Talk:Pittsburgh Steelers

Archives Archive One: Feb 2005 → Feb 2008

Notable moments

The "Notable moments" section is huge, it should be toned down to a few of the most important or moved to another article. Any suggestions? Blackngold29 (talk) 23:20, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

"The team also enjoys a fanbase nicknamed Steeler Nation, that is rivaled by few teams." I don't know if this meets the standards of wikipedia. Also, can we lose any fluff about the Steelers that begins with "arguably"?

"They will appear in their record setting 14th Conference Championship Game and have hosted more conference championship games than any other NFL franchise." To be balanced, maybe we should also note that they have the most Conference Championship losses and are the only team who has hosted more than one Conference Championship game to have a losing record at home.Brekfest (talk) 05:36, 15 January 2009 (UTC)brekfest

All good points. The majority of this article is unsourced and not written very well. It is difficult to keep such an article with so many edits in good shape. If you have reliable sources to back up any of those figures then they could and probably should be added. blackngold29 07:25, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Whyd we delete the jaguars section and the spygate comments

Personally, I dont see why the jaguars would NOT be considered a rival. As a Steeler fan and avid follower, its easy to see. They've recently been at eachother like mad and on top of that they make some of the best football games. You also cant deny the previous division connections. If were going to have a rivals section we might as well have em all, even if Steelers have a dozen of them.

And bng, i know you love the jag's games. And I wrote it from a pretty clean standpoint, I was quick to point out JAX's supremacy in recent times.

As far as the spygate comments, I agree they were a touch opinionated, but they did cite the reference that was brought up by NFL.com and other sites. Its worthy of being inserted. Although I can understand why not, as it is more explained in the spygate article on Wikipedia.

I think the Jags info is worth including, my problem is with the whole "Rivals" section which has gotten excessive. If you would like to help, please see the re-write that is currently being worked on. The Spygate stuff was, in my opinion, a bit much. If it were to be added it should be on the 2007 Pittsburgh Steelers season, I don't see it as notable within the scope of the history of the Steelers franchise. Again, if add a section to the re-write and we can see how it fits into the overall picture. We have to remember that this article is about the Steelers franchise, not a news source for the latest info on the Steelers. It's all good info, but it's just a bit much. If someone disagrees with good reason, I will not remove it if it is added again. Blackngold29 (talk) 01:20, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

I hear you. I personally feel there should be a separate page dedicated to Rivalries, and have a brief paragraph on the main page to link to it. Because I will agree its diving in too deep for a more general page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 149.39.208.218 (talk) 15:16, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Actually the Jags-Steelers rivilary is much larger and historic than the Steelers-Pats. The NFL knows it too. In the past there have been plenty of epic games between the two franchises. 2006 was a Monday Night Football Game, 2007 playoff game, 2008 Sunday Night Football. Not to mention the past altercations between Jax mascot: Jaxson de Ville and Dan Rooney as well as the supposed face mask call during the playoffs, Fred Taylor criticism of Heinz Field, etc... --Pennsylvania Penguin (talk) 15:46, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

i know not  fair  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Meatbal49 (talk • contribs) 22:37, 18 December 2009 (UTC) 

I think the rivalry section overall is questionable since rivalry tends to be a rather subjective classification. If rivals are included it should be limited to a few at most (you could make a case for any one of a dozen or so teams being their rivals)...the fact that there were a few hotly contested games in recent memory does not constitute a real rivalry. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sefinke (talk • contribs) 21:02, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Overhaul

The Steelers WikiProject is currently overhauling the article here; anyone and everyone (inculding non-members of the project) is welcome and encouraged to help. All suggestions are welcome. Please leave them on the discussion page. Thank you. Blackngold29 16:13, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Steely McBeam merger proposal

I have proposed this merge becuase the article concerning Steely McBeam is very short. I have added a section to this article (See: Pittsburgh Steelers#Mascot that I feel presents enough coverage of the mascot of the Steelers. Blackngold29 20:01, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Famous fans

The list of "famous fans" grows and grows, and yet none of them are sourced. I understand that most of them are fans, but a reliable source should be included for each one listed. Blackngold29 03:52, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Season-by season records

