Talk:Arizona Cardinals

message: National Football League is currently a candidate on WP:IDRIVE. Vote for it if you are interested in contributing.--Fenice 20:04, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Improvement drive

message: Could someone please give me a source that confirms that they were officially called the "Racine Cardinals" in 1920 and 1921? All the sources I have say that when they became a charter member of the league in 1920, they were officially known as the "Chicago Cardinals", including:
*NFL Record and Fact Book ()
*Total Football: The Official Encyclopedia of the National Football League ()
*http://www.profootballhof.com/history/team.jsp?franchise_id=1
Even all of the NFL official records list the team as the "Chicago Cardinals" in 1920. Thanks. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 04:57, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Racine Cardinals

message: OK! I believe you!  I even remember watching old NFL Films that showed the Arizona Cardinals having that particular logo on their helmet.  However, I was just wondering.  Wouldn't be interesting if we also included that particular St. Louis Cardinals football logo onto the Arizona Cardinals article, since it WAS part of the Cardinals history.
Also, I'm a bit nervous to put the old St. Louis Cardinals logo on the article, since I'm afraid that I'll break copyright laws.
:Yes, the logo is probably still copyright. See those NFL video games that are containing old football teams which use old NFL/AFL logos. Well, the article currently contains the old Chicago Cardinals logo and many sports team articles include the old logos such as the Tennessee Titans *cough* Oilers and Kansas City Chiefs *cough* Texans. Yes, if we're talking about the old St. Louis Cardinals football team then it pertains to the Arizona Cardinals' history. :-) --J. Nguyen 04:25, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  My Response! 

message: The references for this article were a mess. I made the following changes:
*1) Converted untitled links to titled inline references.
*2) No need to link to EVERY individual page.  I simply cited the relevent frontpage, and used the  tag to multi-reference.  Bringing people to the main Cards page at PFR is probably enough.
*3) Moved the references mess to external links and condensed.  The references section should be used for inline references.  Use the <ref>  or   tags in articles to create inline refs, then use  in the ==References== section to recall the refs list.  Also, again no need to site the ENTIRE NFLhistory linescores pages one by one.  A single link will do.
Still needed to do:
*A) We need to finish referencing the article.  The history section is lean on references from the 1930's-1990's.  We got the beginning and the end real good, now we need the middle.
*B) Perhaps a more friendly organization, such as a decade-by-decade organization, with brief overall notes and highlights.  An entire season-by-season review (as done in the 1920's already) makes for a thick read, though even that is OK if we organize with subheadings and better divisions.  As it stands now, the writing and organization is a little scatterbrained.  I may get to this, but don't let anyone else stop if they get to it first.
--Jayron32 04:31, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recent cleanup: References 

message: *"Magic seemed to be in the air that Saturday afternoon in Dallas"
*"...a noisy domed stadium that gave significant homefield advantage."
This whole section seems like it was ripped from an Arizona Newspapers account of the game.  I consider myself a fan of the Cardinals, but this section is really biased and probably does not require this amount of detail.
*I agree with you, I removed the two lines you quoted above and removed several other POV and weasel words as well. I plan to add a few references to the article shortly. Thanks for bringing that to attention and feel free to make other changes yourself as you see necessary. --Nebular110 17:06, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  POV - Playoff Year 

message: What about Pittsburgh? Hasn't that always been owned by the Rooney family?
WAVY 10 15:06, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Ownership (One Family)

message: Having just done some work on this article, I now have to wonder whether it is too repetitive. That is, there may be a bit too much information in the intro (both before and after I worked on it) that is also restated in the more detailed portion of the article. Comments, anyone? Wahkeenah 19:19, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Repetitiveness 

message: What happened to AZCardinals.png?  That's the true logo!  The other logo is just a darker cardinal red, plus it's head is tilted back!  If anyone can bring AZCardinals.png back, then that would be awesome.  Alakazam 22:33, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cardinals Logo 

message: Since this section is mirrored by History of the Arizona Cardinals, should this section be removed since they are redundant and will eventually begin to diverge through independent editing?--Son of Somebody 18:12, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: History section

message: :Image:ArizonaCardinals 1000.png is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is  other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page.  Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot 10:03, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:ArizonaCardinals 1000.png

message: :Image:ArizonaCardinals 1000.png is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is  other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page.  Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot 17:41, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:ArizonaCardinals 1000.png

message: Just wanted to say this is a nice looking page.  Great work.  All who have added content have really done their home work!  --Mickeyp2814 (talk) 16:56, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Nice Work

message: :Image:AZ 3534.gif is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is  other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page.  Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot (talk) 03:59, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:AZ 3534.gif

message: :Image:AZ 3535.gif is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is  other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page.  Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot (talk) 04:01, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:AZ 3535.gif

message: :Image:AZ 3536.gif is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is  other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page.  Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot (talk) 04:02, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:AZ 3536.gif

message: :Image:AZ 3537.gif is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is  other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page.  Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot (talk) 04:04, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:AZ 3537.gif

