Talk:Indianapolis Colts/Archive 1

message: In response to this paragragh
"The team that is currently the Indianapolis Colts can be said to have had a long trip to get to where they are today. Officially the NFL considers the Colts to have began play in 1953 in Baltimore. That team had previously been the Boston Yanks 1944-48, New York Bulldogs 1949, New York Yanks 1950-51 and the Dallas Texans 1952. Meanwhile, there was another team called the Baltimore Colts who played one season in the NFL 1950. That team had started out in AAFC in 1946 as the Miami Seahawks and had played from 1947 to 1949 as the Baltimore Colts in the AAFC."
No that can't be right.  If the team in the NFL that was the Boston Yanks, NY Bulldogs, and NY Yanks became that Dallas Texans from 1944 to 1953, how can that be the same team from the AAFC that started as Miami Seahawks to Baltimore Colts in 1946 to 1949.  The could not exist at the same time when the AAFC Baltimore Colts moved to the NFL and became Indianpolis in 1984.  Then the NFL Dallas Texans (circa 1952 moved to become the Kansas City Chiefs in the early 1960's)
email calvinwbrown2002@yahoo.com
Calvin Brown
Calvin, everything that you just said is wrong. First of all, nobody ever said that the team that became the Dallas Texans was the same team that became the AAFC Baltimore Colts. The Miami Seahawks/Baltimore Colts folded after the 1950 season. The Dallas Texans were a completely different franchise that was never in the AAFC. They folded after the 1952 season. Secondly, the AAFC Baltimore Colts are not the current Colts. The current Colts debuted in 1953. Thirdly, the NFL Dallas Texans were not the same team as the AFL Dallas Texans (established 1960) who became the Chiefs.Politician818 23:44, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

message: Wrong!!!
There were two Dallas Texans, 1952, became the Baltimore Colts, and the AFL Dallas Texans that became the Kansas City Chiefs, who still have the same owner.  The Texans/Chiefs moved because of the then expansion Dallas Cowboys
Actually the Dallas Texans didn't become the Colts. They're two different franchises.Politician818 23:54, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  HISTORY 

message: The following "teams" seem to me good candidates to be merged into this article:
*Boston Yanks
*New York Bulldogs
*New York Yanks
*Dallas Texans (NFL)
--MarSch 14:29, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  merging some stubs 

message: National Football League is currently a candidate on WP:IDRIVE. Vote for it if you are interested!--Fenice 20:39, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Improvement drive

message: I would like to say, as a Baltimoron in denial, that there should be a creation of a Baltimore Colts (1953-1983) page, why you may ask? Because they are two separate teams, Johnny Unitas and all of the Baltimore Colts should be removed from "Not to be forgotten section", thank you for reading....--IAMTHETalkman 22:54, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: For the same reason that the Brooklyn Dodgers, New York Giants (baseball), St. Louis Browns, Philadelphia Athletics, Kansas City Athletics, Dallas Texans (AFL), Los Angeles Chargers, Los Angeles Raiders, Cleveland Rams, Los Angeles Rams, Boston Redskins, Minneapolis Lakers, St. Louis Hawks, Buffalo Braves, and Baltimore Bullets all redirect to their current cities. --rogerd 00:21, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There seems to have been consensus to do as rogerd said, and follow what the NFL officially views as one continous franchise. That said, we have acknowledge on Baltimore Ravens that "many Baltimore fans who are still bitter about the Colts football team moving from Baltimore to Indianapolis, Indiana in 1984, along with many of the Colts' former players, view the pre-1984 Baltimore Colts organization and the Ravens as one continuous entity." Zzyzx11 (Talk) 00:50, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: And for that reason "....man B-more fans blah blah...." I made this userbox 
*On the other hand, if you pile enough content onto the "The NFL Baltimore Colts" section, we might have to split this article due to its large size... Zzyzx11 (Talk) 02:09, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I too, deny the Indy Colts. Let's see if we can't come up with enough info to force the split.--The General 22:58, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Creation of a separate Baltimore Colts (1953-1983) page

message: This section was added recently. Without references to back this up, the tone of it currently resembles original research. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 19:25, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: OR or not, it's certainly not notable or encyclopedic enough to mention in this article.  I think the rest of the article covers the whole "pissed off a lot of people moving to Indy" POV, we don't need a whole section about whether or not they are cursed because of the move.  Compared to other "curses", this one really isn't all that interesting.  At most, it deserves a minor mention in the section on the move to Indianapolis, perhaps a line reading, "Some claim that the team is cursed as a result of the move; therefore offering an alternative explanation for the Colts' inability to compete well in the playoffs despite having a number of great players and continued regular season success." Peyna 20:01, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Not to mention that there have only been 12 unique superbowl winners during that time, but there are 32 teams.  Does that mean the other 20 teams are all cursed as well?  Heck, the Curse of the Bambino wasn't even really talked about until it lasted for 70 years.  Teams have droughts.  Peyna 20:05, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: At least Curse of the Bambino cites sources. "Curse of Bob Irsay" does not. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 20:08, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's certainly not referred to frequently in any of the media, if at all.  Very few referenced to "Curse of the Colts" almost all on message boards.  Even fewer hits for "Curse of the Baltimore Colts."  I think it's safe to remove the whole section until someone can provide with some information to back this up other than OR. Peyna 20:17, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe it's not a curse. Maybe they just suck. (We know about that here.) Trekphiler  14:48, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Curse of Bob Irsay?" section 

message: It looks to me like this article definitely holds a heavy anti-Indianapolis, pro-Baltimore slant to it.  I've modified a bit of it already to a more NPOV ("Refused to return the Colt's name, etc" -> "did not grant...", as it is the owner's property after all, and Baltimore never had ownership of those propers in order to warrant a return), but there's a long way to go.  --Reverend Loki 18:08, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I thought that the team name belonged to the team owner, and that the NFL only had the right to approve or disapprove of a team name.  However, a quick search for the answer isn't providing much fruit.  Do you happen to have a citation that states the NFL owns a team name?  Anyways, the argument misses the point - "refused to return" implies that the team name/colors belonged to the city of Baltimore.  Whether the name belongs to the owner or the NFL, it doesn't  belong to a city (except for maybe the Packers, but that's a very specific case).  As is, there is nothing to "return" to the city, as the city never had possession in the first place.  It's not an uncommon situation... that's why the Cardinals (NFL) are in Arizona, but the Cardinals (MLB) are in St. Louis.  It's why the Lakers are in LA, which is not known for it's lakes, unlike Minnesota.  It's why the Kings play in Sacremento and not in Kansas City, where the name not only fit in with the whole Royals/Chiefs theme, it also made for some nice alliteration.  --Reverend Loki 22:42, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Slant of the article 

message: Just wanted to let everyone know I redirected "the colts" to this article. --ClockFace 02:25, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Redirect 

message: The article makes the claim that most former Baltimore Colts players consider the Ravens to be the continuation of the franchise. Is there a source for this?Politician818 23:53, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Uncited statement

message: The Colts are listed as having four league championships. This is technically correct. However, shouldn't Wikipedia articles (for every team) make note of how many "world championships" a franchise has? For instance, the Colts have four league championships but only three world championships, as they lost to the Jets in Super Bowl III. (An NFL or AFL Championship from 1966-1969 is more like an NFC or AFC Championship today, as it wasn't the furthest that a team could go in those years.) I would argue that a world championship was an NFL Championship from 1920-1965 and a Super Bowl Championship from 1966-present. Therefore, the Colts have three. The Browns have four. The Titans have zero. The Vikings have zero. I'd like some feedback on this. (I won't make any insertions into articles until I find a cited source agreeing with me and/or receive feedback.)Politician818 00:03, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Regarding championships

message: This section needs some editing to make it flow a little better.  I am not the right person for the job.  Anyone want to give it a try? Steve Vinson 04:16, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The years in Indianapolis 

