Talk:Seattle Seahawks/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Links added[edit]

Contraversy Johnny-Who? <superscript>Johnny-B</superscript> 05:07, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Improvement drive[edit]

National Football League is currently a candidate on WP:IDRIVE. Vote for it if you are interested in contributing.--Fenice 20:03, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

First Round Bye[edit]

Should someone add that the Seahawks have clinched a first round bye in the playoffs this season? -alakazam9891

Good idea, but I was going to wait to see how the Bears faired before adding it. A Chicago loss gives the Seahawks home field throughout the playoffs. -Coz

Sad to say (for me at least), the Bears won so for now the Seahawks have clinched just a first round bye. -alakazam9891

Uhh, at the risk of raining on somebody's game, who cares? It's news, maybe, but not fit for an encyclopedia. Perspective!

Something else maybe not fit for an encyclopedia: Seahawks Stad features Ivar's chowder. Trekphiler 11:17, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It actually does fit in the encyclopedia. An encyclopedia is supposed to keep track of events, and this happens to be an event. -alakazam9891

More detailed information for playoffs[edit]

What do you all think about being more detailed on each years playoff run by instead of just saying who the last team they played was, have each round's opponent and whether they won or lost.-crd721

I like this idea but it would probably have to be done on every team's page. Not that I'm against that, just saying it would have to be done. KramarDanIkabu 05:25, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That is true and im wondering how we can ask people to make those changes for all 32 teams' pages.

I think it should be noted that this Seahawk team not only received a first round bye, but also had the leading rusher, leading scorer and the MVP of the entire league along with having four starters on the NFC offense in the Pro Bowl-has to be a first! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.95.121.15 (talk • contribs)

All of those are mentioned in the section The 2005 Season. KramarDanIkabu 06:59, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the picture help Zzyzx11, I was appearently too retarded to figure that out. --Insancipitory 08:17, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestion: Super Bowl appearance revision[edit]

Given their recent (awesome!) win, the following needs to be heavily revised if not removed entirely: "Prior to their appearance in Super Bowl XL, the Seahawks were one of seven franchises, along with New Orleans, Jacksonville, Arizona, Cleveland, Detroit and Houston, to have never played in a Super Bowl. Their 1976 expansion partners, the Tampa Bay Buccaneers, won Super Bowl XXXVII in 2003." Now that they're (finally) going I think mention of the franchise-long drought until this season is in order, but mentioning the quantity and names of the other teams w/o appearances seems out of place now that they're officially off that list, despite Super Bowl XL having yet to take place (it'd take something catastrophic to change the fact they are going.) Dannybu2001 04:15, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Go Seahawks!Cdn92 01:51, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note on the "all" issue: It is correct to use the term "all" because ALL the calls that WERE made that are the subject of controversy went against the Seahawks. The example of the Stevens fumble is flawed because it does a "what if" other things had happened rather then what actually did happen and how it was supposed to be handled.

He is what DID happen: - Stevens catches ball - Stevens makes a "football move" turning up field. - Stevens fumbles ball - Official whistles play dead - Ball rolls out of bounds

Where the system failed was that there should have been a review of the play because of the question if it was a fumble or not. If there was not then the play was called correctly. If there was then you have to take the rest of what DID happen to determine how you handle spotting the ball. Since the official blew the whistle while the ball was loose (thinking it was an incomplete pass) that makes it an inadvertant whistle. This means that the team last in possesion (the Seahawks) have two options. They can take the result of the play at the point where the whistle was blown or they can replay the down. Since the ball was loose at the whistle it must be spotted at the point last in player possession before the whistle was blown. In this case it would be the point where Stevens fumbled it making it Seahawks ball and a first down since he was past the line to gain.

This error in game management went against the Seahawks. We can go on all day about what MIGHT have happened had the whistle not been blown, or if the ball had bounced differently, etc, but that isn't in the scope of controversial calls. -- Coz

Seahawks Roster (Rookies?)[edit]

Silly question, but when do you all think players aren't considered rookies anymore? Just looking at the player list and the players still listed as rookies. Maybe after the draft? First game? A very important matter indeed :) Headquarters 08:54, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Looks like the list has not been updated since the Super Bowl, and probably will not until the first game :) Zzyzx11 (Talk) 16:13, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Updated July 16th, 2006. Obviously it'll be pared down as the season approaches. There are a number of formatting things that perhaps could be discussed. Template_talk:Seattle_Seahawks_roster.--Insancipitory 23:11, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Something to consider with the Roster template. How do people feel about adding the number of years a veteran has been playing, or R for rookies after a player's name? Gets rid of the asterisk, adds more information, of some merit, on everyone. When I do the next update, probably the 53 man roster, I was thinking about adding that. Height and weight could also be added. --Insancipitory 23:06, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pictures: I've loaded a fair number of pictures from the August 5th, Seahawks team scrimmage in Cheney into the commons. [1] I've done my best to sort out the categorization, but alas I suck. So if something looks like a retard did it, well that's my excuse. I've got perhaps 40 more pictures to load in, hopefully some solid shots of faces from the autograph signing chute. Then I'll begin the slow process of cropping them down, making them more specific and adding them to the appropriate player stubs and articles. Should anyone else find them useful, for anything, the link is above. --Insancipitory 07:21, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tagged for NPOV[edit]

While there is debate regarding the number of bad calls there is little disagreement they greatly impacted the outcome of the game. Is someone really going to try to claim that this meets neutrality standards? -- Northenglish 01:41, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please see the numerous discussions on Talk:Super Bowl XL. The Super Bowl XL article has had the same POV problems, and currently may not comply with all of the neutrality standards. Your best bet is to pad the section with cited sources. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 02:01, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"While there is debate regarding the number of bad calls there is little disagreement they greatly impacted the outcome of the game." -- This is pure conjecture. The level of disagreement can not be discrenably attained without scientific polling. In addition, during a football game, there are many variables that can affect the outcome of the game. While one could argue that calls may or may not have had an impact on the outcome of the game, one can not certainly know if for instance the Steelers score a touchdown on an ensuing kickoff. The quoted statement clearly is not neutral, or can at the least, be interpretted as lacking neutrality. This should be arbitrated by an admin. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 192.223.207.84 (talk • contribs) .

