Jump to content

Talk:Kansas City Chiefs

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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Adamixoye (talk | contribs) at 21:26, 22 December 2008. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Improvement drive

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

Club?

Do we have to list the description of the Chiefs as the "Kansas Chiefs american football club is a National Football League team"?

A) That sounds awful.

B) We don't call them clubs. It's just team. The Kansas City Chiefs are a National Football League team, that's fine to me.

We don't need to write for the dumbest 10% of the world. Simply stating that the Chiefs are an NFL team is enough. If the reader is clueless about NFL, they can click on it and find out that it is an American sports leagure that plays American football. --Kainaw (talk) 14:37, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
From Wikipedia:Guide to writing better articles#State the obvious: "State facts which may be obvious to you, but are not necessarily obvious to the reader." Zzyzx11 (Talk) 16:44, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, but there is a point at which you are going too far. Should we restate it as: "Kansas City, a city in Missouri, which is a state, which is a political entity, of the United States of America, a country in North America, which is a continent in the Western Hemisphere of Earth, a planet in the Solar System... Chiefs is an American (as in United States of America, not North America, Central Americs, or South America in general) Football team (a collection of people participating together in a sport - a physical activity governed by a set of rules)..."
My point is that by linking National Football League, it is not hidden that this is an American football team. --Kainaw (talk) 17:53, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
For your information: right now I have modeled the first two sentences after the first two sentences of Arsenal F.C., which is currently the only sports team article to be named as a Wikipedia featured article. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 18:13, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I like the opening as it is now. I don't like the "Kansas Chiefs american football club is a National Football League team". As mentioned before, it is a hard read. --Kainaw (talk) 18:31, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like someone was nice enough to edit the pages to reflect how we call them 'teams,' however, it is not really clear that the National Football League is the big organization the Chiefs are a part of. The AFC and AFC West are what the Chiefs are in, but the sentence makes those areas look nearly as important as the NFL. I don't really know how to resolve this.

Rock And Roll Part 2 - the plan, and the reality.

RE: the saga as stated under "Game Day Traditions" regarding Gary Glitter's "Rock and Roll Part 2" being played after Chiefs touchdowns during home games. All that is stated is true and documented... however, I was juat at the preseason game tonight, and after a KC touchdown, they played "Rock and Roll Part 2". Now, it wasn't the Gary Glitter performed version, but rather a cover, played with a bit harder rock feel. No, I have no idea who performed it. Anyways, a brief search doesn't uncover any documentation, nor any future statement about if they're going to keep this version or what. Furthermore, I think my own experience doesn't fit under the guidelines for documentation here. So, first one to document and add wins, I guess. --Reverend Loki 06:12, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, I finally found the documentation! Added to article. --Reverend Loki 23:03, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]


I'm a Season Ticket holder and I'm pretty sure the song is performed by the Pack band or Touchdown Pack band..something like that..anyways I think they are the ones that perform the song when we score. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.129.250.25 (talk) 05:04, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Warpaint?

If memory serves correctly, Warpaint and Charlie-O for the Kansas City Athletics were originally gifts from Stuart Symington. I can't find any references although I think I remember signs saying as much at Municipal and reading articles about them. Any help tracking this down would be appreciated. Warpaint is notable and probably deserves an article too. Americasroof 08:13, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Requested Move affecting this article

Editors at Chiefs (Super rugby franchise), a New Zealand rugby team, have proposed that article be moved to the generic Chiefs. Currently, Chiefs redirects to Chief, a disambiguation page. If the move request passes, finding this page might become more difficult. You can contribute to the dicussion at Talk:Chiefs (Super rugby franchise). -Anþony (talk) 06:13, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just wanted to point out, since it hasn't been mentioned yet, that the request for a move of that article has been shot down. Consensus is that Chiefs will continue to redirect to the disambiguation page Chief. --Reverend Loki 20:05, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lamar Hunt's Death a Tragedy?

Lamar Hunt's death wasn't that tragic. He died from complications from cancer. The tragedy section is supposed to show sudden and unusual deaths. There were several reports stating Hunt was dying. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.13.57.221 (talk) 20:29, 17 December 2006 (UTC). I agree that Lamar Hunt's death was not "tragic" but it was still a great loss to Kansas City and Lamar Hunt will be missed dearly. BrandiniTheGreat 01:59, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

2006 Season

I added the part of the article that talks about the '06 season. If anyone has any questions, just ask, and feel free to add on to what I wrote. BrandiniTheGreat 02:03, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Alternative Uniforms?