message: The Colts opened the  2003 season with a 9-6 road win over the Cleveland Browns and went on to win their first 4 games. Week 5 saw a homecoming for Coach Tony Dungy as the Colts faced his former team, the Tampa Bay Buccaneers, on Monday Night Football.  The Colts trailed 35-14 with 5 minutes left, but Manning led 3 quick Touchdown drives to tie the game and force overtime, where Mike Vanderjagt concluded the stunning comeback with a field goal to defeat the defending Super Bowl Champions 38-35. A week later the Colts would stumble at home by blowing a 4th Quarter lead of their own in an overtime 23-20 loss to the Carolina Panthers. 
After winning 4 of their next 5 games, the Colts faced the New England Patriots at home in a matchup between two of the AFC's top teams. Trailing 17-0 early, the Colts fought back to cut the lead to 38-34, and had the ball first and goal in the final minute.  With 4 attempts to score, the Colts could not get in the end zone and the Pats prevailed.  The Colts bounced back the next week, beating the Tennessee Titans 29-27 to take the lead in the AFC South. The Colts went on to win 2 of their last 3 games and finish with a 12-4 record and the division title.  Peyton Manning finished with 4,267 yards passing and was named NFL Co-MVP with Titans QB Steve McNair.
In the playoffs, Peyton Manning and the Colts broke their streak of playoff disappointments as Manning passed for 377 yards and 5 Touchdowns in a dominating 41-10 victory over the Denver Broncos, which marked the first home playoff win for the Colts since moving to Indianapolis.  The Colts followed this by defeating the top-seeded Kansas City Chiefs on the road in a 38-31 shootout, marking the second week in a row that the Colts offense was not forced to punt. 
In the AFC Championship game, the Colts were defeated 24-14 by the eventual Super Bowl champions, the New England Patriots, with quarterback Peyton Manning throwing four interceptions in a game which was widely criticized for its minimal officiating (only seven penalties were called during the entire game, six of them were pre-snap fouls). This led to a reinterpretation of the "bump rule" for the 2004 season. Commonly referred to as the "Colts Rule" or the "Pollard Rule" named so for the non-call on  Willie McGinest's rough handling of Colts' TE Marcus Pollard on the Colts' final offensive drive. The Pollard Rule led to a large increase in defensive pass interference calls the following season.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From Sportsecyclopedia.com 
1984: While Baltimore was angry over the Colts midnight move, fans in Indianapolis were there to great the arriving Mayflower trucks with cheers. The Colts would sell 143,000 season tickets in just the first 2 weeks of ticket sales. On September 2nd the Colts played their first game at the Hoosier Dome against the New York Jets. However, Colts fans would go home disappointed as the Jets won 23-14. Losing would be a habit for the Colts in their first season in Indianapolis, as Frank Kush was fired before the final game of the season as the Colts sat at 4-11. The Colts would lose their final game of the season with Hal Hunter performing the coaching duties to finish with a disappointing 4-12 record.
1985: Under new Coach Rod Dowhower, the Colts continued to struggle losing 11 of their first 14 games. However the Colts would end the season on a strong note winning their final 2 games to finish with a 5-11 record. The lone bright spot of the season was LB Duane Bickett, who won the Defensive Rookie of the year after being the Colts 1st Round pick in the draft.
1986: The Colts season as over before it ever started as they lost their first 13 games of the season. Making matters worse was that only 2 of the losses were by less then a Touchdown. After their 13th loss Coach Rod Dowhower was fired and replaced by Ron Meyer. The move would work as the Colts won the last 3 games of the season under Meyer.
1987: The Colts get off to a 0-2 start before the players went on strike. During the replacement games the Colts scabs played well, winning 2 of their 3 games. When the regulars returned the Colts improved to 3-3 with a win over the New England Patriots. Prior to playing their next game the atmosphere surrounding the Colts changed dramatically, when they acquired star RB Eric Dickerson in a 3-team deal on Halloween. Playing without Dickerson the next day the Colts improved to 4-3 with a win in New York over the Jets. In just 8 games with Colts Dickerson rushes for 1,011 yards as the Colts go 5-3 to win the Division with a 9-6 record. However in the Divisional Round the Colts were defeated by the Browns 38-21 in Cleveland.
1988: The Colts stumble out of the gate losing 5 of their first 6 games. However the Colts would rebound to win their next 5 games, including the first Monday Night Game at the Hoosier Dome on Halloween, in which Eric Dickerson show cased his talents in a 55-23 mauling of the Denver Broncos. The Colts would go on to finish with a 9-7 record, as Eric Dickerson won the rushing title with 1,659 yards rushing. However, the Colts would miss out on the playoffs by 1 game. 
1989: Eric Dickerson has another stellar season rushing for 1,311 yards, while surpassing the 10,000-yard mark in his career. However, the Colts only play mediocre football, and sit at 8-7 needing to win the final game of the season to make the postseason. Unfortunately, the Colts were never even in the game losing 41-6 to the Saints in New Orleans.
1990: The Colts do some draft day wheeling and dealing trading WR Andre Rison, and draft picks to the Atlanta Falcons so they could move up and draft Indianapolis native Jeff George, with the number 1 overall pick. George would have a stellar rookie season passing for 2,152 yards while throwing 16 TD passes. However, things were not as sunny for RB Eric Dickerson who held out of training camp, during a contract dispute. The Colts would end up suspending Dickerson 4 games for conduct detrimental to the team. He would return late in the season and rush for 677 yards, as the Colts finished with a 7-9 record.
1991: The Colts would get off to a miserable start losing their first 5 games before Coach Ron Meyer was fired and replaced by Rick Venturi. Under Venturi the Colts struggle would continue as they lost their first 4 under their new coach. The Colts would finally get their first win of the season on a cold and rainy afternoon in the Meadowlands, as the Beat the New York Jets by 1 point. That win would go on to be the Colts only win of the season finishing with an awful 1-15 record, as Eric Dickerson rushed for only 535 yards as the Colts scored an embarrassing 143 points on the season.
1992: To try and bring some gory back to the team the Colts hire Ted Marchibroda, who coached the team to 3 straight Division Titles in the late 70's, while in Baltimore. The Colts had two first-round draft picks and chose Steve Entman and Quentin Coryatt. On the same day of the draft they traded away RB Eric Dickerson ending a sometimes-stormy relationship, with their star RB. Before the season even started the Colts were rocked by tragedy when DE Shane Curry was shot to death outside a Cincinnati nightclub in a dispute over a car blocking the nightclub's driveway. After the chaotic off-season the Colts got off on the right foot beating the Cleveland Browns in the season opener at the Hoosier Dome. However in a puzzling move cut QB Mark Hermann who led the team in the win. With Jeff George back under center the Colts would win just 3 of their next 10 games. However the team would end the season on a strong not winning their final 5 games narrowly missing the playoffs with a 9-7 record.
1993: The Colts struggled all year from the lack of a running game, and a passing game, going at one point 20 quarters without a touchdown. The defense was not much better, as the Colts went 4-12 amid dwindling crowds. They ended the year with a 4-game losing streak, and had 8 losses in their last 9 games.
1994: The Colts shake up their entire team trading QB Jeff George to the Atlanta Falcons, and drafting RB Marshall Faulk in the first round of the NFL Draft. Faulk would have an impressive season first season winning the Offensive Rookie of the Year with 1,804 All-Purpose Yards. The Colts would play only mediocre football most of the season before winning 3 of their last 4 games to finish with an 8-8 record.
