Talk:List of Super Bowl champions

Baltimore Ravens

A point of correction. The Baltimore Ravens were not an expansion team. The Cleveland Browns moved to Baltimore after the Colts moved to Indianapolis.The city of Cleveland retained the rights to the "Browns" name. That's why the team was re-named "Ravens". But there was no expansion at that time. Later, the current Cleveland Browns were added to the league as an expansion team. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Loosedogs (talk • contribs) 23:59, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

While you're correct that the Baltimore Ravens were, on a practical basis, not actually an expansion team but instead one that moved, the NFL officially regards them as an expansion team in their records. That was part of the negotiations for the move, that the Ravens would be considered a new franchise, with old Browns records kept for the later-revived Browns franchise. —Lowellian (reply) 03:38, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

And if the NFL said dark was day and light was night would it be the truth? The Cleveland team moved to Baltimore, they left the name in Cleveland. If the league wants to fictionalize their history should we just except it?Corumplex (talk) 03:49, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

The NFL doesn't control night and day, but it does control itself. So if it treats the Baltimore Ravens as an expansion team, then that's what Wikipedia reports. - BilCat (talk) 07:36, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

So does the NFL have the right to fictionalize it's history? It is true that the NFL franchise in Cleveland changed it's name and moved to Baltimore. Also it is fact that later a new team using the "Browns" name started in Cleveland. I have no patience with groups who want to revise history through press releases. Why would we here on Wikipedia want to help them with their fictional revisionist history? The film industry says they moved to Hollywood to get away from gangs who were extorting money from them. The truth is that the Edison company had patents on the filming process and the 'gangs' were agents of Edison trying to collect the patent royalties he was entitled to. Industries and businesses often try and write their own histories, It's up to such as us to keep them honest. Corumplex (talk) 17:37, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

I propose that the situation involving the Browns and the Ravens be recorded to indicate that in order to make record keeping easier the NFL chooses to regard the Browns as one continuous franchise though the franchise did in fact move to Baltimore and was replaced by a new franchise of the same name.Corumplex (talk) 02:57, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

Table of Super Bowl appearances by team

This discussion started with an unexplained reversion by Bonesdonahue of the existing table. I reverted this change with the following explanation in the edit summary:

Undid revisions 829779527-829781887 by Bonesdonahue (talk). The primary sort for this table is based on the number of appearances. It follows that the next most important item (after winning percentage) is how long each team has had that number of appearances and then that number of wins. It is easy to sort on other values by using the arrows at the top of the table, but this is the default. Regardless, removing the sort values entirely just because you don't agree with the order is not appropriate. Lets discuss this further on the talk page if you have questions or concerns about changing the default sorting options, I'm sure we can come to an agreed upon understanding of how the sorting should work. Thanks!

Bonesdonahue then posted the following to my talk page:

No you decided to change the sort from the original. When you sort by wins it has been and will remain wins/apperances/last time to appear. If your going to try and change that you need to at the very least change it correctly. The Panthers shouldn't end up below teams who haven't won a Super Bowl. Just because you disagreed with how the page was originally was set doesn't mean you get to change it. I will continue to reset your sort order cause it's done incorrectly and doesn't make sense.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Bonesdonahue (talk • contribs) 04:14, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

I moved the discussion here to keep this back-and-forth all in one place. My response is below.

You are absolutely correct. Sorting by wins was not being done correctly. I have since corrected the table to reflect the correct sorting. Regardless, reverting changes without explanation is not helpful (and FYI can be considered vandalism). It would have been much easier (and faster) to come to an agreement if you had explained your rationale either in the edit summary or here on the talk page for the article. I probably should have done the latter in addition to my lengthy edit summary explaining why I reverted your unexplained revert. I also added this comment at the top of the section explaining how the sorting is being handled:

Appearances sort: Appearances/Wins/Years since last Appearance/Years since last Win/Years since last championship game prior to 1970 (if necessary);
Wins sort: if Wins>0 Wins/Years since last Win, if Wins=0 Wins/Appearances/Years since last Win/Years since last Appearance/Years since last championship game prior to 1970 (if necessary);
Losses sort: Losses/Appearances/Years since last Loss/Years since last Appearance/Years since last championship game prior to 1970 (if necessary)

The next step would be to apply a similar sorting to the "Winning percentage" column so that those teams with more appearances for a given winning percentage appear first when sorting by that column. Happy editing! - Paul^T+/_C 02:35, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

Paul/Psantora - I'm not Savvy in how to create sort orders in Wiki and reverting the changes wasn't vandalism seeing as it was the default of how the page was originally set. I still believe that when you sort by wins that that it should be based on wins then appearances. Example the Steelers appear first with 6 wins and 8 appearances followed by the Patriots 5 wins 10 appearances and so on but the only way I know how to do that is to revert the change. Maybe something you can look into. Thanks, Bonesdonahue — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bonesdonahue (talk • contribs) 04:57, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

The current sorting (which you just reverted, again without any explanation) for the "wins" column does exactly what you are asking. Why did you revert it? - Paul^T+/_C 05:07, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

Ah, I spoke too quickly. I see what you are talking about now. The sort for the wins column (as I'd like it to stand; option 1) gives preference to the team that reached that number of wins first. That is, the 49ers reached 5 wins before the Cowboys or Patriots even though both of those teams have more SB appearances than the 49ers. When sorting by wins it lists Steelers, 49ers, Cowboys, Patriots... and so on. You think it should go Steelers, Patriots, Cowboys, 49ers... and so on. Reasonable. I disagree. We'll have to wait and see if others who watch this page will chime in to see which way we go. In the meantime I'll revert back to the original way it was being sorted (with updated sort values so that ties are handled correctly) and provide examples of both options here. Just give me a little bit to get the code setup. - Paul^T+/_C 05:18, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