  • I just rewrote the entire section by basically restating some of the cited content currently on Super Bowl XL. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 15:35, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Condensing 2005 Season Summary, adding a Greatest Seahawks Teams/Seasons or 2005 page[edit]

The 2005 season is taking up a lot of space, and it's time to start writing about 2006. Odd nuggets like the "poison pill", Chris Berman throwing a flag when the Seahawks made their first pick of the draft, and the games to be played deserve their room too. Folding a lot of the detail into a Greatest Seasons (1983 & 1984 too) page, or just into a 2005 page, with perhaps even more detail, makes sense at this point. --Insancipitory 21:00, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • what's the status of the 2005 page? i added some edits to the offseason part of the 2005 section but it could still use a lot of work, imo.--Tschroeder 23:35, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • The 2005 page is made, go to the link under 2005 to help write and fix it.

[edit]

It is claimed on the Osprey page that the logo represents that species of bird. I know that logos are highly stylised, but to me it looks like a Bald Eagle or a large hawk. Anyone know? jimfbleak 05:17, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Seahawk is another word for Osprey. Seahawk at Seattle Audubon. --Insancipitory 21:30, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

thanks, jimfbleak 13:59, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


  • WRT The logo and uniforms update Aug 12th, 2006.

The neon green jersey was an alternate Shaun Alexander jersey for fans (which I think might have been from 2004). There was also a Trufant Shadow jersey with colorshift numbers (I've seen them for other teams too). And in '99 the Seahawks had a silver "heavy metal" alternate jersey, again for fans, that I myself have. Incidentally, it's about the coolest thing I own, better than my HD tv. Never fails to draw comments and compliments.--Insancipitory 22:11, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is not a place for general discussion on the Seahawks. Please leave comments to only those that are used as discussion on improving the article. If you read this article, you'll see that the logo was based more on the tribal art of the northwestern native tribes as opposed to a specific type of bird.HillChris1234 (talk) 19:26, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Other notable alumni[edit]

  • who's responsible for putting that list together? lamar king but no cortez kennedy? willie williams but no eugene robinson? jim jodat???--Tschroeder 01:13, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • notable alumni has been cleaned up some, could still use some work to remove some marginal players and some guys need pages created. --Tschroeder 22:37, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

China Bowl[edit]

Should the fact that the Hawks are playing in the China Bowl be added to the page? An for that matter the Patriots... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.235.35.207 (talk) 04:43, 8 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Royal blue script.png[edit]

Image:Royal 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 (talk) 21:10, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fansites[edit]

Why are fansite links deleted? We are the only team that does that. Shouldn't the biggest fansites be listed so people uh.....I dunno....Can find them? Some seem to use this to find info (some people, meaning MOST) shouldn't they at least see some of the best fansites so they can follow links there? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.22.19.239 (talk) 08:49, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:EL. Pats1 T/C 22:24, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Franco Harris[edit]

Wow, Franco is listed as one of the 4 HOF'ers. He didn't even play a full season as a Seahawk... That's kinda sad, really. User:lawrence142002 —Preceding comment was added at 22:17, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Don't forget Carl Eller (1 washed up season at the end of a HOF career with the Vikings) and Warren Moon (2 seasons, 1 productive and the other injury riddled, at the tail end of a HOF career) either. Now that makes this even sadder! I heard that Joe Montana once took a dump at halftime during a game he played at the Kingdome, maybe you should put him on the Seahawks HOF list also. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.235.45.40 (talk) 21:01, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No one goes into the HOF as a "fill in team name here" they get a bust of their head and a plaque. If you want to be that way I suggest you read media guides of every NFL team. The Chargers have Johnny Unitas listed in the "former Chargers in the HOF", the Lambs list Joe Namath as well. This isn't baseball where you wear a hat on your plaque. You go into the HOF as a football player, not a memeber of a certain team. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Seattlehawk94 (talk • contribs) 05:16, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Upper template color change[edit]

I propose changing the primary color from navy blue to Seahawks blue, as I have matched the appropriate shade. I went ahead to change the other boxes. Here's the code: #335487. I originally matched the color for the Seattle Seahawks user box:

SEAThis user is a fan of the
Seattle Seahawks.




Please discusses your changes before implementing at WP:NFL, or talk to User:Chrisjnelson, who maintains the primary and secondary NFL color templates, which affect team and player userboxes. Pats1 T/C 14:27, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the primary color should be the lighter blue instead of navy. Here's the change I made to the template that got reverted:

The problem is, there seems to be no way of changing the color on the infobox at the very top of the page. Does anyone know how to change it?Richiekim (talk) 22:44, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As User:Pats1 alluded to in his comment, the colors of the team and player userboxes – and also the infoboxes – are controlled by several primary and secondary NFL color templates. Again, you may want to discuss your changes at WP:NFL, or talk to User:Chrisjnelson who maintains those color templates. Thanks. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 03:54, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I changed the team's primary color from dark navy to Seahawks blue and the secondary color from bright green to white, to address issues of readability in infoboxes. Feel free to discuss here.--Deejayk (talk) 03:34, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Seattle's possible relocation to Los Angeles in the late 90s[edit]

I was hoping to read something about it on this page, does anybody have information on this as to why it didn't go through? Thank you. --Reezy (talk) 02:11, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As I recall they still had a lease. King County and Gary Locke sued to keep them in Seattle. The move wasn't approved by the other owners and the league threatened to fine him 500,000 a DAY. Behring wasn't ridiculously wealthy like Paul Allen and had suffered a lot for his choices. The Nordstroms had really gone out of their way to introduce Behring to the local community as well as the other NFL owners and connect him. When you consider all the major companies founded in and around the Puget Sound region that's something substantial. Behring squandered all that, to the point of costing Seattle a chance to host a superbowl in the 90s. Basically, it got to the point that moving the team to LA required money he didn't have. So the Seahawks were sold to Paul Allen. I could look on the intarwebs, but I'm betting I might actually have to go to a library to get a more complete version of events. That said LA can't/won't support a NFL team, the Raiders won a superbowl there and still left. So it was a stupid idea anyway.--Insancipitory (talk) 20:58, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Very informative and I actually learned something here, but this isn't a place for general discussion on the Hawks. I would love however, for this response to be cleaned up, cited and possibly included in the article.HillChris1234 (talk) 19:22, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

History of the name[edit]

The name of the sportsteams in Seattle have always related to either the native american history (seahawks, thunderbirds) or the relationship with Boeing (supersonics).

Although I may be wrong but I seem to remember that the name Seattle Seahawks was first used by one of the local Ice Hockey teams. It was not until later that it was used bij the football team.