1995: After a 1-2 start Jim Harbaugh earns back the starting QB jobs and leads the Colts on wild ride that would see them finish 9-7 and qualify for the playoffs. In Harbaugh's first 3 games at QB He led the Colts to comeback wins in each of his first 3 starts earning him the nickname "Captain Comeback", and the team the "Cardiac Colts." Many of the Colts wins were close hard fought games that the gutsy Colts just pulled out by the strength of their wills. In the playoffs they were going to need allot more then wills, playing in the Wild Card round without RB Marshall Faulk. However, the Colts did not skip a beat and stunned the Chargers in San Diego 35-20. A week later the Colts were expected to go down again, but thanks to 5 missed FGs from Chiefs PK Lynn Elliot, the Colts pulled out a 10-7 win to advance to the AFC Championship in Pittsburgh. The Chiefs were underdogs again facing the Steelers with a trip to Super Bowl XXX on the line. The Colts would hang tough all game long but trailed 20-16, needing a miracle on the final play to win the game. From midfield Harbaugh would fire it up to the endzone and the ball bounced around in and out of the arms of WR Aaron Bailey's arms ending the Colts season.
1996: Following the Colts improbable playoff run, the team only offered Coach Ted Marchibroda a 1-year contract. The popular Marchibroda would turn it down and take the coaching job with the new Baltimore Ravens. The Colts would name Lundy Infante to replace him hoping he could get them back to the postseason. Under Infante the Colts got off to a fast start winning their first 4 games, including a 25-24 upset of the Cowboys in Dallas. However, the Colts would suffer a devastating string of injuries and would limp into the playoffs as the 6th seed with a 9-7 record. However, this time there was no postseason magic as their season ended in Pittsburgh with a 42-14 loss in the first round to the Steelers. 
1997: Prior to the season Owner Robert Irsay passed away, leaving his son Jim to run the franchise. After 2 postseason appearances the Colts came crashing down to reality losing their first 10 games, in an injury plagued season. Indicative of the team's frustrating year was a hand injury QB suffered during a confrontation with Buffalo Bills QB Jim Kelly. The Colts would end up closing the season out with a 3-13 record, as Coach Lindy Infante was fired, and the front office was shaken up. The Colts would bring in Bill Polian to run the football operations, and Jim Mora to coach the team. 
1998: Finishing with a 3-13 record enabled the Colts to draft QB Peyton Manning with the first overall draft pick. The Colts would institute Manning as their starter right away, as he had an impressive rookie season passing for 3,739 yards. However despite the stellar numbers from Manning the Colts struggled to their 2nd straight 3-13 season.  
1999: The Colts would make a change at Running Back trading Marshall Faulk to the St. Louis Rams, and drafting Edgerrin James in the 1st round. The Colts offense would click right away with James who earned the Offensive Rookie of the Year with 2,159 All-Purpose Yards, and 17 Touchdowns. The In addition Peyton Manning racked up 4,135 passing yards as the Colts won the AFC East with an impressive 13-3 record. In the Divisional Playoffs the Colts hosted the Tennessee Titans in the first ever playoff game at the RCA Dome. However, the young Colts struggled in their first playoff game and were shutout in the 2nd half on the way to a heartbreaking 19-16 loss.
2000: The Colts offense had impressive moments, sprinting through defenders with a no-huddle attack that left their opponents little time to catch their breath, as Peyton Manning passed for 4,413 yards, and Edgerrin James collected 2,303 All-Purpose Yards. However the Colts defense was erratic, performing well, at time but more often gave up yards at crucial moments. Eight games into the season the Colts were 6-2, though some of the wins had been heart-stoppers with last-minute heroics overcoming earlier mistakes. Then they lost 4 of the next 5 games, and suddenly even making it into playoffs was in doubt. With 3 games left in the season the Colts only chance was to win all 3, which they did to finish with a 10-6 record. In the Wild Card round at Miami the Colts led the Dolphins by 14 in the 3rd Quarter. However, the Dolphins would comeback and force overtime where they stunned the Dolphins on a Lamar Smith TD run to pull out a 23-17 win, keeping Coach Jim Mora winless in the playoffs.
2001: The Colts would get off to a 2-0 start, but problems quickly arose, as the Defensive struggles continued during a 3-game losing streak. The Colts losing streak would end with a win over the Chiefs in Kansas City. However, the win would prove costly as Edgerrin James suffered a season ending knee injury. Without James the Colts would win only 3 of their final 9 games as team were able to score at will at the porous Colts defense, which ranked at the bottom in yards, and points allowed. Peyton Manning had another strong season passing for 4,131 yards. However he struggled with interceptions leading to harsh public criticism form Coach Jim Mora. The Colts would go on to finish with a disappointing 6-10 record. Following the season Mora would be fired after refusing to fire his defensive assistants. The Colts would go on to name defensive minded Tony Dungy as their new Head Coach, hoping with a stellar offense already intact he could make the Colts a complete team.
2002: The Tony Dungy era in Indianapolis would get off to a solid start as the Colts won 3 of their first 4 games. The Colts would then lose 3 straight and stood at the halfway with a mediocre 4-4 record. However they would quickly rebound with a 4 game winning streak that included a dramatic primetime win in on the road in the snow against the Denver Broncos with PK Mike Vanderjagt hitting a 54-yard FG with time winding down in regulation and a 51-yarders in overtime as the Colts beat the Broncos 23-20. The Colts would end up splitting their final 4 games to finish 2nd place in the newly created AFC South, with a solid record of 10-6, which was good enough for a Wild Card berth. Along the way WR Marvin Harrison set a NFL single season record with 143 receptions for 1,722 yards.  However, the Colts playoffs appearance would be short and forgettable as they were mauled on the road by the New York Jets 41-0.
2003: After their horrific thud in the playoffs the experts doubted the big game ability of Colts QB Peyton Manning. Despite playing shaky football in their first game the Colts began the season with a 9-6 road win over the Cleveland Browns, as they won their first 4 games. Week 5 would be an emotional home coming for Coach Tony Dungy as the Colts faced the Tampa Bay Buccaneers in a Monday Night Road Game. It was not going well for Dungy's against his former team as the Colts trailed with 5 minutes left 35-14. However the Colts would not give up as Manning led 3 quick Touchdown drives to tie the game and force overtime where Mike Vanderjagt gave the Colts a dramatic 38-35 win over the defending Super Bowl Champions. A week later the Colts would stumble at home b lowing a 4th Quarter lead in an overtime 23-20 loss to the Carolina Panthers. After winning 4 of their next 5 games the Colts found themselves in a match up of AFC elite against the New England Patriots at home. Trailing 17-0 early the Colts fought all game to tie the game at 31 early in the 4th Quarter. However the Pats answered back right away after being set up on a long kick off return. The Colts would cut the lead to 38-34, and had the ball first goal in the final minute. However 4 attempts the Colts could not get in as they dropped their 3rd game of the season. After their heartbreaking loss to the Pats the Colts bounced back nicely beating the Tennessee Titans 29-27 to capture a stranglehold on first place in the AFC South. The Colts would go on to win 2 of their last 3 games to finish the season with a solid 12-4 record, as Peyton Manning with 4,267 yards passing was named NFL Co-MVP with Titans QB Steve McNair. In the playoffs the Colts and Peyton Manning erased the perception they could not win a big game in convincing fashion as Manning passed for 377 yards and 5 Touchdowns in a dominating 41-10 win over the Denver Broncos which was the first home playoff win for the Colts since moving to Indianapolis. In the Divisional Round the Colts would hit the road facing the Kansas City Chiefs. Once again NFL MVP Peyton Manning was at the top of his game with 304 yards passing at 3 Touchdowns as the Colts outgunned the Chiefs 38-31 in a shootout in which for the second week in a row Punter Hunter Smith did not make a single punt. The win sent the Colts on to the AFC Championship game where they faced the New England Patriots. However the Colts magical run would come to an end on a cold snowy day in Foxboro as the Pats defense frustrated Manning all day intercepting the MVP 4 times on the way to a 24-14 win to advance to Super Bowl XXXVIII.
--Thejyav 05:08, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  2003 season: 