Recently, someone added info about an alternative uniform that was primarily black, and referenced here for a source. I looked around for a more reliable source than a storefront (yes, even though it's the "official" store), but found none, so I'm calling this one as false. I've seen those black, gold, and even the pink jerseys they made for breast cancer awareness all billed as "replica alternate jerseys". I just can't see them taking the field in pink, no matter how good the cause. So, anyone have a source contradicting me? --Reverend Loki 21:41, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The article list the alternate uniforms as 2006-present. This is true but they also used those same uniforms as there away jerseys. They ended this in 2000 during Gunther Cunningham second season as head coach. I would add this but I do not know when they started the all white away uniforms. Natural number is e 01:17, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

They started the white-on-white away uniforms in 1989 when Marty arrived. And that is the reason they were brought back in 1999 after Marty resigned. NeelyCrenshaw 02:50, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So lets let history be history Natural number is e 05:58, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Season records should be separate page

There are now very detailed pages, such as St. Louis Rams seasons, which are highly detailed wikitables for the team's seasons. I don't know how to make the fancy new table and I also don't have the time to make the page. This article has gotten very long, and i'm just suggesting that we should split it up. Thanks! Conman33 21:53, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:KansasCityChiefs 1000.png

Image:KansasCityChiefs 1000.png is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 03:45, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Chiefs uniform and colors

The Chiefs' uniform now and permanently will have an AFL-LH patch on the left chest. The uniform on the Chiefs' page does not show that patch. The Chiefs' official colors are "RED, WHITE AND GOLD", yet the banners used on the Chiefs' page have a purplish-red color (even though there's a standard color called RED available). I've tried unsucessfully to correct both these errors. How can it be done in accordance with Wikipedia conventions? SugnuSicilianu (talk) 03:31, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Red," "White," and "Gold" are generic color names. A wide range of colors could be considered "red," "white," or gold. For example, is the blue for the Carolina Panthers the same as the blue for the New England Patriots? Of course not. One is navy blue, one is carolina blue. The colors used for these templates were extracted from the team's official logos. Like it or not, these are the actual colors the team uses. They aren't "purple" by any stretch of the imagination. Pats1 T/C 03:56, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

AU CONTRAIRE

THE CHIEFS' OFFICIAL COLORS ARE RED, WHITE, AND GOLD. THESE MAY BE "GENERIC" AND SUBJECTIVE IN EVERYDAY PARLANCE, BUT THEY ARE VERY SPECIFIC IN HTML CODING. FURTHER, THE HTML COLORS RED, WHITE, AND GOLD ALSO ACTUALLY LOOK LIKE THE COLORS THAT THE TEAM WEARS.

WHO DECIDES WHAT THE COLORS SHOWN ON THE CHIEFS' PAGE SHOULD BE? WHO DECIDES WHAT THE "NFL PRIMARY AND SECONDARY COLORS" SHOULD BE? DOES HE/SHE HAVE ANY ART OR STYLE EXPERIENCE? MY ANALYSIS OF THE COLOR USED BY WIKIPEDIA FOR THE CHIEFS, IN RGB, SHOWS 178 RED, 0 GREEN AND 50 BLUE. RED PLUS BLUE MAKES A SHADE CALLED PURPLE-RED. TO THE CONTARY, ANALYSIS OF THE HTML COLOR RED IN RGB SHOWS 255 RED, 0 GREEN, AND ZERO BLUE. THAT'S RED!!! MANY COLORS ON WIKIPEDIA'S TEAM PAGES SIMPLY DO NOT LOOK LIKE THE COLORS THAT THE TEAMS WEAR. DOES THE ACTUAL APPEARANCE AND ATTRACTIVENESS OF A WIKIPEDIA PAGE MEAN ANYTHING, OR IS ONLY CONTENT IMPORTANT? SHOULD AN ENCYCLOPEDIA ENGAGE THE VISUAL SENSES AS WELL THE ADMITTEDLY CEREBRAL COGNITION OF THE OFTEN DRY "CONTENT"? WHAT DO WIKIPEDIA AND ITS 'BOTS HAVE AGAINST GOOD-LOOKING, AS WELL AS GOOD-READING PAGES?