Hey everyone, I think we should include something like the past five seasons on this article. It seems to be what all of the other teams include. Thoughts? Blackngold29 04:48, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Restructure

I recently re-structured the whole article. To put is blatently: The quality of this article is not good at all. It certainly has quality info, but it is plagued from unneccessary detail (especially in the new section about ownership restructure) and WP:OR. I removed two whole sections: Memorable moments which was completely unsourced and easily POV and Unofficially retired numbers which shared the same problems. If there's anything you wish to discuss please let me know. Due to the large amount of edits this page gets I don't know if it will ever be able to be a GA for long, and to get it anywhere near the quality will take a lot of work. Blackngold29 19:57, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

It probably should be it's own article. I saw on the Penguins article that they made mention of the new arena during the talks. I probably should just make an article and just place a link to it on the Steelers main article. It did get very long, very quickly. The whole Steelers restructure (or sale) will take a long time to complete. Dan Rooney has a lot of money to come up with, plus he has to battle Druckenmiller and other who may still become majority owner --Pennsylvania Penguin (talk) 21:53, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't know if it warrent's its own article just yet. I added a paragraph to 2008 Pittsburgh Steelers season#Ownership restructure, which covers the basics. I think that same paragraph would also be adaquate for this article. If there is a long version, it should be in History of the Pittsburgh Steelers, but I don't know if it would be worth writing too much just yet, because not much has really happend. Blackngold29 23:39, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

"Other notable former players" section

I think this section should be removed. While there are a few interesting inclusions it has no criteria, and has basically become a list of favorite players. I can't see how it contributes to making the article any better. Are there any objections to its removal? Blackngold29 17:14, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

There has been no opposition for a week now, I have removed the section. Blackngold29 20:32, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Ownership

The infobox on this page lists Dan Rooney as the owner of the Steelers, but his is only a part owner of team. This is inaccurate and the listing for owners of the team should read: The Rooney Family. Dan Rooney and his son only own %15 of the team. Each Rooney Brother owns %15 of the team, while the McGinely's own 20%. This breakdown shows that the majority owners of the team are the Rooney Brothers, not just Dan. Now this will probably change with the fighting over the Steelers by the Rooneys and may even lead to a possible new owner, but as for now the current owners are the Rooney Family.

Does anyone mind if I change this? --Pennsylvania Penguin (talk) 17:32, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

I thought it was 16%, but no matter. Yeah it should probably be corrected. Blackngold29 18:38, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Yeah it is 16%. My bad. --Pennsylvania Penguin (talk) 21:02, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Logo and uniforms

It is mentionned in this section that Pittsburg is unique in having the teams of its city using all the same colors. That might be an exageration; I can at least think of Montreal, whose Expos (R.I.P.), Canadiens and Allouettes are all Red White and Blue.

Who are the Allouettes? I don't know if the Pittsburgh color thing is true, but at this point they seem to be the only one with three major sports teams (of the four major sports leagues MLB, NHL, NFL, NBA) to share. Blackngold29 14:13, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

The Allouettes is the Canadian Football League (CFL) team from Montreal. (Had to do some research myself to find that.)

Perhaps it's prudent to say it's the only "American" city with a shared color scheme for all three of their major professional sports teams.

Interesting sidebar - Pittsburgh's first [indoor] soccer team (the Pittsburgh Spirit) had the team colors as also Black & Gold. I seem to remember reading somewhere that the city has on the books that it is encouraged for all professional sports teams to share the same color scheme. (I don't think it's a civic law or anything like that.) The city's flag and seal are also black & gold. Black & Gold is also the team colors for our Continental Basketball Team (Xplosion) & our women's football team (Pittsburgh Passion). The current soccer team (The Riverhounds) uses black, blue, & white. Our Rugby team (The Harlequins) uses red, white, & blue. The defunct USFL Maulers were Orange and Purple. Before moving to Tampa Bay and being renamed "The Storm," our arena football team (Pittsburgh Galdiators) wore blue and gold.