Option 1 - earlier team gets preference (reverted change)

• Appearances sort: Appearances/Wins/Years since last Appearance/Years since last Win/Years since last championship game prior to 1970 (if necessary);
• Wins sort: if Wins>0 Wins/Years since last Win, if Wins=0 Wins/Appearances/Years since last Win/Years since last Appearance/Years since last championship game prior to 1970 (if necessary);
• Losses sort: Losses/Appearances/Years since last Loss/Years since last Appearance/Years since last championship game prior to 1970 (if necessary)

Appearances	Team	Wins	Losses	Winning percentage	Seasons
10	New England Patriots†	5	5	.500	1985,† 1996,† 2001,† 2003,† 2004,† 2007,† 2011,† 2014,† 2016,† 2017†
8	Pittsburgh Steelers†	6	2	.750	1974,† 1975,† 1978,† 1979,† 1995,† 2005,† 2008,† 2010†
8	Dallas Cowboys*	5	3	.625	1970,* 1971,* 1975,* 1977,* 1978,* 1992,* 1993,* 1995*
8	Denver Broncos†	3	5	.375	1977,† 1986,† 1987,† 1989,† 1997,† 1998,† 2013,† 2015†
6	San Francisco 49ers*	5	1	.833	1981,* 1984,* 1988,* 1989,* 1994*, 2012*
5	Green Bay Packers‡*	4	1	.800	1966,‡ 1967,‡ 1996,* 1997,* 2010*
5	New York Giants*	4	1	.800	1986,* 1990,* 2000,* 2007,* 2011*
5	Washington Redskins*	3	2	.600	1972,* 1982,* 1983,* 1987,* 1991*
5	Los Angeles/Oakland Raiders^†	3	2	.600	1967,^ 1976,† 1980,† 1983,† 2002†
5	Miami Dolphins†	2	3	.400	1971,† 1972,† 1973,† 1982,† 1984†
4	Baltimore/Indianapolis Colts‡†	2	2	.500	1968,‡ 1970,† 2006,† 2009†
4	Minnesota Vikings‡*	0	4	.000	1969,‡ 1973,* 1974,* 1976*
4	Buffalo Bills†	0	4	.000	1990,† 1991,† 1992,† 1993†
3	St. Louis/Los Angeles Rams*	1	2	.333	1979,* 1999,* 2001*
3	Seattle Seahawks*	1	2	.333	2005,* 2013,* 2014*
3	Philadelphia Eagles*	1	2	.333	1980,* 2004,* 2017*
2	Baltimore Ravens†	2	0	1.000	2000,† 2012†
2	Kansas City Chiefs^†	1	1	.500	1966,^ 1969^
2	Chicago Bears*	1	1	.500	1985,* 2006*
2	Cincinnati Bengals†	0	2	.000	1981,† 1988†
2	Carolina Panthers*	0	2	.000	2003,* 2015*
2	Atlanta Falcons*	0	2	.000	1998,* 2016*
1	New York Jets^†	1	0	1.000	1968^
1	Tampa Bay Buccaneers*	1	0	1.000	2002*
1	New Orleans Saints*	1	0	1.000	2009*
1	San Diego/Los Angeles Chargers†	0	1	.000	1994†
1	Houston/Tennessee Oilers/Tennessee Titans†	0	1	.000	1999†
1	St. Louis/Arizona Cardinals*	0	1	.000	2008*
0	Cleveland Browns†	0	0	–	none
0	Detroit Lions*	0	0	–	none
0	Jacksonville Jaguars†	0	0	–	none
0	Houston Texans†	0	0	–	none

Option 2 - more appearances gets preference (current state of list)

• Appearances sort: Appearances/Wins/Years since last Appearance/Years since last Win/Years since last championship game prior to 1970 (if necessary);
• Wins sort: Wins/Appearances/Years since last Win/Years since last Appearance/Years since last championship game prior to 1970 (if necessary);
• Losses sort: Losses/Appearances/Years since last Loss/Years since last Appearance/Years since last championship game prior to 1970 (if necessary)