AND THE CHIEFS' OFFICIAL UNIFORM, NOW AND FOREVER, WILL BEAR AN "AFL-LH" PATCH ON THE JERSEYS. WHY ISN'T THIS PATCH SHOWN ON THE SKETCH OF THE CHIEFS' JERSEY? WHY ISN'T IT SHOWN SOMEWHERE IN THE CHIEFS' ARTICLE? FOR EXAMPLE, THE EAGLES' UNIFORM SKETCHES SHOW THE WORD "EAGLES" ON THE JERSEY CHESTS, AND THE "EAGLE HEAD" LOGO ON EACH SLEEVE. WHY DON'T THE CHIEFS' UNIFORM SKETCHES SHOW THE "AFL-LH" PATCH? SugnuSicilianu (talk) 15:36, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

wow. Calm down. See the button that says Caps Lock? Press it. okay. that's better. The uniform sketches don't show the patch because they are sketches. They don't and probably never will go into that much detail. [The Spooky One] | [t c r] 23:51, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

FA?

What do you guys think needs to be done to achieve FA status? RC-0722 communicator/kills 19:32, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think this article needs to go more in depth with the specific eras. Obviously, from a die hard fan's point of view, we can't have just a few paragraphs about the Dick Vermeil era, especially the explosive offense that came with it. This definitely needs some more references too, but I'm trying to work on that. conman33 (. . .talk) 04:39, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I'll do some touch up and small-med job. I'll be taking a small wikibreak (1 day) so I can't really promise anything big. RC-0722 communicator/kills 04:55, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

1980 anyone

How come we don't have any info on the 1980's? RC-0722 361.0/1 23:45, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

f2c800; padding:5px;" |

Does anyone else see "f2c800; padding:5px;" | " appear at the top of the article. I have been searching around the various templates used in this article and the article itself and can't find where this came from. Does anyone have any ideas? --Daysleeper47 (talk) 14:14, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not seeing it... Ryan2845 (talk) 15:32, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Is there really a need for a "Logos and uniforms of the Kansas City Chiefs" page?

The Kansas City Chiefs have made such little changes to their uniforms since moving to KC. I do not see a need for a Wikipedia page dedicated to Chiefs' logos and uniforms. I suggest the entire article gets moved to the main Cheifs Wikipedia page. Anyone else? JohnnySeoul (talk) 15:05, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not neutral enough

The article does not go into detail much, and it fails to explain how poorly Kansas City has played these past couple of years. There isn't even a mention of their current losing streak! Take the Oakland Raiders article, which goes into details about both their high and low points. 76.10.162.73 (talk) 01:00, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would say give it some time, the chiefs have been terrible for just over 1 season, the raiders haven't won more than 5 games a season since 2002, which is the reason there is significant discussion in their main article. For them it's an era of bad play, rather than a season and a couple games.
These main articles aren't necessarily meant to provide week by week updates, for that i'd suggest looking at 2008 Kansas City Chiefs season, which does mention the current losing streak. Feel free to improve this article yourself of course :) Ryan2845 (talk) 02:22, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You make a good point about that, but I'm not saying it needs to be in the lead like with the Raiders. It needs to have strong mention in the 2007 and 2008 sections, as it wasn't just being terrible for 1 season, it was 12 consecutive losses -- a franchise record! 76.10.162.73 (talk) 20:54, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Information added. RC-0722 361.0/1 20:21, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cunningham to Vermeil Transition

The article makes it sounds as though Gunther Cunningham was fired for poor performance, then an open search was held for the head coach and then Vermeil was hired. IIRC, that's not what happened. Rather, Carl Peterson wanted to hire Vermeil and fired Cunningham rather unexpectedly to do so. There was a delay while compensation with the Rams was worked out (Vermeil had been retired for a year but was technically under contract), but it was logically a single move. This was before the "Rooney Rule". Anyway, I don't have a reference, but if someone does have a reference, this should be edited.

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Kansas_City_Chiefs&oldid=259595206"