Medleystudios72 (talk) 15:31, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

The statement in the article "unique to Pittsburgh" is ambiguous. What is unique to Pittsburgh? The black and gold coloring? The fact that the coloring scheme is shared by all their professional sports teams? The fact that the coloring is shared by 3 professional sports teams? Furthermore, I'm requesting a citation for this alleged fact. Seattle consistently uses green/blue and optionally silver in almost all of their sports teams' colors, the Sounders, the Mariners, and the Seahawks. They also have minor league teams that use this coloring scheme, the Thunderbirds in the WHL. The Sonics, however, do not follow the pattern and use green and gold.Mojodaddy (talk) 21:02, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Actually - the Harlequins are not the only Pittsburgh Rugby team - the Pittsburgh Rugby Club - which is actually the more high profile team in the area does wear black and gold - of course neither of these teams are professional. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sefinke (talk • contribs) 21:06, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Piece of Trivia

I don't know where to put this piece of Trivia, The steelers were the first team to win a game 10:11. SteelersRull (talk) 01:45, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

It is documented in the 2008 Pittsburgh Steelers season article. I don't really think it's big enough to include here. blackngold29 07:22, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Bill Cowher Era section problems

There are some mechanical issues in this section. Part of the rings photograph is overlapping some of the body text, and on the right side, there are three edit buttons next to each other. I'm not sure how to fix this, but I'd like to let someone know who does know how. Fdssdf (talk) 18:45, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Mike Tomlin now deserves his own section

Mike Tomlin should be separated from the Bill Cowher era. There should be a section created for Mike, discussing his accomplishments in the short period he has been with the Steelers' organization. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.117.7.128 (talk) 06:16, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree. SteelersRull (talk) 01:51, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Requesting a re-format

Mostly the page states "Founded in 1933, Pittsburgh has won more Super Bowl titles (6), won more AFC Championship Games (7) and hosted more conference championship games (10) than any than any other AFC or NFC team." This information could be better organized for an easier read if it was listed under the Championships secton on the right or formatted similar to the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AFC_Championship_Game records section. —Preceding unsigned comment added by MDThaDoc (talk • contribs) 00:18, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

I concur that this section could stand to be reformatted.--Deejayk (talk) 05:09, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

That is incorrect information!The Dallas Cowboys have won 8 NFC Championship Games to the Pittsburg Steelers 7 AFC Championship Games NFC Championship Game Wildman74

The article states that the Steelers have won the most AFC Championship games, which is true. I would think that the article could include a reference to the Cowboys 8 SB appearances, though.--Deejayk (talk) 05:09, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Steeler Nation Page

Has anyone noticed that the Steeler Nation article associated with this one has been subject to a back-and-forth editing battle in regards to the content added by a particular user recently?

Specifically, the placement and wording of the “scientific study” at the beginning of the article, and the whole of the “Criticisms” section seem to only serve the purpose of being incendiary, opinionated, and demeaning.

While I’m not sure if these sections violate the letter of Wikipedia law, they appear to at least violate the spirit. Is there any way this situation can be cleaned up without devolving into a protracted edit war?

(Note: I would have added this to the article’s own talk page, but there doesn’t seem to be much traffic there.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.20.61.57 (talk) 00:06, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Edit under Rivals Section

Regarding the Carson palmer knee injury in the Rivals section (Cincinnati Bengals), it was Kimo Von Olhoffen who collided with Palmer, not Casey Hampton. This is reflected in another of your Steeler articles. Just an FYI with a correction. Thanks.

Frank a loyal Steelers Fan

Done, thank you. Grsz¹¹ 22:19, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

The Eagles a rival? If anything, there is sympathetic little brother sentiment (not extended to hockey). Bturin (talk) 21:40, 10 March 2009 (UTC)Ben

I'd like to request that the decription of the Carson Palmer Injury in the Division Rivalry: Cincinnati section be edited to be less predujicial in tone —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.61.222.82 (talk) 15:34, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Lynn Swann TV Appearances / "Figures with broadcasting resumés" section

Shouldn't it be mentioned that Lynn Swann briefly had a recurring role on the show Family Matters as Aunt Rachel's love interest? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.171.51.108 (talk) 16:34, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