Appearances	Team	Wins	Losses	Winning percentage	Seasons
10	New England Patriots†	5	5	.500	1985,† 1996,† 2001,† 2003,† 2004,† 2007,† 2011,† 2014,† 2016,† 2017†
8	Pittsburgh Steelers†	6	2	.750	1974,† 1975,† 1978,† 1979,† 1995,† 2005,† 2008,† 2010†
8	Dallas Cowboys*	5	3	.625	1970,* 1971,* 1975,* 1977,* 1978,* 1992,* 1993,* 1995*
8	Denver Broncos†	3	5	.375	1977,† 1986,† 1987,† 1989,† 1997,† 1998,† 2013,† 2015†
6	San Francisco 49ers*	5	1	.833	1981,* 1984,* 1988,* 1989,* 1994*, 2012*
5	Green Bay Packers‡*	4	1	.800	1966,‡ 1967,‡ 1996,* 1997,* 2010*
5	New York Giants*	4	1	.800	1986,* 1990,* 2000,* 2007,* 2011*
5	Washington Redskins*	3	2	.600	1972,* 1982,* 1983,* 1987,* 1991*
5	Los Angeles/Oakland Raiders^†	3	2	.600	1967,^ 1976,† 1980,† 1983,† 2002†
5	Miami Dolphins†	2	3	.400	1971,† 1972,† 1973,† 1982,† 1984†
4	Baltimore/Indianapolis Colts‡†	2	2	.500	1968,‡ 1970,† 2006,† 2009†
4	Minnesota Vikings‡*	0	4	.000	1969,‡ 1973,* 1974,* 1976*
4	Buffalo Bills†	0	4	.000	1990,† 1991,† 1992,† 1993†
3	St. Louis/Los Angeles Rams*	1	2	.333	1979,* 1999,* 2001*
3	Seattle Seahawks*	1	2	.333	2005,* 2013,* 2014*
3	Philadelphia Eagles*	1	2	.333	1980,* 2004,* 2017*
2	Baltimore Ravens†	2	0	1.000	2000,† 2012†
2	Kansas City Chiefs^†	1	1	.500	1966,^ 1969^
2	Chicago Bears*	1	1	.500	1985,* 2006*
2	Cincinnati Bengals†	0	2	.000	1981,† 1988†
2	Carolina Panthers*	0	2	.000	2003,* 2015*
2	Atlanta Falcons*	0	2	.000	1998,* 2016*
1	New York Jets^†	1	0	1.000	1968^
1	Tampa Bay Buccaneers*	1	0	1.000	2002*
1	New Orleans Saints*	1	0	1.000	2009*
1	San Diego/Los Angeles Chargers†	0	1	.000	1994†
1	Houston/Tennessee Oilers/Tennessee Titans†	0	1	.000	1999†
1	St. Louis/Arizona Cardinals*	0	1	.000	2008*
0	Cleveland Browns†	0	0	–	none
0	Detroit Lions*	0	0	–	none
0	Jacksonville Jaguars†	0	0	–	none
0	Houston Texans†	0	0	–	none

Option 1 vs Option 2 discussion

• Option 1 - My preference is for Option 1. The team with the higher winning percentage should be listed first when sorting by wins. - Paul^T+/_C 05:33, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

"Table of Super Bowl appearances" is a JOKE, right?!

This article is about Super Bowl Champions. When you win the Super Bowl, they hand you the Lombardi Trophy. They do not hand out Participation Trophies. So in what universe does the number of Appearances count more than the number of Wins? Where is the backlash from every single football fan who knows that the Super Bowl trophy is named for a man famous for his quote about what winning means? If you understand football, if you understand the NFL, if you understand the Super Bowl, if you understand Vince Lombardi ...then you know that if he had made a table himself, it would have only TWO COLUMNS: Team / Wins. And if he were pressed to have a 3rd column added, he would label that one TRIVIA.

It is utterly improper to have a table that defaults to presenting the NE Pats above the Steelers in an article about Super Bowl Champions. I can see that a lot of effort went into building it. And if the creator feels attached to it, then I suggest starting a separate article titled List of Super Bowl Losers. You can put your table there. It does not belong here.--Breezy Foal (talk) 17:25, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

Disagree strongly. Aside from the possibility that this may be a moot point before Monday, along with your somewhat emotionally-charged rebuttal against a format that has existed on this page since 2007, I'll make my case with this question: Does the Buffalo Bills competing in and losing the Super Bowl in four consecutive years make them a good team or a bad team? Rickie-d (talk) 21:03, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

You clearly do not understand the criticism that has been highlighted here. This is obvious is because you have expressed this view that if the Patriots won yesterday, then the point is rendered moot.

The table is still BROKEN.

Yes, today it is proper to list the Patriots ahead of the Steelers (leaving alone a separate issue regarding the Pats and how they got to certain SBs). So the top of the list is no longer displaying an inversion. But look just two lines lower, and what do you find: The 3-5 Broncos listed AHEAD of the 5-1 SF 49ers.

The Bills losing 4 straight? That does not make them a bad team. That does not make them a good team. That makes them a GREAT team. For those four straight years, they produced results that were greater than every other team in the NFL that year ...except for one. So what they were was a great team. But they were not the greatest team. Let's be clear that we are having this discussion on an article about Super Bowl CHAMPIONS. And you choose for your rebuttal to highlight the most iconic example of a Super Bowl loser. You say that asking that question makes some kind of case. I already showed the case that that kind of argument makes. It is the argument that a "Participation Trophy" counts more than a Lombardi Trophy.

Now that point is not necessarily an illegitimate one, inherently. But if any weight is to be given to your position, then we must ask why this article is titled SB Champions. And the more important question is where are the NFL SB Participation Trophies? Why don't they give a trophy to the losers as well? No "Participation Rings" either. When you figure out the answers to those questions, then you can see how broken this table is. It does not reflect the reality of what the NFL values. The reality that the fans value. The reality that anyone I know of who follows football in any way values. This table is an INVERSION of those values. And therefore, it does not fit with Wikipedia standards. Wikipedia editors are not granted the liberty to REVERSE the values that are clearly upheld by society. So I will restate the original question...

In what universe is it proper to list the Vikings & Bills (both 0-4) ahead of the Ravens (2-0)?