83.160.198.125 JHvW (talk) 10:08, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Info requested[edit]

I'm just trying to find out what the Seahawks did during the season when Qwest Field was being built and the Kingdome was gone. Did they go on a longer road trip or was Qwest built that fast? I haven't seen this info in the history article, or the kingdome or qwest articles. Redwolf24 (talk) 12:59, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The information, which was moved to here, states: "For the 2000-2001 seasons the Seahawks moved to Husky Stadium while their new stadium was being built." Zzyzx11 (talk) 19:36, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, that's right. 67.160.11.244 (talk) 01:33, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Seahawks' "alternate" uniform[edit]

Since I'm getting conflicting reports that the 'Hawks may not reveal these uniforms until the 2010 season, I think it is better that the 3rd lime green uniform is removed until the Seahawks release an official statement. Thank you. Johnny "Seoul" Factor 16:34, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

  • Chris Berman from ESPN is reporting that the Seahawks will wear the green uniforms for the 2009 season. He stated this during the Week 3 predictions of his 2-Minute Drill portion of SportsCenter. Johnny "Seoul" Factor (talk) 23:42, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • And just think: Uni Watch had a role in this. Funky on Flames (user;talk;edits) 15:11, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • UniWatch had ZERO role in this. The alternate uniform leaked out after the 2008 season and somehow UniWatch got a hold of it but thought it was fake. They went on to post the uniform as an April Fools Joke. Ironically, the uniform was 100% legit. The joke was on UniWatch afterall. Johnny "Seoul" Factor (talk) 17:48, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

SEAHAWKS FIRST APPEARANCE IN NFC NOT LISTED IN League/conference affiliations RIGHT HAND BOX[edit]

SEAHAWKS FIRST APPEARANCE IN NFC NOT LISTED IN League/conference affiliations RIGHT HAND BOX

I DON'T KNOW HOW THIS COULD HAVE BEEN LEFT OUT. IT IS DISCUSSED IN THE ARTICLE ITSELF:

The Seahawks are the only NFL team to switch conferences twice in the post-merger era. The franchise began play in 1976 in the NFC West division but switched conferences with the Buccaneers after one season and joined the AFC West. This realignment was dictated by the league as part of the 1976 expansion plan, so that both expansion teams could play each other twice and every other NFL franchise once during their first two seasons.

WILL GO AHEAD AND FIX IT NOW. PLEASE DISCUSS WHY THIS WAS NOT CORRECT IN THE FIRST PLACE! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.134.222.227 (talk) 06:00, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]


NEVER MIND GUYS. MY BAD. LOOKS LIKE IT WAS THERE, BUT WAS NOT IN CHRONOLOGICAL ORDER BUT BY CONFERENCE INSTEAD, WHICH MAKES IT TOUGH TO FOLLOW AND DETERMINE THE HISTORY OF THE TEAM. I WENT AHEAD AND LEFT MY CHANGES IN PLACE AND THE OPERATORS CAN GO AHEAD AND CHANGE THEM BACK IF NEED BE, BUT I RECOMMEND CHORNOLOGICAL ORDER, PLEASE! THANK YOU AND SORRY FOR MY ERROR. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.134.222.227 (talk) 06:06, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Seattle Seahawks templates[edit]

OK, so I spent almost the last half hour working on changing background colors on a couple of Seahawks templates after they got new uniforms today. I don't know if I did it right or not, I just hope I did. If not could I get a little help because this Template:NFLPrimaryColor thing has been a pain for me. — Michael (talk) 02:53, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

New uniforms added to template. JohnnySeoul (talk) 04:20, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
We're gonna need to new Seahawks logo as well. — Michael (talk) 04:50, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Loud Fan/Statium Citation[edit]

There is an "according to whom?" on the section about loudest fans.

On the century link wiki, citation #71 has a link to an article where the dB was measured. Between Century link and arrowhead, one of these stadiums is the loudest in the NFL. That may not translate to loudest fans of necessity, but perhaps it could be reworded "home to arguably the loudest stadium in the NFL" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CenturyLink_Field) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.185.77.234 (talk) 21:51, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Radio Network[edit]

I propose deleting the comment that the Seahawks network is the largest by area in the NFL. No citation has been provided to support such a claim, and it appears extremely dubious considering that the Dallas Cowboys radio network covers 37 states and multiple cities in Mexico. --Macae (talk) 01:04, 09 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest that, before making claims that the Seahawks Radio network is the largest, or among the largest, we need a citation stating such in order to provide verifiability as required by wikipedia. Considering that both the Raiders and the 49ers broadcast to more states than the Seahawks, the claim of being one of the largest seems dubious.

--Macae (talk) 13:24, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Super Fans??[edit]

Someone should add superfans to the lore section on the link box. (i.e SeaHulk, Mama Blue, etc.) SeanTheSwan (talk) 18:31, 1 February 2014 (UTC)SeanTheSwan[reply]

Updates[edit]

Need to add Walter Jones to HOF list!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mstoelinga (talk • contribs) 18:16, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 3 February 2014[edit]

Seattle Seahawks Superbowl Champions is 2014 not 2013 65.184.130.34 (talk) 03:18, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not done: I believe that 2013 is referring to the football season, not the year the Super Bowl took place.

Semi-protected edit request on 3 February 2014[edit]

Please change the 2005 opponent under "Super Bowl Appearences". The 2005 Super Bowl opponent was not the Chicago Bears but the Pittsburgh Steelers DJ Bocca (talk) 13:59, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not done: I am unsure where you are getting this information. In the 2005 season Super Bowl the Seahawks played the Steelers.

Semi-protected edit request on 3 February 2014[edit]

Stop talking about the cowboys Realkite (talk) 05:58, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not done: please make your request in a "change X to Y" format. Roborule (talk) 23:32, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Contested deletion[edit]

This page should not be speedily deleted because... (your reason here) --2601:0:A680:28F:5D0A:E2A9:843E:134D (talk) 23:58, 3 February 2014 (UTC)we learn about football from these pages. Needed knowledge.[reply]

"12th Fan" moniker for fans[edit]

I have twice added information that the Seahawks fans are also referred to as the "12th Fan". Both times they have been deleted by the same editor even though multiple sources have been provided corroborating the "12th Fan" usage. The majority of those sources are both verifiable and reliable also. The reality is that, because of the "12th Man" licensing agreement, Seattle fans cannot be referred to as the "12th Man" for commercial purposes and therefore have instead been referred to as "12th Fan" instead. I welcome any suggestions as to different ways to word the section but please do not delete the addition without first discussing and attempting to generate some consensus decision on this talk page. Macae (talk) 21:19, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm glad you are now engaging in discussion, after three previous unanswered posts to your Talk page attempting to engage in WP:BRD. Please read WP:V and WP:BURDEN.
Your edit(s) created the following statement:

Seahawks fans are known collectively as the "12th Fan",[2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11]