This seems like something that might be appropriate in the Lynn Swann article, but not on the franchise page. In fact, in my opinion the entire Figures with broadcasting resumés section could be excised completely without a negative impact on the quality of this article. If this section is to be retained, I would prefer to see it as a separate article.--Deejayk (talk) 04:49, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree the section should be removed. It's completely unsourced, doesn't include every former player who it into broadcasting, nor does it have a real significance to the franchise itself. blackngold29 15:15, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

I broke out this section into its own article. -- Deejayk (talk) 02:41, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Update: I attempted to move this section to its own article, until my change was reverted by Grsz11, who cited WP:SS. My argument is that this topic is not even sufficiently important to the overall topic of the Pittsburgh Steelers that it merits a summary in this article. I gave it a link, and that's all I feel it deserves. Any opinions? -- Deejayk (talk) 03:39, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

I do not feel that such a list should be included in this article, let alone deserving of its own. I understand, and think that it is interesting, that the Steelers have a representitive on each network, but I don't think that means we should have a list which is basically WP:OR. blackngold29 03:49, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree with your assessment. My thinking was that by breaking the section out (rather than deleting it), I might assuage those who seem to feel any change this article (particularly deletion) is worth reverting — so much for that reasoning. Maybe it's just not worth it to spend time on this project. -- Deejayk (talk) 04:07, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

I took another swing at excising this section from the franchise article. I left a brief summary of the content and a link to the full article. -- Deejayk (talk) 21:27, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Mike Tomlin, Super Bowl champion

Under the Mike Tomlin Era, it should definitely be noted that he won Super Bowl XLIII and was just the second African-American coach to win a Super Bowl as a head coach. —Preceding unsigned comment added by HurricanesFan5 (talk • contribs) 00:37, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

John Mitchell article submitted for peer review

I have submitted the article on Steelers assistant head coach John Mitchell for peer review. Please take a look at the article and let me know what you think. -- Deejayk (talk) 17:58, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Ownership Restructure

surely that does deserve to have its own headline —Preceding unsigned comment added by SteelersLUFC (talk • contribs) 00:52, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

A request for a "Controversies" section.

The immaculate reception, Super Bowl XL, XLIII, and the 70s steroid dynasty all warrant a separate section. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Spartan9199 (talk • contribs) 17:38, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Somewhere there's the tiniest violin ever playing a medley of Elton John songs for you. 71.60.21.223 (talk) 01:15, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Edit request

{{editsemiprotected}} Undo this edit please. It was missed, apparently. 71.126.47.230 (talk) 02:36, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Y Done after verifying the source. --Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 02:51, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Dick LeBeau listed as a Steelers Hall of Famer?

I don't agree with listing Dick LeBeau in the Pro Football Hall of Famers section of this article. LeBeau's only association with the Steelers is as a coach, whereas he was inducted into the HoF as a player (at least officially). Since he is still coaching, he is ineligible for induction based on his coaching performance.

While it is widely assumed that his coaching career played a large part in his selection, WP should not be used to document such assumptions.

If LeBeau is listed as a Steeler, then a guy like Russ Grimm (who also served as a Steelers assistant coach, but was inducted as a player and never played for the Steelers) should be listed as well. Clearly that is not what this list is meant to capture.— DeeJayK (talk) 15:26, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from 24.239.103.55, 26 September 2010

{{edit semi-protected}}

24.239.103.55 (talk) 21:47, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Not done: please be more specific about what needs to be changed. Celestra (talk) 22:20, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Additional Notible Facts

I think it'd be worth noting in the article that Post-merger, the Steeler's have won more regular season games then any other NFL franchise (375 wins) and have a better regular season winning percentage than any other francise (60.7%). Also, in the history of the NFL (pre or post-merger) the Steelers have played in the second most playoff games (50, second to Dallas' 58), won the second most playoff games (31, second to Dallas' 33), and have the highest playoff winning percentage (62%). All these facts and more can be found at: http://www.pro-football-reference.com/play-index/tgl_finder.cgi —Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.179.65.158 (talk) 22:09, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Edit Request

The Steelers have won 6 Super Bowls, not 7 as stated in the season-by-season records section. Also, the first Super Bowl was played in 1967 and not 1970. —Preceding unsigned comment added by NealSNIK$ (talk • contribs) 18:25, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

and as defined by Roman Numerals are the only team to have appeared in a Super Bowl each decade.