And your argument that it has been this way for 12 years holds no water either. I have seen plenty of articles broken on Wikipedia for many many years, and everyone just overlooks how broken it is, instead of making the effort to get it fixed. It does nothing to excuse the fact that it is broken. --Breezy Foal (talk) 00:20, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

Ok, the table has now been fixed so that it reflects an actual List of Super Bowl champions. Columns have been reprioritized by Wins first, then Appearances, and with teams that have the same SB W/L record, the team to have achieved it first is listed first. This change has been implemented with the need for this change having been highlighted more than 3 weeks ago. The only objection voiced during that time was by someone who did not understand the issue, saying that this problem would become moot if the Patriots won. The other grounds for objection was that this table had reflected the prioritization of appearances being counted more than wins since 2007. The rebuttal presented here is that something being broken for a dozen years does not qualify as valid grounds for not fixing it today. So it has been fixed. --Breezy Foal (talk) 06:46, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

When you "fixed" the table, you forgot to "fix" the bottom header. Next time you make unilateral decisions without waiting for any sort of quorum on 12-year old standards two days after the Super Bowl, make sure you actually finish what you're doing.

This "need for change" only had a single voice behind it: yours. No quorum was achieved, and when opposition was raised, you ignored and tried to delegitimize it, then made sweeping changes on your own, claiming that there was no opposition to a change that was "needed". I will be recommending that your series of edits be reviewed for possible reversion and actual discussion, since this site and this page are a community effort. Rickie-d (talk) 18:21, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

I strive to maintain respect for others, and honor the process according to policy, at all times. It is clear that you feel disrespected here. I do not see myself to have ignored anything you presented. And as for "without waiting", I actually saw myself as exercising extended patience. I waited more than 3 weeks, when it is common for rapid changes to happen on Wikipedia over the span of 3 hours. You posted your objections. And then I waited 4 days after that.

...and the reason why I waited those 4 days was purposeful. It was to wait for the results of LIII so that after the table had been updated, everyone could clearly see whether your assertion about this issue becoming moot was valid or not. You say that I ignored and delegitimized your input. My reply to you included "...that point is not necessarily an illegitimate one, inherently." That was me trying to say that I see your point as being legitimate.

One angle I highlighted in my position was this idea of aligning with the values of society. One strong current in society is that there is this negative aspect to sports competition, where unless you go all the way and win the championship, you get branded as a loser. The Bills are on the bleeding edge of that moniker. (To the point of the old joke that BILLS stands for Boy I Love Losing Superbowls.) There has been a strong backlash in society against this attitude, and because of that, there were sayings that gained a lot of traction, like:

"Winning isn't everything."

"It's not whether you win or lose. It's how you play the game."

Perhaps the most famous saying of Vince Lombardi is his counter to this counter. And there is actually an entire separate Wikipedia article dedicated to that quote. So those are the two contrasting values that are at work here. And I see both to be legitimate. Just getting to the SB is an amazing accomplishment. Each year there are 30 teams who fail to do that, and only 2 teams that do. So Appearances certainly count for something. I understand your point about the Bills.

At lower levels of competition, the backlash against the harsh consequences of hyper-competitive attitudes gained a lot of traction. And that's when Participation Trophies started appearing. If this trend of honoring participation instead of just honoring winning had reached the top level of football, then I would actually agree with your position. I would see it to be proper for the table in this article to value Appearances over Lombardis. But then wouldn't the broader argument here be why do we even have an article that focuses on the Super Bowl, while ignoring all the teams that participated in the NFL season, but didn't make it to the Super Bowl? They all "participated" too. They got to the NFL, while their other college teammates did not. And then a further step back would choose to honor all those who failed to make it to the NFL. And so on, until everyone gets recognized for what they did, along with what they didn't do.

This is the conundrum of participation trophies. This is the conundrum of presenting a table that values appearances over wins. This is why participation trophies went away (as far as I saw). The concept does not fit with the concept of competition. So this leads us to the way things are. There are no participation trophies in the Super Bowl. You do not get a ring just for showing up.

Back to the process here...

I agree with you that it would be healthy to have a thorough discussion on this. I am well aware that unilateral decisions are not the best way to work here. I waited 6 hours after posting my rebuttal before implementing the sweeping change. Perhaps it would have been better if I had waited 6 days. I welcome the discussion that me 'stirring the pot' here may bring about.

Now it is possible that such discussion could lead even further in the direction in which I have moved the chains. I actually see the position I took here as being a MIDDLE GROUND. The table as it stands now reflects valuing Super Bowl losses. Yet the title of the article remains as "List of Super Bowl champions". A very strong argument could be made that the Pittsburgh Steelers belong ABOVE the Patriots, because this is the first club to have achieved the milestone of 6 wins. The argument here is that the number of losses doesn't matter at all. I myself have not taken that stand. But it is a position that needs to be examined if we are going to have a healthy discussion on this topic.

Again, one way for us to gain guidance is by the values of the NFL themselves. Evidence this weekend's commercial by the NFL on "The 100-Year Game" (on YouTube). One of the most notable aspects was the Aqua coats worn by the three players from the '72 Dolphins, while just about every other NFL player wore black. The NFL is well aware that the 2007 Patriots also had a perfect regular season. They even won more games than the '72 Dolphins, because the season was longer. Yet no special status was given to them (Brady, etc). The values reflected by the NFL in that commercial I see to be further support for this position that the thing that matters far more than anything else when it comes to the Super Bowl is winning it. Appearances there are a distant second.

So let's have a full discussion here. It is quite possible that a better way to present this table is by listing the Steelers over the Pats. The Iron Curtain got to 6 wins well before the Patriots did. A full TEN YEARS before.