message: I'd love to not disregard it except I'm not entirely clear which is the stuff you want to be added.  Does it end before the little capsule descriptions, which I presume are old?  And why is this article still so slanted in terms of the space it gives the past three years?  Rather than an expansion oughten't it to have a contraction? Cheers, ParvatiBai 21:12, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Re:Expansion

message: I see that this page is semiprotected and that only registered users can edit the page.  Please explain why. - Desmond Hobson 21:33, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Constant vandalism Dlong 22:16, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Why semiprotected?

message: someone wanna get rid of that colts rule remark at the start? even though they do lol im not gonna deny it, but it shouldnt be on wiki 82.15.7.144 19:23, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't see that at the start.  There is a mention of the "Colts Rule" towards the bottom, but that doesn't appear to be vandalism. John Reaves (talk) 20:06, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The "Colts rule" is what it has been referred to as by sportswriters and broadcasters, since it was indeed based on the events in the Patriots/Colts game in question. --Chr.K. 13:24, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  it may be protected  but 

message: In the section about the 2005 season, it says that the score of the Colts-Steelers game at the time of the questionable Troy Polamalu interception overturn was 21-18, but it was actually 21-10. The overturn kept the Colts' drive alive, which ended in a TD with a 2 point conversion. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.245.189.47 (talk) 02:01, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  2005 Season Correction 

message: I am adding this to tell people here to stop vandalizing the colts just because they beat chicago, sure you might think it was the colts fault or that they cheated, you might think they colts got lucky, but that does not matter, the fact is the colts won, and the game is over. if the bears play hard, maybe they will be in the next super bowl or the one after, vandilizing this article just because the colts beat the bears is stupid and childish, if you vandilize it you take this game way too far, and are acting like a 3 year old who cries every time he dosen't get something the way he wants it, so please cease the vandilizing and move on.--Superchad 23:47, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Notice to all people who vandalize 

message: On the page it has that the Colts won 2006 Super Bowl XLI when it should say 2007 Super Bowl XLI. Thanks —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.77.72.67 (talk) 
Well, as a result of Super Bowl XLI, the Colts are the NFL champion of the 2006 Season.  I see there is some discrepency on how to refer to it, though... looks like it's ben changed a few times.  I did a little searching around, and I didn't see a consistent naming scheme regarding year designation.  Perhaps we should refrain from saying "2006 Super Bowl" or "2007 Super Bowl", and just say "Super Bowl XLI", adding "played in 2007" or maybe just "in 2007" when necessary.  Unless someone else has a definitive style guide on this, that is.  --Reverend Loki 20:13, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled New Section

message: This article does not need to have a constant changing of the size and positioning of the logos and picture of the blue uniform pants. First of all, the logo images are very large and provide no significant information beyond what the text provides.  The logos are nearly the largest image on the entire page.  I have tried to compromise, but that doesn't seem to work.  The large logos are destroying the layout of the rest of the article.  I have temporarily removed these three images by commenting them out.  I would appreciate some sort of  response from the editorship as a whole regarding this.  If we can come to a consensus, it would allow all of us to spend more time on other articles.
Thanks for your responses.
Larry  Lmcelhiney 03:02, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Constant changing of images in Uniforms and Logo Section. 

message: To me the article is too long, and has some interesting but irrelevant information. Another problem is that it reads more like a sports magazine,(or book!) than an encyclopedia.    IloveIndy 22:26, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Too Long? 

message: The superbowl is over and done. The colts won. Big deal. We all know the bears should have won because of the biased refs, but that's no reason to go and vandalize the colts page. Remember, may the best team win, and that's what happened. LET THERE BE PEACE OVER THIS MATTER.
--I am your father. 16:57, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bears/Colts debate 

message: I would suggest a subsection regarding the official fan club The Blue Crew and for several of the team's "superfans" such as BlueBeard, the Dreadhead, and Tuba Guy. Is there any interest in this? 
(Oshaberi 03:18, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Should a subsection be added? 

message: This section, removed from the main page, is unreferenced.  In addition, it is quite long and anecdotal.  Please discuss before re-adding it into the article.
Stadium Announcer
Mike Jansen is the stadium announcer for the Indianapolis Colts.  In 1998 the Colts moved the radio network from WIBC to WFBQ. The stadium announcer at the time was WIBC radio personality Dave Wilson. The Colts felt it was a conflict of interest to keep Dave with the new relationship with WFBQ. Ray Compton, Vice President of Marketing had the idea to hold open auditions to find the next stadium announcer for the Indianapolis Colts.  It was advertised in the sports section of the Indianapolis Star. Over 350 people tried out for the position. The Colts marketing staff were the judges.  The following week they called back thier top 16 people and had a "sweet sixteen playoff".  It came down to two finalist, Mike Jansen and Artie Widgery. The first preseason home game was the draft pick match up between Peyton Manning and Ryan Leaf.  Mike and Artie announced for two quarters each. The initial idea was to have the fans vote by applause but the Colts decided on Mike.  The Colts called Mike later that week to tell him he had the position if he wants it.  This year will be the 10th season for Mike calling Colts home games at the stadium. 
---Lmcelhiney 13:22, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Stadium Announcer Discussion 

message: I have moved the information regarding Baltimore's history since the Franchise moved to a seperate section. VaBthang4 16:44, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Anything else... 

message: :Image:IndianapolisColts 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 04:19, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Taken care of.  =David(talk)(contribs) 04:29, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:IndianapolisColts 1000.png

message: :Image:Blue facemask.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 01:59, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:Blue facemask.png

message: :Image:Blue script.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 02:06, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:Blue script.png

message: :Image:White facemask.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 19:08, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:White facemask.png

message: I think that there should be a article on mycolts.net-the social networking created by the Colts.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Brownga (talk • contribs) 03:44, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It isn't notable enough for a separate article. The most it would deserve is a small mention in the Colts article with context provided. Pats1 T/C 03:53, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mycolts.net 

message: I reverted the removal of the controversies section by an anon IP.  Generally, removal of an entire section is something that warrants discussion, or at least a mention as to why, on the talk page.  Remember, Wikipedia is for objective articles, not fanaticism.  --Reverend Loki (talk) 17:51, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removal of Controversies section 

message: I move that a sub section containing the names of those in the Indy Ring of Honor (along with dates, "inductor", etc) be added to the page.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 143.115.155.55 (talk) 17:08, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Add Ring of Honor sub-section 

message: ...are by and large absurd when referring to football rushing/receiving/kicking statistics.  I'm going to start removing them tomorrow morning.  Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 03:45, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Metric conversions... 

