl
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) 19:15, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Rodgers went 24/39, not 24/29. This also alters his passer rating which is wrong. 2603:8001:1300:5590:D4BF:5CD5:C4C:64F4 (talk) 19:46, 24 August 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rodgers Statline is wrong