Also, thank you for fixing my incomplete edit. You had raised the point that the table had been this way since 2007. As I was doing that edit, the thought dawned on me that perhaps one reason why no one else has done this in 12 years is because it was excruciating to do that change. And then I dropped the ball right at the end. My fumble. Your recovery. --Breezy Foal (talk) 21:37, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

"The only objection voiced during that time was by someone who did not understand the issue" -- That looks like some pretty blatant disrespect to me. As for waiting a long-enough amount of time, this page is generally only updated in any considerable measure twice a year. Waiting a few days and making sweeping structural changes without any other voices supporting the measure seems more damnable a move than leaving it be over a single opposing voice.

You seem to keep striving to make appeals to emotion over the direction of this page, claims that we need to observe society, heed the values of the NFL, listen to the opinion of the namesake of the trophy in order to better direct an encyclopedic entry. A good, analytical encyclopedia does not kowtow to emotions. It is data in a digestible, readable format.

In fact, considering the bulk of this page is actually dedicated to simply listing each Super Bowl, its participants, the stadium, the score, etc., your constant assertion that because the title of the page is List of Super Bowl champions it necessitates your proposed (and enacted) change seems to be secondary to the conceit that the data on this page suggest it should perhaps be titled List of Super Bowl games instead. After all, what use is knowing the stadium Super Bowl XXI was played at on a page of champions? What use is knowing the attendance at Super Bowl XLIII on a page of champions?

Your entire case is built on the title of the page—one that may not even be appropriate in the first place—and you have decided by yourself to be the arbiter of change of a 12-year existing setup without a single supporting voice.

As for a final note on this point, and as someone who has been helping edit this page since 2011 myself, a name change proposal was discussed in 2015, in which it was noted that both List of Super Bowls and List of Super Bowl games redirects to this page. In addition, the exact same appearance-dominant ranking is listed on the List of World Series champions page, the List of Stanley Cup champions page, and the List of MLS Cup finals page. The final say on that discussion was that the core of the article focuses on the championships themselves and their winners, and the List of Appearances section is supplemental information.

I propose the list be reverted to appearance-dominant ranking. Rickie-d (talk) 17:19, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

You've quoted me and present it as an example of me being blatantly disrespectful to you. Notice that my words were perfectly accurate. Society has laws against slander & libel. But all you have to do is show the judge that your statement is true, and the case gets thrown out. So then we could examine if my statement was unkind. I certainly could have watered it down. Or I could also have simply overlooked your error so that I would not risk hurting your feelings. But the purpose of my statement was to present justification for me taking unilateral action. If anyone has any suggestions on how I could have done that better, then I'd be glad to consider it. You are saying that it would have been better for me to have waited longer. I see three weeks to be an extremely long period of time, by Wikipedia norms. If you had not said that Sunday could render this issue moot, then perhaps I would have waited longer. But even waiting those 4 additional days like I did is approaching eternity, by Wikipedia norms.

Again, the position I have taken here is a middle ground. As I have stated before, a strong argument can be made that the Steelers should be listed ahead of the Patriots, because they are the first team that got to 6 wins (one decade earlier). Here is the precedent for that as set here on Wikipedia: List_of_NFL_champions_(1920–1969)#Total_championships_won_(1920–1969).

That table defaults to listing the 4-2 Lions ahead of the 4-7 Browns. The Canton Bulldogs ahead of the Cardinals, Rams & Redskins, etc. (I myself have never once edited anything on that page.)

You see the foundation of my argument to be the title of this article saying "...champions". If you look back on what I wrote, you'll see that I had pointed to that fact as a reflections of the values. And I also remember saying something to the effect that if the opposite position is to be upheld here, then the title needs to be changed.

You see my voice to be alone on this side of the argument. I will offer several more voices ...voices that I see to carry an infinite amount of weight more than mine:

Vince Lombardi: "There's no room for second place. There's only one place, and that's FIRST place." (YouTube)

Lombardi goes on to say that he's finished second twice in his career, and he doesn't ever want that to happen again. There's another famous NFL coach who finished second twice. Let's hear from him...

Don Shula: "So now I'm zero-and-two in the Super Bowls. And when you're zero-and-two, people say very unkind things about you, like "He can't win the Big One." So until you win the Big One, they're going to keep saying those bad things." (YouTube)

That very same clip presents your side of this argument, that just getting to the Super Bowl is to be valued, with Larry Little saying, "We had never tasted the Super Bowl before, and I think there was a feeling of a lot of guys that you were happy to be there, but my feeling were [sic] to go out there and win the football game."

Now these are quotes from key people who were involved in early Super Bowls. A question can be asked as to whether attitudes and values have shifted over the decades. How bout we listen to a current player...

Cam Newton: "I've been on record to say I'm a sore loser. Who likes to lose? You show me a good loser, and I'm'na show you a loser." (YouTube)

Cam had just lost Super Bowl 50. And here he is quoting Vince Lombardi, in another one of his iconically famous sayings. This shows that the attitude that "Winning isn't everything, it is the only thing" still prevails in the NFL today. You asked about the Bills getting there in 4 straight years. All of these people quoted above would say that this fact makes the Buffalo Bills the BIGGEST LOSERS in the history of the NFL. Not the least successful. I think everyone would agree that never making it there is less successful than making it there. If you never get to the playoffs, then you tuck your tail in quietly, and wait for next year. Many people will never notice. But getting to the biggest stage and then blowing it is losing in the grandest of fashion.