Ignoring WP:Citation overkill, for each of your citations (shown below), would you please quote from your citation to explain how the above statement is supported both in your view and in accordance with WP:BURDEN. UW Dawgs (talk) 22:53, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  1. http://www.mediotiempo.com/mas-deportes/nfl/noticias/2014/02/02/seres-alados-hacen-retumbar-el-metlife-stadium
  2. http://www.westseattleherald.com/2014/01/30/news/slideshow-largest-12-flying-flag-goes-west-seattl
  3. http://briarcliff.dailyvoice.com/news/briarcliff-teenage-curler-stopera-places-second-nationals
  4. http://www.seahawks.com/news/articles/article-1/12th-Fan-View---NFC-Championship-vs-49ers/36228570-eec2-4783-8c72-8b6f0a67a5fe
  5. https://www.google.com/#q=%2212th+fan%22&safe=off&tbm=shop
  6. http://blog.seattlepi.com/football/2014/01/24/huge-banner-fan-signatures-to-fly-over-seattle-seahawks-in-super-bowl/
  7. http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/alaska-airlines-and-seattle-seahawks-quarterback-russell-wilson-launch-12th-fan-rescue-contest-239116121.html
  8. http://www.pemco.com/seahawks/default.aspx
  9. http://www.seahawksstoreonline.com/12th-fan-jersey/
  10. http://myeverettnews.com/2014/01/30/several-seahawks-12th-fan-events-around-everett-friday/
I would suggest going to the talk page of this article rather than my personal talk page as I believe it will become easier to get a group consensus/agreement.
I don't argue that there is citation overkill. But it was done as a result of your apparent rejection of the previous source citations. I welcome your trimming down of those citations to include only those most appropriate.
As far as the support from each source -
www.mediotiempo.com - A subsidary of Time Warner which refers (in Spanish) to fans of the Seahawks as the "12th Fan". I believe the source to be reliable and verifiable.
www.westseattleherald.com - A professional newspaper with a professional journalist working for the newspaper who states that the flag is a "12th Fan" flag. It does not require any speculation to recognize that the flag with the number 12 is referencing the fans of the Seahawks. I believe the source to be reliable and verifiable.
www.seahawks.com - posted on the seahawks official website which I consider to be reliable. I don't believe that there is any doubt that the author is a Seahawks fan, and he is refering to his seat in the stadium as the "12th Fan" view. He is therefore refering to the fan's seating as the 12th Fan's view. That leaves zero doubt or speculation requirement to determine that he is linking the Seahawk fans to the "12th Fan" moniker.
www.google.com - Multiple shopping sites include some official NFL and Seahawks sites which I consider to be reliable and verifiable. Shirts are referred to as "12th Fan" shirts and are obviously intended for Seahawks fans. I don't believe that anyone would argue that the shirts were referencing the "12th Man" if they had the number 12 and "Man" listed on top, and don't believe it requires any speculation to recognize that the jerseys as designed are similarly evidence of the "12th Fan" moniker.
blog.seattlepi.com - The banner had the signature of thousands of people, and I don't think anyone will argue that those people were Seahawks fans. In calling the banner the "12th Fan Banner", the company was referencing those fan signatures and therefore referring to those fans as the "12th Fan". I consider this source to be both reliable and verifiable.
www.prnewswire.com - I consider this to be reliable and verifiable. The article specifically states that they are looking for fans of the Seahawks and the flight is referred to as the "12th Fan Rescue". Those being rescued are therefore being referred to as "12th Fans" and are Seahawks fans.
www.seahawksstoreonline.com - Another reliable and verifiable source. Shirts intended obviously for Seahawks fans which include the number 12 and the name "Fan" above it where the name of a person typically is placed, making it clear that it is an attempt to referrence the "12th Fan".
/myeverettnews.com - Another verifiable and reliable source. In this story, it is stated that there will be a "12th Fan" rally. The story makes it clear that the rally is for Seahawks fans and therefore, in using the term "12th Fan rally", is referring to the Seahawks fans as "12th Fans".
And finally, a citation that I didn't include but perhaps should - https://tagboard.com/12thFAN - performing an internet check of the hashtag term "12th Fan", we see that there are hundreds (if not thousands) of references to this term, everyone of which is referrencing the Seattle Seahawks and their fans. It is obviously clear that the term is being associated with the Seahawks fans... by those fans. Macae (talk) 14:51, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note, you appear to be violating two of three core content policies of Wikipedia, WP:Verifiability and WP:No original research.
WP:BURDEN reads in part:
* Any material lacking a reliable source directly supporting it may be removed and should not be replaced without an inline citation to a reliable source. (emphasis is mine)
* The burden of identifying a reliable source lies with the editor who adds or restores material, and is satisfied by providing any reliable source that directly supports the material. (emphasis is Wikipedia's)
WP:NOTRELIABLE reads in part:
"The phrase "original research" (OR) is used on Wikipedia to refer to material—such as facts, allegations, and ideas—for which no reliable, published sources exist.[1] This includes any analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position not advanced by the sources." (emphasis is mine)
Additionally, some of your citations inherently fail WP:SPS. So again, please provide a full quote from any WP:V source(s) which directly supports all components of your edit of,
Seahawks fans are known collectively as the "12th Fan",
Thank you. UW Dawgs (talk) 19:38, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I believe the sources I have sited DO directly support the "12th Fan" moniker and that it requires no original research to reach such a conclusion. Two of the sources specifically refer to Seahawks fans as the "12th Fan" and the others require no speculation as to who is being referenced and are self-evident. Macae (talk) 17:40, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Since you are unwilling to quote, specifically which two? UW Dawgs (talk) 17:54, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
www.mediotiempo.com - "El CenturyLink Field presume ser el estadio más ruidoso; “The 12th Fan” demostró que no es inmueble el que causa temblores en la región de Seattle..."
http://briarcliff.dailyvoice.com/news/briarcliff-teenage-curler-stopera-places-second-nationals - ""It was a cool environment," Stopera said. "Seattle calls itself the 12th fan, so there was '12' everywhere.""
This is directly quoted WP:RSOPINION from a WP:NOTRELIABLE 16 year old, not stated or advanced by The Daily Voice. Therefore this edit involves (prohibited) WP:ORIGINALRESEARCH ("This includes any analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position not advanced by the sources."). UW Dawgs (talk) 21:10, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree with your claim that this source is not reliable. Nothing in WP:NOTRELIABLE indicates that this source would fit that definition, and it also does not involve any original research. Macae (talk) 22:34, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You misread. The citation does NOT support the edit of "Seahawks fans are known collectively as the '12th Fan'," per The Daily Voice. It instead supports a WP:RSOPINION from a 16 year old (name is irrevelant) who stated that "Seattle calls itself the 12th fan, so there was '12' everywhere."
For example, if the NY Times published, "John Smith stated, 'The world is flat.'"
You could state:
John Smith believes the world is flat.<ref>NY Times</ref>
You could NOT state:
The world is flat.<ref>NY Times</ref>
Identically, this citation doesn't support the existing edit. It clearly requires WP:ORIGINALRESEARCH to generalize and extend the quote into an unqualified blanket statement. UW Dawgs (talk) 05:42, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
And another one which I did not add due to citation overkill (but feel free to add if you prefer) is http://www.clearwatercasino.com/whats-happening/12th-man-tickets/ - "Tribute to the 12th fan! Clearwater is giving away Suite tickets for the Jan. 19 Playoff game at the Clink! Wear a hawks jersey and get an additional 5 entries (once per day)" Macae (talk) 18:03, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
A casino website is not a reliable source. The edit is using a WP:SELFPUBLISHED, WP:NOTRELIABLE source in support of WP:ORIGINALRESEARCH.
Again, WP:BURDEN clearly states, "Any material lacking a reliable source directly supporting it may be removed and should not be replaced without an inline citation to a reliable source." UW Dawgs (talk) 21:10, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Normally I would agree that the site would be classified as not-reliable. However, when making a statement as to nicknames applied to fans, the casino's reference to "12th Fan" IS reliable since it represents a verifiable usage of "12th Fan" to reference the Seahawks fans. Instead, that source validates as factual the statement that Seahawks fans ARE being referred to by at least some sources/groups as the "12th Fan". Macae (talk) 22:34, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NOTRELIABLE reads (in part), "Questionable sources are those that ... lack meaningful editorial oversight" and "Questionable sources should only be used as sources of material on themselves, especially in articles about themselves" (emphasis is mine). If you would like to expound on the casino website's "meaningful editorial oversight," please continue. UW Dawgs (talk) 05:42, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If you have evidence that the cited website doesn't have editorial insight or any other reason that it should be regarded as a questionable source, please provide that evidence. Furthermore, in referencing the Seattle fans as the "12th Fan", the website IS referring to the fans as the "12th Fan". The very existence of that webpage therefore verifies the claim that the fans are also referred to by that moniker.
You removed the "12th Fan" reference in the article even though multiple citations have been presented supporting the label. So far, you are the only one who has suggested that any of the citations aren't valid, and I have responded to those that you claimed to be invalid. As such, I believe it to be inappropriate to unilaterally remove the reference in the article. Macae (talk) 15:22, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Per WP:BURDEN, there was not one WP:V provided citation which directly supported the new statement. Reference a full sentence(s) quote in direct support from any, and we can, again, discuss further. Instead, there were only WP:NOTRELIABLE, WP:SPS, and WP:NOR. UW Dawgs (talk) 15:46, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Of course there was and they have been previously discussed on this talk page. Just out of curiosity, is your belief that "12th Fan" is never used to refer to the Seahawk fans? Or that you believe that such is the case but simply that you don't think any of the citations back up that fact? Macae (talk) 17:00, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