message: "The Colts finally reached the Playoffs under Mora, but were eliminated in a sound defeat by the Playoff tested Miami Dolphins in 2000."
the Colts were eliminated by the Titans in the 2000 playoffs. (PLAYOFFS?????)  (sorry, had to). 207.29.128.130 14:52, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You are correct, the Colts lost to the Titans in the 1999-00 playoffs, and the Dolphins in the 2000-01 playoffs.  I changed it to include both losses.  Also, upon further inspection of that passage, I found it to be both poorly organized and biased, and made other changes.  Specifically, I found it odd that it was mentioned that the Colts traded for running back Fred Lane, but failed to mention either that Lane was shot and killed by his wife, nor that Edgerrin James, in the following season, tore his ACL.  I ended up removing the sentence on Lane (which was, in addition, very poorly written) and replaced it with a mention of James' injury and Rhodes' success as his replacement.  In regards to the bias, as much as I loathe Jim Mora (being a Colts fan myself), the description of his actions seemed to me rather biased, and I replaced it with a reference to an ESPN article on why he was fired.  I also cleaned up the next small section on the hiring of Tony Dungy, wording it a little better and being a bit more detialed regarding his credentials. Warhawk137 12:12, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Inaccuracy 

message: i may not be a registered user but nonetheless it has come to my attention that in the "current roster" section, there is no mention of peyton manning!!! you might wanna fix that  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.130.248.37 (talk) 02:37, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  little problem 

message: Where Is Blue In The Article 
He Makes The Team
I Think He Needs To Be Added Somewhere In The Article
AndrewWeaver (talk) 18:05, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Check the infobox. HoosierStateTalk 18:14, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Blue The Mascot 

message: Hello all.
Over the past two days I have researched the Colts franchise move from Baltimore to Indianapolis (previously I had done a little research regarding the franchises moves to and from other cities). I have sourced as much of it as possible and believe everything to be a fair and accurate representation of the events as they unfolded.
I understand that there are 'other perspectives' however, facts and not perspective were my motivation. Hope it stand on its own.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by VaBthang4 (talk • contribs) 17:20, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Exhaustive Research 

message: The image :File:Baltimore Stadium, 33rd Street - Army Navy Game 1944 a.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here.  In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page.  Please check
:* That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
:* That this article is linked to from the image description page.
The following images also have this problem:
*:      File:Super Bowl XLI.png
This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --16:51, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Image copyright problem with File:Baltimore Stadium, 33rd Street - Army Navy Game 1944 a.jpg

message: Doesn't Bob Sanders need to be moved to reserve since he's injuried? 4.224.210.201 (talk) 22:24, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: No, just because players are injured, doesn't mean they get placed on a reserve list unless they are formally placed on injured reserve. Eagles24/7 22:31, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bob Sanders 

message: To my knowledge, Edgerrin James is not currently on the Ring of Honor.  When he was here with the Seahawks, a graphic was shown that said something to the effect of "See you soon in the Ring of Honor" but his name was not up there.  Has it been added since, and if not, he needs to be removed from that section of the article. 99.169.250.133 (talk) 07:46, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ring of Honor 

message: Ok, so the article said (without a source) that the Colts were the first team in the NFL to put the logo on their helmets.  The VERY NEXT sentence specifically says that it was the Rams who did so, 5 years before the Colts, and then provides a source.  If there's sourced material directly contradicting the unsourced material, then it has no place in the article, and has been removed. 99.169.250.133 (talk) 06:18, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: There was originally a source for the claim that the Colts had the first helmet logo.  It was probably not reliable, as it happened to be a Baltimore webpage (http://www.pressboxonline.com/story.cfm?id=727).  As that information was obviously wrong, I added the information about the LA Rams helmets (without a source) but I did not delete the original source.  Someone then deleted both what I added about the Rams AND the source for the first claim (while keeping the claim in the article).  Someone else then re-added the LA Ram material, with a source, although he did not restore the original source for the Colts' claim to the first helmet logo.  I'm fine with deleting it all, as it is obvious the Colts' claim is false.  My only point is, if the Colts' claim is made, the Rams' rival claim (which seems to be more credible) should be included to balance it out.   67.173.237.220 (talk) 20:22, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: IF there's a source refuting the claim, then neither need be mentioned. 99.169.250.133 (talk) 08:02, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Logo on helmet 

message: There was an independent article, which was deleted, in which multiple editors affirmed that no rivalry between these two teams exists.  They've faced each other only 3 times in the past what...15 years?  Sure, they played in the playoffs a couple times, that does not a rivalry make.  There are ZERO sources to indicate such a rivalry and when the teams do play, there's no big media spectacle like when the Colts and Patriots play, or the Cowboys and Redskins.  The article was deleted without a single dissenting vote on the AFD.  Unless sources can be found which specifically refer to the rivalry, then it's all original research and has no place in the article. SpartanSWAT10 (talk) 23:08, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I thought the article was deleted, because it was not notable for a Wikipedia article alone. I don't think it was deleted because it was a hoax. Eagles 24/7 (C) 23:49, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it was deleted for a multitude of reasons.  It was tagged as a hoax, but that's not an appropriate word I think in this instance.  There are literally no sources that a rivalry even exists.  To me, the article (and the paragraph here) are about one persons perceived rivalry, which does not reflect reality or even common knowledge (the way a Colts - Patriots rivalry is).  It's not a notable rivalry, because no rivalry exists. SpartanSWAT10 (talk) 00:32, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

text: I agree, no media hype usually occurs when these teams do in fact face one another. If sources are found that mention the rivalry then it should be in the article.--Giants27(Contribs|WP:CFL) 00:34, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Colts - Chiefs Rivalry Section 

message: Not sure where the comment (above) regarding the sections' accuracy comes from. Everything is sourced. If you disagree, show the information to be factually incorrect by simply providing a (legitimate) source that would disprove anything you (seemingly) disagree with.
Not that deep.
VaBthang4 (talk) 19:30, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Re: This section is very inaccurate....uhm, this isnt rocket science

message: The team's history is included because it is "the team's" history. It belongs to the franchise itself and not to any particular city or geographical region. Not including it would be akin to removing the parts of your life spent with this or that particular spouse/girlfriend/boyfriend.
The NFL cannot legally seperate any portion of any franchise's history. That is a foolish notion. As a result neither can or should Wikipedia (or any other reference) attempt to.
For all intents and purposes (in the minds of Baltimore fans) there are two Colts teams. But that is an imagination that does not bring with it legal standing. There is only one franchise. That is the Colts. As such they retain their history and can disseminate it in any way they see fit. As it stands, the franchise includes in it's history the era when it played in the city of Baltimore. Therefore, so does Wikipedia.   
VaBthang4 (talk) 20:19, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Re: Baltimore Colts History

message: The current president of the Indianapolis Colts is Bill PolianDbrick78 (talk) 21:08, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Hello. Please provide what you want changed. It is already clearly indicated that Polian is the president. Cheers, Intelligentsium 21:45, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Indianapolis Colts President 

message: That is an absolutely ridiculous argument.  The history did not happen because of the Irsays, they do not own history---no one can "own" history, and history cannot "belong" to anyone.  The history of the Colts in Baltimore had nothing to do with the current stewards of the NFL franchise called the Colts--save for the strange behavior of the current owner's father toward the end of his time in Baltimore.  Moreover, none of the notable (a popular word in wikipedia) figures in Baltimore Colts history have anything to do with the Indianapolis Colts.  It is totally absurd and ahistorical to say that it is "the team's" history . . . there is no such thing.  There is no team without a home town, only a theoretical franchise-- a legal term and nothing more.  Your "legal standing" argument is meaningless to any real historian.  History is not about terms people invent to justify contemporary actions, it is about real people and real events in real places, and so far as that goes, the Baltimore Colts are quite distinguishable from the Indianapolis Colts.  Frankly, this sort of thing cheapens wikipedia.  Time for a seperate article. 
Moreover, you are factually incorrect.  What are the franchise records for the Cleveland Browns/Baltimore Ravens/Cleveland Browns???  They are seperated, because by the '90s people began to realize that the team moving was out of control.  Nobody in LA fought particularly hard when their teams left, and Houston and Bud Adams had a war going that got ugly and eventually even Adams had the decency to "retire" the Oilers name, while in Cleveland, where there was a real emotional tie to the franchise they lost, public opinion and NFL weight got thrown to the side of the history belonging to the city.  Just because the Irsay's lacked the decency to do the right thing doesn't mean it isn't right.  According to Wikipedia, the Baltimore Ravens came into existence in 1996.  By your standards, this is "an imagination," but you are being selective.  Again: time for a seperate article.  
Remclaecsec (talk) 06:34, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Re: Baltimore Colts History