message: Changed the called baseball team "the baseball Cardinals". Most people and media refered to the baseball team as the "Cardinals" and the football team "the St. Louis football Cardinals". It was even mentioned in a book on the team's history as most people when they thought of "Cardinals" thought of the baseball team.
It's alot like how the "New York Giants" are still refered to the "New York Football Giants" even though the baseball team moved to SF in 1958. You never hear anyone say "The San Francisco Baseball Giants" do ya? Most people associate the name with the team that came first and the other one becomes the "Your City, Pick a Sport, Whatevers".  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Seattlehawk94 (talk • contribs) 02:13, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: You're right, I don't recall the baseball team ever being called the "baseball Cardinals". You don't hear the Giants called the "football Giants" much anymore, I don't think. An exception to the rule about qualifying the second team in the same city would be the Toronto Maple Leafs (minor league baseball) and the Toronto Maple Leafs. The hockey team, previously called the St. Patricks, renamed themselves the Leafs in honor of the minor league baseball team, which had won a championship. As far as I know, neither team ever qualified their respective names. Baseball and hockey seasons had very little overlap in those days, so the context typically would have been obvious. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 02:20, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  "St. Louis football Cardinals" 

message: I added a link under other notable alumni to the Dave Meggyesy article that I just started.  I can find lots about his book and the related controversy, but almost nothing about his college and NFL careers.  The pro football databases do not have defensive statistics for the 1960s, except for the number of games played. There are a couple of Google News hits that say he was an All-American at Syracuse, but I'd have to pay for an article in order to see the details--such as whose list he was on.  If anybody has access to sources of Meggyesy's performance at St. Louis or at Syracuse, please add it to the infobox or start a new section. The article still seems stubbish for NFL and college football projects.--Hjal (talk) 05:19, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Dave Meggyesy

message: For some reason I am having trouble making any changes to the article myself.  But one correction that should be made is the statement that the Cardinals and Houston Texans are the only teams not to appear in a conference championship game.  The new Cleveland Browns should be added to this list (notwithstanding the inane fiction perpetrated by the league, and discussed at length on the Browns Wiki page, that the current franchise is the same as the original Cleveland team and the Baltimore Ravens are somehow an expansion team). Keacla1 (talk) 15:43, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, one article should not contradict with another. The issue should be resolved on the Browns and Ravens articles first (which probably won't change soon as long the NFL continues to honor it's out-of-court legal settlement with Cleveland, and many editors continue to cite various Wikipedia policies). Cheers. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 17:39, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Teams That Have Not Appeared in Conference Championship Games 

message: This image was uploaded at commons, but it us going to be deleted . So, to preserve the image on the Pat Tillman page, I uploaded the image as a nonfree image.--Blargh29 (talk) 01:05, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[:File:Pat Tillman statue.jpg]] 

message: Is it still correct to say that the Arizona Cardinals are "based" in Tempe, Arizona, since they no longer play their games there? They might still have executive offices in Tempe, I don't know for sure, but before making any change, I wanted to know if that was a purposeful statement, or simply a leftover never edited out when they moved to Glendale. Lizmichael (talk) 19:01, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Based in Tempe, Arizona??? 

message: Kuert Warner has retired, and still appears on the roster. He needs to be removed  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.179.70.119 (talk) 22:34, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Kurt Warner 

message: Shouldn't there be a reason stated in the article?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.255.199.12 (talk) 22:07, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Marketing. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 02:41, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: The name change should be mentioned in the article; aside from one line in the infobox there's no indication that they ever went by "Phoenix Cardinals". 75.76.213.106 (talk) 00:49, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why the change from Phoenix to Arizona? 

message: This short article isn't actually a list, and contains less information than can already be found in the Radio & television section of the main article. There's no reason to have a separate article at this time. Pburka (talk) 21:08, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed merge with [[List of Arizona Cardinals broadcasters]] 

message: If you search Bing for "Arizona Cardinals", the blurb from Wikipedia on the right side currently says "The ass eaters are a professional American football franchise based in the Phoenix, Arizona metropolitan area..." Is there a way to contact Bing to have this fixed?--NortyNort  (Holla) 11:39, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bing search blurb has vandalism in it 

message: Since when are black and yellow Cardinal colors? Everyone wants to wear black, if not black they just darken the hell out of their original colors, it's getting ridiculous. Red and white. that's it. The throwback makes no sense to me. Everyone likes it, all guys want to wear black, but it's overused as it is. It's becoming as common as white. And I don't know where you got the yellow from...the beak? That's really reaching.
65.129.177.249 (talk) 16:13, 12 December 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Black and yellow are official colors for the Arizona Cardinals. My source is the team's official logo slick, which can be seen here. Charlesaaronthompson (talk) 23:38, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Team Colors 

message: Not a word in the article about All or Nothing: A Season with the Arizona Cardinals? -- 87.176.200.246 (talk) 21:19, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: All or Nothing

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Arizona Cardinals. 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/20150823225415/http://www.profootballhof.com:80/UserFiles/file/Start-of-2015-Season.pdf to http://www.profootballhof.com/UserFiles/file/Start-of-2015-Season.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:27, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hi All,
As a Cardinals fan and new Wikipedia editor, I thought I would check the page out. Overall everything looks great, but I do have some quick observations. One is the amount of links to articles that haven't been created yet, such as Vice President Terry McDonough. Also, like another user mentioned, I would like to see the Amazon series All or Nothing be mentioned or cited somewhere in the article. Maybe in the Television section? Thanks. Codybonnet (talk) 00:55, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Observations 

message: Change owner from Jared Goff to Michael Bidwill 2603:8000:DC40:7786:68BE:FE11:9FB4:5632 (talk) 21:11, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 20 December 2021