12th Fans, again[edit]

This is in regards to the ~fifth round of editing to push the following statement (or similar variants):

Seahawks fans are known collectively as the ... "12th Fan"

Each occurance has engaged the submitting editor via Talk pages.

WP:SPS says in part:
Anyone can create a personal web page or publish their own book, and also claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason, self-published media, such as books, patents, newsletters, personal websites, open wikis, personal or group blogs (as distinguished from newsblogs, above), Internet forum postings, and tweets, are largely not acceptable as sources.

WP:NOR says in part:
Wikipedia articles must not contain original research. The phrase "original research" (OR) is used on Wikipedia to refer to material—such as facts, allegations, and ideas—for which no reliable, published sources exist. This includes any analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position not advanced by the sources. To demonstrate that you are not adding OR, you must be able to cite reliable, published sources that are directly related to the topic of the article, and directly support the material being presented.

WP:BURDEN says in part:
Attribute all quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged to a reliable, published source using an inline citation. Cite the source clearly and precisely (specifying page, section, or such divisions as may be appropriate). The citation must clearly support the material as presented in the article. Any material lacking a reliable source directly supporting it may be removed and should not be replaced without an inline citation to a reliable source. The burden of identifying a reliable source lies with the editor who adds or restores material, and is satisfied by providing any reliable source that directly supports the material.

The three citations are:

1. http://www.mediotiempo.com/mas-deportes/nfl/noticias/2014/02/02/seres-alados-hacen-retumbar-el-metlife-stadium
Needs to establish Wikipedia:V and quote per WP:BURDEN, as this document is in Spanish.

Per WP:NOENG please quote and establish the WP:SOURCE. UW Dawgs (talk) 16:01, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

2. http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/alaska-airlines-and-seattle-seahawks-quarterback-russell-wilson-launch-12th-fan-rescue-contest-239116121.html
Per About, PRNewswire.com is a clearing house of press releases. Press releases are inherently WP:NOTRELIABLE ("Questionable sources are those that have a poor reputation for checking the facts, lack meaningful editorial oversight, or have an apparent conflict of interest. Questionable sources should only be used as sources of material on themselves, especially in articles about themselves; see below. They are not suitable sources for contentious claims about others.").

Additionally, the two instances of "12th fan" therein, state precisely and only:
"Alaska Airlines and Seattle Seahawks Quarterback Russell Wilson Launch '12th Fan Rescue' Contest"
"In "Russell's 12th Fan Rescue" contest, Seahawk fans are asked to submit video links, pictures or stories showing their Seahawk pride wherever they live."
both require prohibited WP:OR ("To demonstrate that you are not adding OR, you must be able to cite reliable, published sources that are directly related to the topic of the article, and directly support the material being presented."). This is a press releases from a third-party business which cites ONLY the name of their contest. It does not directly support the associated statement, as is required. Regardless, this point is moot as this WP:SPS source is inherently prohibited. UW Dawgs (talk) 22:35, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

3. http://myeverettnews.com/2014/01/30/several-seahawks-12th-fan-events-around-everett-friday/