message: The NFL has determined that the Colts history belongs to the franchise, after granting Robert Irsay permission to move his franchise to the city of his choosing. That is a matter of public record. The original Browns franchise now in Baltimore (that moved before seeking league/ownership approval) is "Officially" regarded as an expansion team with no history. The league itself determined to keep the history of the Browns fanchise in Cleveland. They did not do that (nor legally could they) in the case of the Baltimore Colts. Therefore your beef regarding the official history of the Colts is with the National Football League and the law. You have access to the courts, feel free to file a lawsuit. VaBthang4 (talk) 19:00, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Re: Baltimore Colts History

message: :The main problem I see that has currently prevented a separate Baltimore Colts article for over the past 4 years is that the general threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. Even if you, and the others before you who have advocated a separate page, do so because you believe that it is the truth or that is rooted in "actual history", unfortunately Wikipedia's policies state that content cannot be solely based on such personal opinions. Instead, they have to be based on already published reliable sources. In other words, Wikipedia is merely the messenger. And the current consensus of Wikipedia's editors regarding the Colts articles is to report and follow the cited, official legal technicalities of the league, and that they official view the club as one continuous franchise – even if it may not be "true actual history".
:On the other hand, I'll repeat what I have been saying for the past 4 years too: if you pile enough content onto the "Baltimore Colts" sections of this article, we might be forced to split the page up anyway due to its very large size. Cheers. Zzyzx11 (talk) 07:37, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Re: Baltimore Colts History

message: This is a reasonable and useful response, and I appreciate it.  Thank you.Remclaecsec (talk) 17:55, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Re: Baltimore Colts History

message: If there is anything in the entry that is factually incorrect, correct it. Other than your desire to rail, what am I missing? VaBthang4 (talk) 19:05, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Re: Baltimore Colts History

message: The reference regarding article size is very helpful. If at some point the entry becomes wordy, It needs to be edited. However, the entry is not wordy. The history involved simply contains the information that it does. Regardless, none of that information is superfluous. My impression is that some people who initially disagreed with portions of the subject matter itself (been going on for over 5 years...that I am aware of) now seem to appeal for a technicality regarding article size in order to remove the portions they find offensive (yet factually correct...and sourced). Regardless, quoting the reference: 
"Sometimes an article simply needs to be big to give the subject adequate coverage."
If someone wants to create seperate pages for the sections they disagree with and link them here with a summation, well and good. However, I suspect those summations will simply reflect that individual's muddled consternation. In which case I will then edit that summation to include the relevent facts. And I suspect we will be here again...with (the latest) objector seeking new technicalities in order to remove historical facts that they find offensive. -grin- VaBthang4 (talk) 19:30, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Re: Baltimore Colts History

message: I don't understand why you feel a need to hide behind a slew of silly technicalities; although everything you say is true legally, and no one has challenged the veracity of your comments, or at least I haven't, it is all so obviously baloney--your argument contradicts itself in its logic (because the NFL's argument did so), demonstrating the absurd double standard applied to the Cleveland/Baltimore Browns/Ravens as opposed to the Baltimore/Indianapolis Colts.   Now in all seriousness, do you believe that because the NFL made up a bunch of hooey to justify Robert Irsay's greed more than a quarter-century ago, that justifies butchering historical reality in order to fit some personal agenda?   I mean seriously, you guys in Indy won the Superbowl, you have your own history now, why not give Baltimore back its years? 
Again, this article, as it stands, is contrary to lived history; nay, it is bad history, because it is not rooted in the reality of what happened in the three decades before the Indianapolis Colts came into existence.  The article is inappropriate at best.  Even if your arguments are totally correct, then they might be good for a legal dictionary, not an encyclopedia, which should be rooted not in ridiculous technicalities that run contrary to lived historical experience, but rather should be rooted in ACTUAL HISTORY.  
In any case, this article, as it stands now, is a mockery to Wikipedia.  Time for a seperate article on the Baltimore Colts.  Remclaecsec (talk) 06:32, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I get that you are still bitter about the team moving.  Fine, that is your right to feel how you want about it.  The fact remains that the Indianapolis Colts is the exact same franchise as the Baltimore Colts.  The team moving did not somehow make it a different team.  Every other sports team who has moved over the years has a page that reflects the same franchise at different locations.  Please see the article on the L.A. Dodgers for instance or the Chargers, or the Arizona Cardinals, etc.  You just have a personal ax to grind, but this is not the venue for your rant.  It is the true and verifiable history of the Colts organization that once happened to be located in Baltimore and is now located in Indianapolis.  End of story.Jdlund (talk) 18:27, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Re: Baltimore Colts History

message: Why in God's good name is the Baltimore Colts history included in the Indianapolis Colts page? While I realize the article has to acknowledge the Indianpolis franchise's Baltimore roots, and the NFL's stubborness in refusing to bifurcate the two different cities in the franchise's history (hence, Johnny Unitas is found in the Indianapolis Colts section in the Hall of Fame, and Peyton Manning and other Indy players are often mentioned as challenging "team" records set by Baltimore Colts), for all intents and purposes there are two Colts teams--one that played in Baltimore until March 1984, and one that has played in Indianapolis since March 1984. Of course it's an emotional sore spot for any Baltimorian who has to see the blue horseshoe associated with another city, but all emotions aside, it makes sense to recognize the two seperate eras of this franchise in two seperate articles. And I think in the end it helps Indianapolis too, in that that team's true identity can be traced to 1984, and not the Baltimore Colts roots. I don't know if it is Wikipedia SOP to include a sports franchise's different city incarnations in one article. While this may be the official NFL position on the matter (no matter how ridiculous that may be), it shouldn't stop Wikipedia from adopting what most football fans already see--that the Baltimore Colts and Indianapolis Colts are two seperate teams, NFL position notwithstanding.PeteU (talk) 12:54, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What about the Brooklyn Dodgers, New York Giants (baseball), St. Louis Browns, Philadelphia Athletics, Kansas City Athletics, Dallas Texans (AFL), Los Angeles Chargers, Los Angeles Raiders, Cleveland Rams, Los Angeles Rams, Boston Redskins, Minneapolis Lakers, St. Louis Hawks, Buffalo Braves, and of course the Baltimore Bullets (who kept their name for some time after relocating)?  --rogerd (talk) 13:32, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Personally, I think those teams deserve seperate articles, too. Once a team is relocated, virtually none of the fans who live in the original city continue to follow that team. They either wait until their city gets a new team, or follow a different team all together. While a franchise itself may move, the identity of the team while it was in the former city remains with the fans who supported that team while it was in the city. Hence, that is why the Baltimore Colts Marching Band and Baltimore Colts "Corrals" (fan clubs) remained in place long after 1984 in Baltimore and actually incorporated itself into both the CFL Stallions and the Ravens after they moved to town. Wikipedia should realize that teams are ultimately identified with the city they play in, not the chain of ownership groups who own them.PeteU (talk) 15:24, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As much as I'd like to agree, the main problem is that wikipedia doesn't decide on its own about these matters.  To do so would be original research.  We merely can replicate what a reliable source, which in this case is the NFL, has to say on the matter. Neier (talk) 13:08, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

text: As Someone who doesnt care for football and lives on the west half of the USA I cannot be seen as biased in favour of Baltimore I would say The NFL is just lying not being a reliable source at all --209.181.16.93 (talk) 19:53, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Of course the NFL isn't "lying."  There's nothing for it to lie about, this is really simple and straight forward.  A team is a private organization.  I get that romantically people like to look at a sports team as belonging to a particular city, but it doesn't (unless we are talking about the Packers).  The Colts are a company like any other company, fundamentally no different than Starbucks, Apple, or whomever.  They supply a product (live football) in order to generate a profit like any other organization.  If Starbucks moves its corporate headquarters to another location it is still Starbucks.  Nothing has changed.  Likewise if a team moves from one city to another it is still the same team, it just happens to exist in a new city.  There is nothing for the NFL to lie about.  It is an objective unquestionable fact.  I realize this is sensitive for many people in Baltimore, but the team didn't somehow become a new team by moving.  The players and the personnel and the name and the corporate logo and so forth all remained the same.  The same company supplying the same product just in a new city.  Just because the City of Baltimore felt like it lost some part of itself doesn't mean that it ever 'owned' the Baltimore Colts.  It didn't, Robert Irsay did.Jdlund (talk) 18:37, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Baltimore Colts history?