Hi all, not the type to post discussion topics on facts but over the years there has been at least one deletion of this fact. So in the interest of good faith lets all go back to 7th grade math (or possibly even before). As we all recall there was never a year zero, a roman numeral zero, and decades begin with numerals ending in Is or numbers beginning in 1s. Again I am trying desperately not to sound elementary here but evidently there are a few wikipedians that not only don't seem to know this but seem so secure in their ignorance of this fact that they delete actual facts. So just to graphically put this to rest once and for all:

There was no Super Bowl ZERO, Thus 1967-1976 (2), 1977-1986 (2), 1987-1996 (1), 1997-2006 (1), 2007-Present (1)

• Every 10 Super Bowls by decade:
• FIRST DECADE BEGINS
• 1st of 1st:I
• 2nd of 1st:II
• 3rd of 1st:III
• 4th of 1st:IV
• 5th of 1st:V
• 6th of 1st:VI
• 7th of 1st:VII
• 8th of 1st:VIII
• 9th of 1st:IX-1975 Steelers vs. Vikings
• 10th of 1st:X-1976 Steelers vs. Cowboys
• SECOND DECADE BEGINS
• 1st of 2nd:XI
• 2nd of 2nd:XII
• 3rd of 2nd:XIII-1979 Steelers vs. Cowboys
• 4th of 2nd:XIV-1980 Steelers vs. Rams
• 5th of 2nd:XV
• 6th of 2nd:XVI
• 7th of 2nd:XVII
• 8th of 2nd:XVIII
• 9th of 2nd:XIX
• 10th of 2nd:XX
• THIRD DECADE BEGINS
• 1st of 3rd:XXI
• 2nd of 3rd:XXII
• 3rd of 3rd:XXIII
• 4th of 3rd:XXIV
• 5th of 3rd:XXV
• 6th of 3rd:XXVI
• 7th of 3rd:XXVII
• 8th of 3rd:XXVIII
• 9th of 3rd:XXIX
• 10th of 3rd:XXX Cowboys vs. Steelers
• FOURTH DECADE BEGINS
• 1st of 4th:XXXI
• 2nd of 4th:XXXII
• 3rd of 4th:XXXIII
• 4th of 4th:XXXIV
• 5th of 4th:XXXV
• 6th of 4th:XXXVI
• 7th of 4th:XXXVII
• 8th of 4th:XXXVIII
• 9th of 4th:XXXIX
• 10th of 4th:XL Steelers vs. Seahawks
• FIFTH DECADE BEGINS
• 1st of 5th:XLI
• 2nd of 5th:XLII
• 3rd of 5th:XLIII Steelers vs. Cardinals
• 4th of 5th:XLIV

As far as a point on relevance, I have yet to meet one (1) student, player, employee or fan of the National Football League that has ever told me a point like this is irrelevant. If this was an article on Nuclear Physics or Apple Pie I would defer to the experts (or at the very least multi-contributing wikipedian hobbyists) on the matter. I happen to be the latter on this matter. The Steelers' super bowl record is a small reflection of an ESPN study years ago that ranked all franchises on the 5+ wins a season vs. 5+ losses a season (stay with me here non-experts or non-hobbyists but then again you really shouldn't be considering deleting facts if you aren't comprehending this five by five) the Steelers ranked number 1 by a very large margin in this metric, and their super bowl appearances are a reflection of that. For those serious contributors and students of the game you would realize that is the very definition of relevance. For those just interested in randomly deleting facts based on something less then evidence (again trying to say this with all due belief that you are operating in good faith) let me take an extra minute and explain. The ESPN study conducted by former players, administrators and press professionals were ranking teams on their ability to sustain success and how they preformed throughout the generations (roughly consistent with the Super Bowl era, it ranked them based on post 1970 merger stats). ESPN and the players, admins and reporters knew the relevancy of the 5+ wins vs. 5+ losses measurement for the same reason appearances by decade can be relevant. It shows the difference between like the Patriots and Steelers, the Cowboys and the Colts, consistency vs. recent or historical greatness, a fact that is most relevant at everything from ticket purchases to black out television broadcasts to attendance at victory parades (Pittsburgh 350,000+, Indianapolis less than 10,000), those are very very hard things to call irrelevant.