Per the blog's About ("Since I’m not on the radio anymore I’m no longer using my radio name but decided I wanted to keep my reporting skills up by writing this blog.") this source is prohibited WP:SPS ("For that reason, self-published media, such as books, patents, newsletters, personal websites, open wikis, personal or group blogs (as distinguished from newsblogs, above), Internet forum postings, and tweets, are largely not acceptable as sources.") UW Dawgs (talk) 22:35, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the mediotiempo citation, we have previously discussed both verifiability and burden. Regarding it being in Spanish... As per Wikipedia, citations in English are preferred but not required.
Regarding the press release clearing house concern, there are other citations that can be used. I will replace this citation with one from the Wall Street Journal that covers the same story. As far as the story itself goes, no original research is necessary in order to recognize that the intent of the promotion was to fly Seahawks fans to the game and that, as per the title of the contest, those fans were being referred to as the "12th Fan".Macae (talk) 14:22, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am seeing lots of references to Seahawks fans being referred to as the "12s". What are your thoughts on including some citations supporting that label also?Macae (talk) 14:42, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Two new citation have been added:
http://online.wsj.com/article/PR-CO-20140110-911743.html
Note this is also explicitly marked "Press Release" ("SEATTLE, Jan. 10, 2014 /PRNewswire/") and suffers the identical defects as the above prneswire.com. This third party's chosen name for their particular contest isn't in dispute.
http://www.komonews.com/news/local/From-ash-to-glass-Seattle-company-makes-art-from-ashes-249362491.html
Says explicitly and only:
"Teacher Crystal Flint of Seattle chose two hearts for her grandparents, who died within about a week of one another. Flint often brings the heart she made for her grandfather to work, because he was a huge supporter of education. She brought the heart made for her grandmother, Linda, to the Super Bowl, fulfilling a longtime dream for a lifelong Seahawks fan. The back is stamped with a raised '12' - for the ultimate 12th Fan."
Does not support the sentence per WP:BURDEN and clearly fails WP:NOR. UW Dawgs (talk) 16:01, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding the WSJ citation. There is no restriction on news released/cited by news organizations as long as there is meaningful editorial oversight. The Wall Street Journal provides such oversight and the reference is therefore a valid citation.
Did you fully read the WSJ citation before submitting? It is a press release. It explicitly states "The Wall Street Journal news department was not involved in the creation of this content." The press release identifies the name of the Alaska Airline's contest and is a terrific source for this (alone). However, it is clear WP:OR to synthesize this one-time contest name an into broad characterization of a group over time. You need an encyclopedic source for this. UW Dawgs (talk) 16:31, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
And with regards to the KOMO citation, KOMO is both a reliable source, and clearly is referencing Seahawks fans in referring to the "12th Fan". No original research is necessary in order to verify that statement.
Again, KOMO is a (generally) a reliable source. However, the citation makes ZERO broad statements, which directly support

Seahawks fans are known collectively as the ... "12th Fan"

If you feel otherwise, please specifically quote (as I did above) where Seahawks fans are broadly identified as the "12th fan" by the article. Absent directly supporting content, the citation is WP:OR. UW Dawgs (talk) 16:31, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Finally, with regards to the Spanish citation, wiki policy states that it is acceptable to provide the translation within the article, as a footnote, or as part of the talk page. In order not to unnecessarily clutter up the article itself, it is probably easiest to provide the translation here. The pertinent portion of the article translates as follows - "Century Link Field is assumed to be the most loud stadium; "The 12th Fan" demonstrated that it was not the building/land which causes earthquakes in Seattle..." Macae (talk) 18:22, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Again, yes, but see WP:NOENG and establish the WP:SOURCE. UW Dawgs (talk) 16:31, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If helpful, see how the three existing citations for "12th man" directly support the statement -each is even placed as the first sentence of an entire article which directly supports the content.
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/01/26/sports/football/seahawks-mania-bigger-than-us-can-contain.html
VANCOUVER, British Columbia — During the N.F.C. championship game last Sunday, die-hard fans draped in navy blue and neon green, part of a group collectively known as the 12th Man,
http://www.nydailynews.com/sports/football/hold-seismometer-loud-seattle-article-1.1571671
The art of noise in Seattle: Seahawks' 12th man helps create NFL's biggest home-field advantage
http://espn.go.com/nfl/playoffs/2013/story/_/id/10395235/super-bowl-xlviii-seattle-seahawks-win-heavily-features-no-12
EAST RUTHERFORD, N.J. -- The Seattle Seahawks always talk about the power of 12 -- their fabled "12th man."
They adhere to WP:V, WP:NOR, and WP:NPOV while directly supporting the associated statement. UW Dawgs (talk) 16:47, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Who is the bearded guy in this photo?[edit]

I know that Luke Willson is wearing the sweater with his jersey number 82, Russell Okung is in the brown sweater and using the earphones, but who's the bearded man waving in this photo? Can't be Max Unger since he was on the offensive line float of the Super Bowl parade. Arbor to SJ (talk) 07:49, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Photo now on Commons, at file:Seattle Seahawks tight ends at the 2014 Super Bowl parade.jpg. Arbor to SJ (talk) 21:43, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The bearded man in the photo is Caylin Hauptmann. He is from Florida International University. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.149.74.114 (talk) 15:37, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Page move[edit]

A recent page move, which invokes WP:COMMONNAME and WP:PRIMARYTOPIC concerns, may be of possible interest to readers of this article. Please discuss at Talk:Peter R. Gross#Page move. Thank you. RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 18:11, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Criteria for Notable Stars[edit]

There seems to be some debate if Russell Wilson should be included in the list of Seahawks "notable stars". He's been added and removed a couple of time. On one hand he has only completed one season. On the other he is nationally known as one of the top three QBs from the 2012 draft, set some "notable" NFL and team records, and went to the Pro Bowl. At this point I would guess he is probably more well known than Joe Nash or Brian Blades who are both on the list. I think my vote would be to add/keep him on the list. HappyMonkeyPaul (talk) 19:44, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think the bigger debate is why Warren Moon is listed... he played two partial seasons for the hawks, he made his hall of fame career in Houston and Canada. Period. It needs to get cleaned up. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.129.66.30 (talk) 04:03, 6 February 2014 (UTC) We also have (unlinked) Brandon Browner, who has been overshadowed by Marcus Trufant and Richard Sherman for almost his entire career. Specific criteria? SeanTheSwan (talk) 15:48, 28 April 2014 (UTC)SeanTheSwan[reply]

A year ago, June 2013:
The Seahawks have had some notable stars on the team, such as Steve Largent, Jim Zorn, Dave Krieg, Kenny Easley, Curt Warner, Joe Nash, Brian Blades, Cortez Kennedy, Joey Galloway, Warren Moon, Walter Jones, Shaun Alexander, Matt Hasselbeck, Russell Wilson and Marshawn Lynch.

Present, June 2014: (changes in bold)
Over the years the Seahawks have had some notable players on the team, such as Steve Largent, Dave Brown, Jim Zorn, Dave Krieg, John Randle, Kenny Easley, Curt Warner, Joe Nash, Brian Blades, Cortez Kennedy, Joey Galloway, Warren Moon, Walter Jones, Steve Hutchinson, Jerry Rice, Shaun Alexander, Matt Hasselbeck, Marcus Trufant, Marshawn Lynch, Percy Harvin, Earl Thomas, Richard Sherman, Kam Chancellor, Brandon Browner and Russell Wilson.