message: I am new here. In looking up some information via google I was led to this site and the Colts page. In reading some of the supposed information it was clear that some heavily slanted perspective was being given in the place of factual content [my impression is that a bitter Baltimorean was adding their nonsensical perspective as some sort of personal therapy...but truth be told, I do not know for sure].
I edited what I believed to be incorrect...someone else decided that they did not appreciate my changes and attempted to remove the edit as well as additional information provided.
So, we went back and forth.
It would appear that we have come to some sort of consensus regarding the body of the relocation segment. Fair and good.
I definitely did not intend to engage in some sort of adolescent edit war however, when correct...I will not be refused. Character flaw I suppose but nevertheless...
...thanks to wikipedia and all those involved in keeping your site on point.
-VaBthang4
:As the other party involved in this asinine incident, I should have brought this here quite a while ago. It's obvious now that I quickly abandoned "assuming good faith," and for that I apologize.  However, my "opponent" has clearly misplaced my intentions.  I'm not a fan of the Colts (Go Packers!), have never supported any team from Baltimore, and could not care less about the particulars surrounding the relocation.  The problem is this: the section is supposed to be about the relocation, but the edits cover events 22+ years after the franchise shift and the transition is terribly jarring.  Details about the Browns to Baltimore situation, though probably interesting to many readers, don't belong in an article about another franchise.  Mentioning it in passing (though I'm not sure where it would be appropriate) and linking to the relevant section in either the Browns or Ravens page seems like a far better course of action.  If this content is deemed worthy to remain, I'd strongly suggest tying it in via a "bitterness remains in Baltimore" angle and reference one of the myriad press pieces about the Colts "welcome" by the Baltimore fans for last year's playoff.
: I'm not really sure what PoV problems the previous poster is referring to, as I didn't look at versions before this "war," but I have no interest whatsoever in giving this a pro-Baltimore slant.  I do think that it's tilting considerably the other way at the moment with references to events much later than the 1986 settlement that ended the relocation dispute.   Majorclanger 00:46, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: First of all the phrase "The City of Indianapolis" is a term of art that means the city as an incorporated entity represented by the city's government.  When someone says the city of x, y or z did such and such, they do not typically mean that all, or the majority, of the citizens of that city got together and did something.  Now moving on from that, the rest of your claims are meritless.  Bringing the Colts to Indianapolis is only controversial to Baltimore.  The team has, since it moved, incredible ticket sales.  Even when the team was 1-15 they had 90%+ attendance rates.  The people of Indianapolis intensely supports this team.  People of Indy were incredibly happy when the team moved to Indy.  Look at how popular it was with lines around the block to buy tickets.  I don't know where you are getting this no one supported the move in Indy.  They most certainly did.
This of course is entirely beside the point.  But your claim was so odd I felt compelled to address it.  Either way you simply misunderstand what is meant by City of Indianapolis and even if that phrase meant what you thought it meant it would still be correct to use it.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jdlund (talk • contribs) 18:46, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Regarding the relocation to Indianapolis portion 

message: The dates of the super bowl wins are wrong. It would be 2007 not 2006 for the Indianapolis Colts and also noticed the same problem for the New England Platroits.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.95.136.158 (talk) 05:00, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, it does matter. Even if there is some convention in this regard generally understood by avid followers of the sport (assuing for the sake of argument, with great reservations as to its existence), we are addressing a wider audience and ought to make ourselves clear.  Gene Nygaard (talk) 10:09, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dates are wrong!!! 

message: This article contradicts itself. It says that the franchise was established in 1944 in the article but 1952 on the graphic on the right of the page. According to the NFL, the franchise began in 1944.76.126.138.82 (talk) 23:37, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, it appears that NFL.com currently gives the 1944 date, but the problem is that the Pro Football Hall of Fame web site gives the 1953 date, while the Official Colts web site says roots of the franchise go back to 1946. As you can see in the Origin of the Colts section of the article, the team went through various changes since 1930. All three dates (1944, 1946, and 1953) refer to various points in that timeline, and all three are mentioned in the official league's chronology. And there is more contradiction: the NFL's official team capsule page lists the 1953 date. IMO, we should stick with the 1953 date. Zzyzx11 (talk) 00:13, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Beginning of Franchise History 

message: Let's look for a consensus - should the Ted Hendricks photo be included?  Does a photo of him in particular, and in street clothes specifically, add substance to this article?  SixFourThree (talk) 20:30, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: The average reader who actually recognizes Ted Hendricks would likely remember him as an iconic Raider defender... 98.240.67.27 (talk) 23:38, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ted Hendricks photo? 

message: Under Logos and uniforms the image of the helmet with the gray facemask appears to be missing. —Al E.(talk) 17:50, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Missing image 

message: Through 2009, an IP editor pasted extensive content into this article from  and http://www2.indystar.com/library/factfiles/sports/football-pro/indpls_colts/history/colts.html] and may have copied from other sources. One series of edits in which this occurred is here. I've blanked the section in which editing occurred, as it will need to be rewritten to remove any content that is copied from or now derivative of that external website, unless we can verify permission.
For one example of a continuing issue, the first source says:
Prior to blanking, the article said:
I've bolded precisely duplicated content to make copying easier to see.
In this edit, he copied content from the second source. For one example of a continuing issue, the second source says:
Prior to blanking, the article said:
Duplicated content is bolded. 
Other material added by that IP: . These focused heavily on the Indianopolis Colts and are both problematic with regards to copyright policy and plagiarism.
All content copied or closely paraphrased from these sources must be removed from the article, and any other content they've copied should also be removed, unless we can verify that the content is public domain or compatibly licensed (in the case of the two sources identified, both are fully reserved and would require verified permission.) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 20:48, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Since evidently no interested existed among regular editors of the article to revise this content, the material has been excised, restoring content that predated the edits of the IP who has been identified as violating copyright policies from multiple sources. It is possible that earlier content may also infringe; if you detect copying from a source that predates this material's 2008 and earlier addition, please flag it with  or  to draw attention. This will help us ensure that the content we use is legal and free. Thank you. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 21:25, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Copyright problem

message: ...who mauled this page?
If there were ANY copyright violations than those should have been removed. BTW: You cannot copyright reality...only the exact transmission. But she completely destroyed it anyway. Way to go. Pat yourself on the back. smh  — Preceding unsigned comment added by VaBthang4 (talk • contribs) 18:14, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Who is the nitwit... 