Dick Anderson ('72 Dolphins): "We were called bums all off-season, because we lost the Super Bowl."

Larry Little ('72 Dolphins): "...We don't ever want to have that feeling again, by getting to the Super Bowl and not winning it." (YouTube)

So the counter-proposal to be examined here is that the table is still broken by listing the Pats ahead of the Steelers. It is not just Vince Lombardi & Don Shula who hold that losing the Super Bowl makes you a bum. It is a prevalent attitude that is held by many through to today, voiced by current players like Cam Newton. If we change the table yet again to list the Steelers AHEAD of the Patriots, then that will bring it in line with the Table from the pre-Super Bowl era. --Breezy Foal (talk) 02:42, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

When Vince Lombardi, Don Shula, Cam Newton, Dick Anderson, and Larry Little start editing Wikipedia, I'll be happy to take their opinions into consideration. Rickie-d (talk) 17:16, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

I'll suggest that we resume this discussion at the new subsection just now created (below), with the idea that a clean re-start of this discussion would be helpful. 3 Options have been highlighted, including both proposals stated above. --Breezy Foal (talk) 14:42, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

New Option 2 discussion

New Option 2: Create a separate article titled List of Super Bowl Participants, and then get rid of that table from here, and move it to there. Those are the only two valid options I am seeing here. The table being discussed here is a table that is pertinent toward either losers or participants.--Breezy Foal (talk) 17:33, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

New title for this table: Lombardi Anathema Table. (proposed change, that from now on until its removal, this is what the table in question be referred to)--Breezy Foal (talk) 17:36, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

Creating a new article just for this needlessly fragments valuable information, and reordering the table by victories or win percentage is as simple as clicking the header indicating such. Rickie-d (talk) 21:07, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

Given two options: Either fix this table here on this article, or create a separate article dedicated to Super Bowl losers, then I would readily advocate the first option. My entire point, which appears to have gotten lost (or I never made clearly in the first place) was that this entire section, arguing over nuanced options, has completely missed the forest for the appearances of individual trees.

To rehash an old cliche... This discussion has been focused on how best to sort the deck chairs on the Titanic. If you take a moment to open your eyes, you can readily see the need to jump ship entirely and seek a ship that will actually float. Defaulting a priority of appearances over wins is the gaping hole in this hull.--Breezy Foal (talk) 00:37, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

Fix now implemented (see subsection above). --Breezy Foal (talk) 06:46, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

"Option Q" vs "Option R" vs "Option S"

There's been a lot of recent discussion in the subsections above. It might help to re-start with a clean sheet here in this new subsection. Two proposals are currently on the table. And add to those two the third option of keeping things as they are now. We can call these:

- Option Q: "QUICKER"

- Option R: REVERT

- Option S: STABILIZE   [Edit: here is the fix from Feb 5 which prioritizes wins over appearances]

Q: The "QUICKER" option values the first team that achieved a certain number of wins ahead of a team that accomplishes this later, with zero weight given to how many times a team may have Appeared without winning. This option says that the most recent change, where Wins are now valued over Appearances, did not go far enough. Option Q says that the Steelers should be listed ahead of the Patriots, because they are the ones who were first to achieve 6 Wins. How many times you get there matters little. What matters most is who got the most wins and who did this first.

R: The REVERT option is to return the table back to the form where Appearances are valued over Wins. That is to say, the proper default presentation would show the 0-4 Vikings and the 0-4 Bills ahead of the 2-0 Ravens, and so on. (NOTE: It has been asserted that this is the way this table has been since 2007.)

S: The STABILIZE option says to keep the table in its current form. Hold the table's default ordering as it is presented right now. This can be seen as a "middle ground", where wins are valued primarily, but appearances also count. So Option S says to keep the Patriots listed ahead of the Steelers, as it stands today.

Extensive arguments have been presented in other subsections above. But it might be good to get some fresh opinions voiced here. For the time being, I myself will withhold my own position as it is today (previous comments I have posted have highlighted certain advantages to each of these three options). --Breezy Foal (talk) 14:40, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

Breezy, I get that you don't agree with the current sorting of this table and think there should be changes. You may be right. To be honest, the points you are trying to make are very hard to follow. Can you please condense what you are trying to say? Let me summarize what I've gathered so far. Essentially, you don't think that appearances are as important as wins and that the primary sorting for this table should be by wins and not appearances. This will require significant changes to the table. I'm not sure I follow your exact rationale for one way over the other. In the meantime, I have reverted the table back to the version that was present before you proposed this change. If we are going to make a change lets come to a conensus here before implementing it in the article. I'm looking forward to the discussion. Thanks! - Paul^T+/_C 05:12, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

To summarize why the table is currently the way that it is, it was the result of a bunch of different discussions and compromises - including at one point having separate list articles for both List of Super Bowl wins by team[1] and List of Super Bowl appearances[2]. These were merged into this article as separate tables and then eventually combined into one big table mainly in the interest of ease of maintenance IIRC. This section primarily deals with the information *specifically* around appearances in the Super Bowl. Obviously, the information about wins is also present and the sorting allows for this view of information as well, but the primary lense *in this section* is around appearing in the game itself. I think there are valid reasons for this, but I can see the argument that this is an arbitrary decision and that the primary lense should be wins and not appearances. However, that would require a significant re-write of the *entire section* - not just re-ordering this table. - Paul^T+/_C 06:28, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

In a nutshell (quoting my words from above):

"The 3-5 Broncos are listed AHEAD of the 5-1 SF 49ers."