Aside from the sentence being...weak, I'd propose a minimum of two Pro Bowl selections as a Seahawk, which removes Zorn, Nash, Blades, Galloway, Moon, AND Randle, Rice, Trufant, Harvin, Sherman, Chancellor, and Browner. UW Dawgs (talk) 21:03, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

My God the notable players list is filled with Hall of Famers that made their names ON OTHER TEAMS. Jerry Rice never played a single down for the Seahawks in the regular season. John Randle? Warren Moon? They are notable, but they didn't make significant contributions to the Seahawks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.94.220.17 (talk) 15:03, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"12s" label for fans[edit]

An editor continues to remove any reference to the use of "12s" to label Seahawks fans. I believe that this is inappropriate to do without first discussing on this Talk page. Furthermore, his attempt at justifying this removal is a claim that original research is required in order to suggest that such a label is used for the fans. I believe this to absolutely not be the case. Not only does this Seahawks.com refer to the fans in the title as "12s", but within the article, it makes it clear that the label is being applied to the fans in the stands. Stating that the fans are being referred to as "12s" requires no original research. In the interest of consensus, I will be happy to provide, if needed, multiple additional citations that also refer to the fans as "12s" without requiring any original research. Macae (talk) 16:13, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest you read WP:V before replying. Your edit, created the following:

Seahawks fans are known collectively as the "12th Man"[4][5][6], "12th Fan"[7][disputed – discuss], or "12s".[8][9][10]

Per WP:BURDEN, please directly quote the precise material FOR EACH of your three citations, which you feel satisfies WP:NOR, noting "The phrase "original research" (OR) is used on Wikipedia to refer to material—such as facts, allegations, and ideas—for which no reliable, published sources exist.[1] This includes any analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to reach or imply a conclusion not stated by the sources. To demonstrate that you are not adding OR, you must be able to cite reliable, published sources that are directly related to the topic of the article, and directly support the material being presented." (emphasis is mine)
Your three citations:

UW Dawgs (talk) 22:22, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sure.
  • [8] "Seahawks Rookies React To Roar of 12s at CenturyLink Field" & "That's how many 12s turned out to greet the Seahawks for their preseason home opener against the San Diego Chargers on Friday night at CenturyLink Field." & "(On how impressed he was with the support of the 12s...)" & "(On what he had heard about the 12s prior to being drafted to the Seahawks...) - I had heard that Seattle fans were pretty crazy." & "I had always heard about the 12s - they're the best fan base around." & "(On how impressed he was with the support of the 12s...) - They're a loyal fanbase."
Read WP:BURDEN. None of these directly state anything approaching "Seahawks fans are known collectively as ... '12s'." You've refenced a combination of questions and answers/quotations reflecting the personal view of the responder. As none directly support the blanket statement in your edit, you are engaged in prohibited WP:OR ("you must be able to cite reliable, published sources that are directly related to the topic of the article, and directly support the material being presented."). UW Dawgs (talk) 04:08, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • [9] "Seahawks 12s rally for fellow fan in his final days" ... "Several hundred Seahawks fans turned out to honor fellow fan Frank Henderson"
"12s" appears twice in your citation, once in the headline and again in the body ("In just three days, Smith and his big-hearted family of 12s organized the rally for Frank fueled by an outpouring of affection for Frank and his indomitable spirit."). Neither directly supports the blanket statement, used in your edit. As your citation doesn't directly support your edit, you are engaged in prohibited WP:OR. UW Dawgs (talk) 04:08, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • [10] “We’ve had a good team come together over the years,” said Seahawks coach Pete Carroll, who simply calls the fans “the 12s.”
Pete Carroll's opinion is his own. Just as if he proclaimed the Earth to be flat, we could NOT update Earth with an unqualified blanket statement. This citation in your edit also engages in prohibited WP:OR, as it does not directly support your edit. UW Dawgs (talk) 04:08, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Since the statement involves names that the fans are being referred to, the very evidence of these citations and the above statements is evidence that they are indeed being identified with this label. No original research is required in order to make that statement. Unless you are questioning the reliability of these published sources, which I don't think you are doing... Macae (talk) 20:30, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
As none of your citations adhere to our WP:NOR policy, they have been removed. UW Dawgs (talk) 04:08, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The citations that I mentioned are not in violation of the WP:NOR policy and you have now removed my statement and citations four successive times without any support or even comment from other editors. Macae (talk) 16:47, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I kind of see what UW Dawgs is getting at. However, it is obvious that the term "12's" has gained significant traction (I actually think it is a little weird). I reworded the line so that it is more accurate while keeping in the info. "Seahawks fans have been referred to collectively as the..." They have been referred to collectively as 12's by national media and the coach. Cptnono (talk) 01:08, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Cptnono for the revision. I have no problem with your change and think that it is a reasonable compromise to the debate. Thanks for playing referee! Macae (talk) 16:48, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Help identifying a player?[edit]

I'm trying to identify the player in this photo walking to the left of Alvin Bailey. It is possibly Anthony McCoy, since the player is dressed as an inactive (no pads/helmet, just warmups). Arbor to SJ (talk) 08:58, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Dainomite, thank you for helping with the photo I mis-labeled as Darrell Bevell. Could you please help here? Arbor to SJ (talk) 07:25, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
PS: The photo is from the Dec. 29, 2013 Rams/Seahawks game. List of starting players and inactives is here. Arbor to SJ (talk) 07:25, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, since McCoy is a tight end, he's probably in this photo walking to Luke Willson's right and wearing the stocking hat and jacket. Arbor to SJ (talk) 07:30, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, I honestly have no idea who that is —  dainomite   23:46, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Based on this photo, I'm inclined to say the man in the stocking hat next to Luke Willson is Anthony McCoy. Arbor to SJ (talk) 00:10, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please add section about 2014 season[edit]

Please add a section that says, "In the 2014 season, the Seahawks went 12-4 during the regular season, winning the NFC West division and the #1 seed in the NFC playoffs. After a first-round bye, they beat the Carolina Panthers 31-17 to advance to the NFC Championship Game, where they beat the Green Bay Packers 28-22 in overtime after being down 16-0 at halftime. This earned them a trip to the Super Bowl for the second consecutive year, giving them the chance to become the first team to win back-to-back league championships since their opponent, the New England Patriots, did it during the 2003 and 2004 seasons. However, they came up short when, trailing 28-24 with 20 seconds remaining, quarterback Russell Wilson threw an interception from the one-yard line. Seattle's final play has already been regarded as one of the worst mistakes in the history of the Super Bowl." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.28.129.216 (talk) 01:02, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Augur hawk mascot?[edit]