Long story short I would never presume to delete facts from an Apple Pie or Nuclear Physics wiki page based on my view of "relevance". Facts by their very definition are relevant, my opinion on relevance of something I really don't live on a week by week basis is not any justification for deletion of facts on wikipedia, no matter how strongly I feel about them. In fact it's the basis for vandalism. Thank you for your time, contributions and future discussions prior to deletions. Hholt01 (talk) 12:42, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

I see what you're getting at, but this looks like original research or original synthesis. Where have you ever seen a source that talks about the "decades" of the Super Bowl championships? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:22, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

Hi Baseball Bugs. To answer your question "decades" is what defines Super Bowls, I wish I could find a way to answer it more academically but that's pretty much it. They do use Roman Numerals to "count" (we do count them in English not Latin so Super Bowl five and Super Bowl fifteen etc. defines eras in football more so then other sports using years as their decades). Being that it is basically a "count-up" the only real thing it compares to is how we perceive years, which we also measure (in part) in decades. Football is absolutely unique in this way to define its champions. You may be asking what I can quote for "as defined by Roman Numerals are the only team to have appeared in a Super Bowl each decade." and the answer to that is I don't have anything at the moment, so if one claims "synthesis" you may have a point. Using this point however does question other statements of "synthesis" fact in the Steelers page and wikipages such as the Los Angeles Lakers when citing "the most wins (3,027), the highest winning percentage (61.9%), and the most NBA Finals appearances (31)." in the fourth paragraph of that page (it does list not one but two citations but alas neither states what that quote claims). So does the New York Yankees page "It has more championships than any other franchise in North American professional sports history, exceeding the 24 Stanley Cups won by the Montreal Canadiens" in which the three sources they cite two fail to defend that statement at all, and the third is a dead link. Please let me know if we will be enforcing a strict NOR-delete-first policy, I will be happy to assist Wikipedia in deleting Laker, Yankee and yes Steeler, Pirate, Penguins, Browns, Buckeyes etc. facts or synthesis facts. It is a guess on my part that these citations on sports wikipages are indeed factual interpretations of the data on which there is no dispute even if it might border on synthesis, that's why I hesitate deleting that the Yankees have the most titles or that the Lakers lead in winning percentage, total wins etc. In coming full circle if NBA wins are defined by score after 60 minutes and Super Bowls are defined by Roman Numerals it's my humble opinion we should leave those synthesis facts (though no actual source quote exists) as encyclopedic. Thank you for discussing this matter and please let me know if we have consensus on strict NOR standards for all franchises. Although I have expertise on the narrow band of topics I contribute to on Wikipedia, I am an eager student of wikipolicy so I look forward to any way I can further assist in making Wikipedia a great resource and am open to guidance on this. I hate deletions but am willing to help if that is furthering wikipedia's goals. Hholt01 (talk) 14:54, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

Is this really necessary - doesn't the fact that they have appeared in the Superbowl in the past 5 actual decades (based on years) just as important accomplishment....I am not sure what is meant by "decades is what defines" Superbowls. The pitfall of this open editing on an emotional topic such as the Steelers is that everyone feels their own viewpoint is relevant - whether the facts exist or not. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sefinke (talk • contribs) 21:16, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

2nd Paragraph Misinformation

The second paragraph of the opening paragraphs says that Pittsburgh is the 5th oldest franchise. I know that this is taken directly from PDF of the 2007 Media guide, which is referenced. However, it is simply false.

The Steelers, along with the Eagles, are tied for 7th-oldest. The older teams, in order, are the Cardinals, the Bears, the Packers, the Giants, the Lions, and the Redskins.