"...the Vikings & Bills (both 0-4) ahead of the Ravens (2-0)?"

That's how your revert has defaulted this table to appear. And the argument is not just that I myself see this to be backward. It is that everybody sees this to be backward. There is no one in the universe who values appearance more than wins, so it is absolutely bizarre that any editor here would suggest that this is the proper way to present this table to the public. THANK YOU for highlighting the history of this article from the archives. You've answered some major questions that had left me scratching my head. Now I fully understand how this inversion happened. [Edit- for reference, here is what those two tables looked like prior to "the 2009 Merger": Wins by Team / Appearances] --Breezy Foal (talk) 23:19, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

The two examples you listed are explicitly because those teams have more appearances (8 vs 6 and 4 vs 2), as you would expect from the framing of the table. However, any reader can easily sort this table by wins by simply clicking on the wins column. I don't see how "everybody" sees this to be backward as I'm not currently aware of any others voicing your opinion. I'm open to hearing other opinions on this (I am by no means an authority here). I would like to come to some kind of compromise / consensus on this. - Paul^T+/_C 19:22, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

Ok, the proper way to present this table is so obvious to me that this is starting to feel like a Twilight Zone episode. Because of that, I will take an extended break from this discussion. (If there is anyone who would like anything else clarified from me, I can post that on your own UserTalk page.) The quotes I've presented from Lombardi & Shula, etc, above make the point far more strongly than any words from me. It seems severely strange that anyone would prefer this Option R. So I am stepping back, and for the time being I will leave it to others here to see what I clearly see: a very broken table. Or not see that.

I've presented this argument as clearly as I can make it. I am now switching to "passive mode" here. Goodbye y'all. --Breezy Foal (talk) 23:46, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

I don't see the relevance of the Shula or Lombardi quotes. I understand your point about winning being "more important" than appearing in the Super Bowl but their (Lombardi/Shula/et al.) views don't have the same importance when writing a high-quality encyclopedia article about the games. I'm disappointed that you feel you need to take a break from this discussion (especially because I think with some work we can both make the article better - see your comments on the AFL/NFL // AFC/NFC symbols below), but I understand. I'd love to hear from others on this topic so we can improve the article. - Paul^T+/_C 19:22, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

Breezy, what do you think about "Option 1" above? This would sort the wins column with preference given to the team that reached the milestone first. When I started this section last year that was the change I was trying to make but no one chimed in to agree with me so I left the sorting as it was. I think it is a good comprimse between the current state of the appearances table and the more radical change you are proposing. This way, when sorting by wins you would see your preferred view of the table: Number of Wins, Years since last Win; if Wins=0 then default to appearances and years since last appearance. What do you think? - Paul^T+/_C 05:57, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 December 2018

It's shows the Arizona cardnails/st louis for Superbowl appernces. Only the AZ cards have been to a Superbowl not St Louis cardnails. Please change! 97.124.121.202 (talk) 01:49, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. DannyS712 (talk) 02:15, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

Under first section "List of Super Bowl champions" .. 3rd paragraph, final sentence wording ...

The sentence currently reads ... "Four current NFL teams have never appeared in a Super Bowl, including franchise relocations and renaming: the Cleveland Browns, Detroit Lions, Jacksonville Jaguars, and Houston Texans, though both the Browns (1964) and Lions (1957) had won NFL championship games prior to the creation of the Super Bowl." ... which makes it seem as if both the Browns and Lions had each previously won just one NFL championship game. Actually, each had won four previous NFL titles - Cleveland in 1964, 1955, 1954, 1950 and Detroit in 1957, 1953, 1952, 1935.

Requested/suggested 3rd paragraph, final sentence wording ... "Four current NFL teams have never appeared in a Super Bowl, including franchise relocations and renaming: the Cleveland Browns, Detroit Lions, Houston Texans and Jacksonville Jaguars, though both the Browns (latest in 1964) and Lions (latest in 1957) had each won four NFL championship games prior to the creation of the Super Bowl."

Thanks for your time. 108.28.198.56 (talk) 14:28, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

Patriots listed as 5-5; They are 5-6.

The graphic of Super Bowl XX is also incorrect. Starterjacket (talk) 13:58, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

The New England Patriots have not played their 11th Super Bowl yet, nor have the Los Angeles Rams played their 4th Super Bowl. Rickie-d (talk) 21:11, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

Why NFL^‡/AFC^†, etc? - proposed tweak to confusing superscript symbols

It seems to me that the superscript symbols used on this page are not the best choice. Here is how they are currently being used:

- NFL^‡/NFC^*
- AFL^{^}/AFC^†

It seems strange to me that the NFL symbol was picked as one that closely matches the AFC symbol, when these are opposites in legacy. It would seem to make a lot more sense to have the strong similarity be between AFL to AFC, and likewise the NFL to NFC. And then the bigger question is why are cryptic symbols being used at all. We could simply use an 'N' to represent NFC and an 'A' to represent AFC. This could eliminate a lot of headscratching that is done by the average reader.