message: This statement is included: "Attendance continued to dwindle over the years as a result of the team playing poorly." The source for this lacks any proof or credibility. It should not be hard to find authoritative statistics about attendance. Nicmart (talk) 17:05, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Baltimore attendance 

message: So, since there is a separate Montreal Expos page on this here site, shouldn't there be a separate Baltimore Colts page? I mean, it makes sense to have it, even though they have the "same histories" --72.71.148.222 (talk) 23:45, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: The current content you may be looking for is on the History of the Baltimore Colts page. The actual Baltimore Colts title itself has been moved around for the past several years, also pointing to other pages such as the original Colts team that played in the 1940s, and a disambiguation page listing all topics named "Baltimore Colts". Zzyzx11 (talk) 05:43, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Also you might want to refer to this essay: Wikipedia:Other stuff exists. Just because one type of situation currently exists with the MLB articles, not everybody was able to agree that the same standard should apply to the NFL articles (especially when there apparently has been only one "Montreal Expos" club that has ever existed, while there have been several "Baltimore Colts" teams -- including what was originally suppose to be the CFL's Baltimore Colts). Zzyzx11 (talk) 05:51, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Re: Baltimore Colts 

message: A user, who I've engaged in conversation on their talk page, removed Peyton Manning from the "Retired numbers" section of the article, on the grounds that it's "assumed" though not "official."  My reasoning as posted on said talk page, was that Jim Irsay, the CEO of the Colts, stated pretty firmly that no player will ever wear the number 18 again (http://www.thephinsider.com/2012/3/7/2853459/peyton-manning-press-conference-transcript-2012-free-agency-nfl).  There need not be an official retirement ceremony, or banner hanging in the rafters for the number to be retired.  As such, I would open it up to discussion, but I feel that Manning needs to be readded, with the sourcing material included to prevent future confusion. 208.40.242.41 (talk) 08:00, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Please leave it out until it becomes official. Just because an owner or CEO says that "no player will ever wear the number 18 again", the number still officially remains available just in case an extra eligible receiver number is needed for the larger preseason rosters. The Colts may need to bring a combined inordinate amount of quarterbacks, kickers, running backs, wide receivers, tight ends, etc. for a preseason, and they will all need a number in the "eligible receiver ranges". Zzyzx11 (talk) 17:30, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I am removing it.TenseBeaver (talk) 16:51, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Good call. Pete Rose's number is unofficially retired but not listed in the Wiki page as retired. That is how it should be. When Manning is standing before an Indianapolis crowd during an on field ceremony and his number is officially declared retired, then it should be listed. SCSRdotorg (talk) 16:33, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Retired numbers - Peyton Manning removal 

message: The Colts won 3 not 2 NFL titles before the merger. They lost in the the Super Bowl but the first four were a championship between two leagues. The Colts were NFL champions even though they lost in the Super Bowl. I changed it, not sure if Wiki will keep it in place. I didn't know how to bracket the text 1968 so I left it as is. SCSRdotorg (talk) 16:42, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: There is a dagger footnote that indicates, "Does not include the AFL or NFL Championships won during the same seasons as the AFL–NFL Super Bowl Championships prior to the 1970 AFL–NFL Merger". This notation is consistent with the Packers, Chiefs, Raiders, Jets, and Vikings articles (the other teams that won AFL or NFL titles during that same period from 1966-1969). This WP:Consensus (for having these NFL team articles have consistent notation) among regular Wikipedia editors stems from the fact that most official league sources basically state that "the Packers have won a league high 13 league championships", and if we do count both NFL titles and Super Bowl titles that Green Bay won in 1966 and 1967, it raises that count to 15. Zzyzx11 (talk) 05:51, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Not to come across as abrasive but that's kind of lame. The NFL was still its own league and the Colts were NFL champions in 1968. It even says it in the Wiki article "While in Baltimore, the team advanced to the postseason 10 times and won three NFL Championship games, in 1958, 1959, and 1968." Wiki is thinking too much on the first four Super Bowls and might want to consider rethinking the whole "Does not include the AFL or NFL championships won during the same seasons as the AFL-NFL Super Bowl championships prior to the 1970 AFL-NFL Merger". It wasn't a Super Bowl, which is now an NFL championship, it was a World Championship Game between two leagues. The Packers have won 17 league championships, not 13. Two NFL titles in 1966 & 1967 and two more in 1996 & 2010. A league is a league. And the Colts were league champions in 1968 just like the baseball Cardinals were league champions during the same year despite losing in the World Series. Anyway, my twenty cents. SCSRdotorg (talk) 04:50, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: So are you in agreement that it should be reversed? That first four Super Bowls should NOT be counted as league championships? Personally, I was not a big fan of this consensus to have such consistency: when I first added it back in 2005, I did list the Colts' 1968 NFL championship Zzyzx11 (talk) 06:06, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Absolutely. The first four Super Bowls are not league titles, just like the World Series isn't. You have two league champions playing each other to determine who the World champion is. The first four "Super Bowls" were the same thing. Wiki's Super Bowl page even says "The Super Bowl is the annual championship game of the National Football League (NFL)." I wish the AFL & NFL never merged and stayed separate but that is another discussion. Super Bowl 5 and beyond are nothing more than NFL championships. The merger actually diminished the championship game to a league title. There has to be a way to asterisk the participants in the first four championship games. A way to list their AFL and NFL championships and list the World Championships, with an asterisk that says something like - Premerger championship game that has retroactively been called Super Bowls. First four games were between the AFL & NFL champions. SCSRdotorg (talk) 16:46, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

text: Actually I'm not arguing that they were exhibitions. The were legit championships but on a higher level than what eventually became the Super Bowl. The first four "super bowls" are just tricky because they weren't called Super Bowls. They were called "World Championship" games, like the World Series. Two league champions playing each other for the World title. The Colts have won five NFL championships and lost in the third World Championship game. They won their fourth NFL championship in Super Bowl 5. The NFL went back retroactively and named the four World Championship games "Super Bowls. The Jets and Chiefs have never won an NFL title but a World Champion title. Really, Super Bowl V was Super Bowl I, a game competing for the NFL title. SCSRdotorg (talk) 03:12, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

text: The Packers have won 15 NFL titles and two World titles (1966 & 1967). They won two Super Bowls in 1996 and 2010 after the merger which are NFL titles. Their two titles before the merger should say "AFL-NFL World Champions" and should have an asterisk next to it that says "Pre-merger championship game, retroactively renamed Super Bowl". SCSRdotorg (talk) 03:23, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Where was 1968 ? 

message: Please update the Indianapolis Colts All Time Leaders page to include Robert Mathis's 7 additional sacks from the 2015 season. Here is a reference: http://www.pro-football-reference.com/players/M/MathRo20.htm
Devinwhitford (talk) 19:27, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Done - Changed | Sacks || Robert Mathis || 111 Sacks || 2003–Present to | Sacks || Robert Mathis || 118 Sacks || 2003–Present --allthefoxes (Talk)  06:12, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 5 January 2016 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Indianapolis Colts. 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/20131202235002/http://blogs.providencejournal.com/sports/patriots/2009/11/the-tide-turns.html to http://blogs.providencejournal.com/sports/patriots/2009/11/the-tide-turns.html
*Added archive https://archive.is/20130202164505/http://nfl.si.com/2011/09/08/jim-irsay-peyton-manning-out-for-awhile/ to http://nfl.si.com/2011/09/08/jim-irsay-peyton-manning-out-for-awhile/
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) 08:09, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: In sub-section "The Andrew Luck era", where it talks about the final game of the 2017 season, change losing to winning, since they defeated the Texans. Pixljumper (talk) 22:25, 5 April 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Ill happily do this, but could you just provide a reliable source to reference your edit proposal. I'm such an ignorant on football :P L293D (☎ • ✎) 13:29, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

text: Done Source here. —KuyaBriBriTalk 19:01, 6 April 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 5 April 2018 

message: I want to add how the colts beat the texans but lost to the chiefs this year Aidan120205 (talk) 19:16, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. DannyS712 (talk) 20:03, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 14 January 2019 

message: I'm sorry I ment In the playoffs when they made it to the divisoinal roun Go big Blue!! Aidan120205 (talk) 19:20, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. DannyS712 (talk) 20:03, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 14 January 2019 

message: Change league titles to 4 due to the Colts losing in Super Bowl III. 2600:1700:E540:2600:0:0:0:3F (talk) 21:42, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Not done: I don't see any evidence for this. If, in fact, what you are referring to by Super Bowl III is this, then your comment is not accurate since the team named there as the Colts (at the time located in Baltimore) actually won 34-0... RandomCanadian (talk / contribs)  23:30, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 13 June 2020 

message: 79.55.47.173 (talk) 19:57, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: 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. TheImaCow (talk) 20:01, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 30 June 2020