Why is this bird the mascot? it's from Africa (and its article is entitled buzzard, not hawk). Seahawk is an alternate name for an Osprey, which is local to the Seattle area. The mascot should be the osprey. HalfGig talk 02:25, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The talk page really isn't intended to be a Q&A for the Seahawks franchise, but "buzzard" is a traditional name for certain birds of prey, including the augur hawk, and as to why they picked the augur hawk is probably because it is more conducive to falconry training than an osprey would be. Shiggity (talk) 14:06, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Post-merger expansion team Super Bowl appearances[edit]

The header indicates that the Seahawks are the only modern era expansion team to reach multiple Super Bowls, but this is incorrect. The Baltimore Ravens are considered an expansion team, as the Expansion Team article that is linked confirms, and they have won two Super Bowls. This needs to be corrected.174.73.5.74 (talk) 00:52, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I just noticed this also and I think the confusion might have been due to the fact that the Ravens were originally the Cleveland Browns, but are now considered an expansion team after the Cleveland Browns were remade. I'll remove the part about reaching multiple Super Bowls. Shiggity (talk) 14:09, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of St. Louis Rams from rivalry section[edit]

The St. Louis Rams subsection within Seattle Seahawks#Rivalries was tagged as unreferenced since Feb 2014. Newly added citations now support individual statements, but they still do not directly support the broad assertion of a notable rivalry. The Rams section has been removed for now, barring citations which support a notable rivalry. UW Dawgs (talk) 00:45, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 16 November 2015[edit]

The fourth word in the article should be "is" not "are" to read "The Seattle Seahawks is a ..." While Seahawks is plural, the franchise is singular, thus this is a grammatical correction. 73.140.17.83 (talk) 05:42, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not done. Please review Comparison of American and British English#Nouns: "In American English (AmE) ... Despite exceptions ... the names of sports teams are usually treated as plurals even if the form of the name is singular" (emphasis added). For example http://ftw.usatoday.com/2015/10/seattle-seahawks-whats-wrong-defense-carolina-panthers-earl-thomas-blown-coverage begins with "The Seattle Seahawks are a team on the brink." (emphasis added on the singular "team") http://www.nytimes.com/2015/08/13/sports/football/jets-are-a-franchise-as-broken-as-their-quarterbacks-jaw.html?_r=0 also uses the phrase "Jets Are A franchise" in its headline. These two examples also follow in line with the common subject-verb agreement used by most reliable sources in American English, where both the subject and verb match regardless of the rest of the phrase after the verb. I can give other specific examples that use "[NFL TEAM] are a franchise"[2] Zzyzx11 (talk) 05:56, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Establishment Date[edit]

@JTCEPB: A series of recent edits has changed the "Established" date to the year of the inaugural season. This is change is errorneous and conflicts with broad consensus:

Therefore, the characterization of the team being found in 1976, two calendar years after coming into existence with an ownership group, defies both NFL infobox convention and the existing citations. UW Dawgs (talk) 00:36, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

NFL.com says "founded:1976". Maybe i am wrong, but if my englisch Knowledge is correct, established is the same like founded, so the Seattle Seahawks are founded 1976 and "founded" is not the same as "franchise awarded" .--JTCEPB (talk) 10:27, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Rivalries[edit]

I propose we add the New Orleans Saints as a Seahawks Rival. Particularly as a result of the 2010 Season playoff game, Drew Brees being a hero to Russell Wilson, the 2013 season divisional playoff game. It seems to me that there's more than enough reason to include the Saints as a rival. The other I suggest we add are the Green Bay Packers.2601:8:9E80:578:225:FF:FE44:8B9F (talk) 06:41, 26 January 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Elmorus91 (talk • contribs) 00:42, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As a Saints fan, I would agree. CondorLead (talk) 23:23, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Broncos-Seahawks rivalry[edit]

If you're serious about the rivalry, you need to create a page that links to all the games (playoff appearances, division wins, championship games, & Super Bowl appearances & victories). The Seahawks did win their first Super Bowl against the Broncos. It's not at the Cowboys-Steelers rivalry, since the Seahawks only have 1. --JLAmidei (talk) 04:24, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

new Arizona Cardinals & Los Angeles Rams rivalry sections[edit]

An IP editor User talk:184.103.207.215 has reinserted weakly-sourced rivalries for the Cardinals and Rams. These require more sourcing than one-off articles and lone throwaway lines ala "division rivals." UW Dawgs (talk) 18:40, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Are the Rams not a rival of the Seahawks?[edit]

I don't understand why the Rams entry in the "Rivalries" section keeps getting removed as "unsourced". What specific sources do you need to substantiate this?

The Rams were definitely worthy of rival status in the early 2000s, considering the 2004 season. You also have Josh Brown's departure from the Seahawks to play for the Rams, the Week 8 game from 2013 (in which Tate famously taunted the Rams defense en route to scoring a touchdown), and at least two occasions where players on either team were ejected for throwing punches. There's also a lot of ire from Seahawks fans towards Jeff Fisher, Aaron Donald, Sean McVay and the Rams special teams for their tendency to use fake punts and other deceptions to gain advantages over the Seahawks in the past decade. Don't know how to encapsulate all of that without bogging down the entry, but at the very least the outcomes of pivotal games (which were cited in the last attempt) should be enough to indicate the nature of the rivalry. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.196.22.244 (talk) 03:47, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The question is whether reliable sources commonly describe the two teams as rivals. None of that other stuff is really relevant. Larry Hockett (Talk) 03:55, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Logos and uniforms section fancruft[edit]

@Ralphierce: It appears there has been repeated insertion of mostly-unsourced WP:Fancruft about uniform combinations for recent, specific games. [3] [4] [5] [6]

This content seems utterly routine, as the various combinations of any team's uniform exist to be worn. No support of this being non-routine has been offered, to date. Perhaps this specific content is a better match for the 2019 Seattle Seahawks season article. What do you think? Note, the deficiencies of this section have been tagged since April 2012. UW Dawgs (talk) 20:09, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I think that section should only include descriptions of historical and current uniforms and logos, and any changes made to them. The first game they wore a new uniform might also be worth including. However, the choice of uniform worn by the Seahawks in a week 15 game ten years ago is not notable and trivial as mentioned above. Eagles 24/7 (C) 20:26, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Seattle_Seahawks/Archive_1&oldid=1177296215"