Proposed change:

- NFL^v/NFC^N
- AFL^{^}/AFC^A

Here the '^' is a symbol that looks kind of like an 'A', so there's continuity there. And then the 'v' is the opposite of '^', and if you're into Greek, then you can read it as the letter 'nu'. This is a minor change being proposed here, but it could go a long way toward eliminating confusion. --Breezy Foal (talk) 23:27, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

This is a great idea. I never liked those symbols but they are necessary for accessibility per the style guide. I think this is a reasonable middle ground and it makes sense that NFL/NFC and AFL/AFC be similar to each other. - Paul^T+/_C 05:05, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

For some more context, the relevant guideline is here MOS:COLOR/WP:ACCESS and some of the previous discussion about this is here Wikipedia:Featured list removal candidates/List of Super Bowl champions/archive2. - Paul^T+/_C 05:56, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

I've been thinking about this some more and I don't think the idea of a "v" for the NFL symbol is good. It should be something that is consistent with the AFL symbol. I was looking through some options and I think logical "or" (∨) and logical "and" (∧) are better options for NFL/AFL respectively. It would look like this:

• NFL^∨/NFC^N
• AFL^∧/AFC^A

What do you think? - Paul^T+/_C 21:30, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

I ended up making the change to use nN and aA:

• NFLⁿ/NFC^N
• AFL^a/AFC^A

Thanks for the inspiration! Let me know what you think or if there are other, better suggestions. - Paul^T+/_C 17:23, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

This article is about *Champions* not Venues.

Since there have been 53 Super Bowls, there should be only 53 data rows in the table. It's great that we already know the venues for future Super Bowls, but it's premature to put that data in the table. If we absolutely want to keep the data here, we could put it in a paragraph after the table. Or create another table that follows.

I would think that a new row should only be added once either an AFC or NFC Champion has been determined, but not before. Zonker.in.geneva (talk) 16:51, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

Sorry, this is longstanding practice for this article and barring significant reasons to change, the information is very relevant in context and should change. If others feel similarly to how you feel we can absolutely have the discussion, but as it stands they upcoming games make sense to include. - Paul^T+/_C 04:45, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

In the spirit of compromise, I added an additional label row to separate future games (with the exception of the current season's game). - Paul^T+/_C 15:28, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

Agree with what Paul said: including the upcoming Super Bowls is longstanding practice, and there needs to be some place for that information. That said, I removed that new label row because it is unnecessary and looks jarringly discongruent in the middle of the table, and it looks even more out-of-place when you sort by the column headers, because then you end up with duplicate label rows stacked on top of each other. —Lowellian (reply) 04:09, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

Just because something is long-standing practice, doesn't mean it shouldn't be re-thought. I'm not suggesting removing that information. Looking at other sporting events that know the venue for future competitions (e.g., Men's World Cup, Women's World Cup, America's Cup), those WikiPedia articles do one of three things: either the venue is not listed, the venue is listed but separately or there are two separate articles - one which deals only with the winners of past events and the the other that deals with the event, and therefore shows venues for future events. The same is true for different events at the Olympics. The current list for champions of the 100-m sprint stops in 2016, even though we know where the next two Olympics will be.

Zonker.in.geneva (talk) 21:28, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

Inconsistent naming of teams that have moved

In some places, listed as San Diego/Los Angeles Chargers other places Los Angeles Chargers (played as San Diego Chargers in Super Bowl XXIX) should these be changed to be consistent? Sportooner1 (talk) 19:08, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

Sportooner1, Can you point to a specific example of an inconsistency? Generally the link is as specific as possible for the context in which it appears. For example, the XXIX link points to the 1994 Chargers season and they are labeled as the San Diego Chargers because that was their name during that season. In the places where multiple names are listed with a slash that is because the entry is referring to a period of time where the team had more than one name. - Paul^T+/_C 04:43, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

Ok reading it that context makes sense. Thank you Sportooner1 (talk) 20:05, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

Need to relabel second paragraph of "Consecutive Wins" section, as not a single team has "come close" to winning three in a row.

There is a section on this page entitled "Consecutive Wins," which lists the seven teams who have won two SBs in a row. The second paragraph states "No franchise has yet won three Super Bowls in a row, although six of the above seven have come close." First, the recently added phrase "of the above seven" is redundant and therefore, unnecessary. But, that's not the discussion I want to have.

The phrase "comes close" is really vague and should be defined more precisely. As I read it, that phrase takes on about four or five different meanings, from "won two in a row but lost the preceding SB" to "won two in a row but didn't even make the playoffs the following season."

In my view, and I say this as a Pats' fan, only teams that reached two in a row and reached the SB a third straight time qualify as "coming close." I mean, before LIII kicked off, I didn't think to myself, "Man, if the Pats win this game, we'll *almost* have won three in a row." Naw. You lose the SB, the counter starts at zero.

With this more precise definition, not a single team has truly come close. The Dolphins lost the first of their three straight. Not close. The Pats were in three in a row, but lost in the middle. Sorry, but not close. And GB - this article is about SB champions, not seasons prior, so, not close. Losing in a Conference Championship? Not close enough, for me. To say nothing of losing earlier in the Playoffs or not reaching the playoffs at all, such as Pittsburgh in the 1980 season.

I know it makes some of us feel good to see our teams' name in the list of "comes close," but factually, no one has come close.

Perhaps this little section could be renamed to "Sustained Success" oslt. Zonker.in.geneva (talk) 22:04, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 December 2019

May you go to https://teamcolorcodes.com/nfl-team-color-codes/ and make a pie chart and insert the teams by Super Bowl Appearances (Conference Championship Wins), Super Bowl Wins, and Super Bowl Loses? 2601:2C6:80:E650:B447:277C:2434:F8B8 (talk) 00:49, 14 December 2019 (UTC)