I suggest simply deleting that first phrase and retaining the rest of the sentence as is. Joshuaag (talk) 16:41, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Unoffically retired numbers

Do you have a reference for this list of numbers? Without a source it has the appearance of being just a list of great players.

Dk100 (talk) 17:26, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

I agree. The list is both unreferenced and missing criteria for membership. Please add {{List missing criteria}} and {{Unreferenced section}} immediately below the section heading for Pittsburgh Steelers#Unofficially retired numbers. Thanks in advance. 68.165.77.208 (talk) 01:32, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

I added the {{Unreferenced section}} to the section. --Jnorton7558 (talk) 22:02, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

I removed this entire section. I've never seen a source that indicates that the Steelers keep some list of "unoffically retired" numbers. Sure, these numbers haven't been re-assigned, but until the team announces that they are officially retired, such a list has no place in an encyclopedic entry. — DeeJayK (talk) 19:31, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

I think this section should be added back in. Here's a reputable source, as well as this Charles (Kznf) (talk) 23:45, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Edit request from 70.123.97.97, 4 February 2011

{{edit semi-protected}} The article states that the Steelers were the only NFL team to draft four or even three future hall of famers in a single draft. It is true that they were the only team to draft four future hall of famers in one year but it is not true that no other team has not drafted three future hall of famers in one year. The Dallas Cowboys drafted Bob Hayes, Mel Renfro, and Roger Staubach in the 1964 draft and all three are in the hall of fame. Change the statement from "The Pittsburgh Steelers' 1974 draft was their best ever, and no other team has ever drafted four or even three future Hall of Famers in one year, and only very few (including the 1970 Steelers) have drafted two in one year." to "The Pittsburgh Steelers' 1974 draft was their best ever, and no other team has ever drafted four Hall of Famers in one year, and only very few (including the 1970 Steelers) have drafted three in one year."

70.123.97.97 (talk) 23:42, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Partly done: Hopefully satisfactory. -Atmoz (talk) 14:52, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from MRbucks1997, 20 February 2011

{{edit semi-protected}} To edit the away jeresey and remove the superbowl 45 logo

MRbucks1997 (talk) 16:35, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Done. The image has been reverted. However, you may need to refresh your web browser's cache to see the updated image. Thanks. Zzyzx11 (talk) 17:16, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from Cjpump, 8 September 2011

{{edit semi-protected}}

After this section:

Fight songs

The Steelers have no official fight song, but many fan versions of "Here we go Steelers" and the "Steelers Polka" by ethnic singer "Jimmy Pol", both originating in the 1970s, have been recorded. During Steelers games, Styx's "Renegade" is often used to rally the crowd. Also, considered the fight song of the Pittsburgh Steelers is as of the 2010 NFL Season is Black and Yellow by Wiz Khalifa.

Should be added:

In 2011, SloFunkPump released "Steelers Anthem (Est. 1933)", an original fight song that contains specific references to "black" and "gold" and steel sounds.

These links may be helpful as part of the entry are as its bibliography:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vl9gkGTAfwY&feature=channel_video_title http://www.slofunkpump.com Cjpump (talk) 06:52, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Cjpump (talk) 06:52, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

"Youtube" is not a reliable source.  Chzz  ►  01:39, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

N Not done

Are the steelers the best team in the power rankings overall this season other than the Packers? Manofmyth (talk) 19:35, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Edit request on 10 December 2011

Please change, "The franchise has won the most regular season games.." to "At the start of the 2011 season, the franchise has won the most regular season games(384; Miami Dolphins are second at 379).."

Reason: Gives specifics and thus improves accuracy. Source: Using a calculator and adding the win totals from 1970-2010. Double checked the results.

206.45.1.23 (talk) 21:18, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

It is good to see the awareness of the need for a source, but "<ref>According to a double-checked calculation by 206.45.1.23</ref>" does not meet WP:CITE requirements. Please supply a reference that could be cited. 72.244.200.39 (talk) 07:31, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Edit request on 26 January 2012

The Denver Broncos section under Rivals should be updated to reflect their seventh playoff meeting, along with the results, and the historical significance of the first overtime game under the NFL's new rules

Reason: Current page is out of date