Talk:Indianapolis Colts

Re:Expansion

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

The part I'm proposing to add is the part prior to the year-by-year capsules that begin with 1984. Those were added by a different user. The current article covers the years 1984-2003 in a single paragraph. My hope was to expand that section to adequately cover that portion of the Colts' history in Indianapolis, while leaving the 2004-2006 portion roughly as is. Compare, for example, the way the Seattle Seahawks article is organized.

I think it makes sense to give the years 2002-2006 more emphasis both because they are more recent and also because there is more to discuss... the team made the playoffs in each of those years. I would agree that the last three years (the 2005 section, in particular) should probably be reduced to a shorter and more wikified summary. But that isn't something I've taken the time to address yet.

Lafollettea 20:40, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Why semiprotected?

I see that this page is semiprotected and that only registered users can edit the page. Please explain why. - Desmond Hobson 21:33, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Constant vandalism Dlong 22:16, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Protection

It doesn't say that. John Reaves (talk) 02:05, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

For certain times, like during the Super Bowl and 24 hours after, pages pertaining to the teams playing in it should be locked entirely. Its ridiculous to see all the stupid editing going on. And why is the section for the 2006-07 SuperBowl outlining the game? I understand a section for the game is not bad, outlining they won, the MVP, and other notable things. But not who made what interceptions at what times or fumbles, etc. Its not supposed to be a sports article summarizing the game, right?

Re: I feel the need to talk about the many fumbles and interceptions in the game. Also, the record for most fumbles in the first quarter. User:DvDknight

The section should simply link to the main article, after stating whether or not they won it; the article on XLI itself, on the other hand, should have all the factual and verifiable information people desire to put in it. --Chr.K. 13:26, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

it may be protected but

someone wanna get rid of that colts rule remark at the start? even though they do lol im not gonna deny it, but it shouldnt be on wiki 82.15.7.144 19:23, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't see that at the start. There is a mention of the "Colts Rule" towards the bottom, but that doesn't appear to be vandalism. John Reaves (talk) 20:06, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

The "Colts rule" is what it has been referred to as by sportswriters and broadcasters, since it was indeed based on the events in the Patriots/Colts game in question. --Chr.K. 13:24, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

2005 Season Correction

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

A Notice to all people who vandalize

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

Bears/colts debate

The superbowl is over and done. The colts won. Big deal. We all know the bears should have won because of the biased refs, but that's no reason to go and vandalize the colts page. Remember, may the best team win, and that's what happened. LET THERE BE PEACE OVER THIS MATTER.

--I am your father. 16:57, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

And we all know the Bears would never have won since their offense couldn't move the damn ball. So let there be peace, their lack of offense kept Peyton on the field, everyone accepts it. --Chr.K. 05:42, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Untitled New Section

On the page it has that the Colts won 2006 Super Bowl XLI when it should say 2007 Super Bowl XLI. Thanks —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.77.72.67 (talk)

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

Mr. Unsigned, how can you possibly say the 2007 Super Bowl? This was the 2006 season, I hate how some people refer to it as the 2007 Super Bowl when the season that preceded it was the 2006 season. I think on the NFL project page it says to refer to it was 2006-07 as an example because some diehards refer to it as 2006, like me, and others refer to it as 2007. Soxrock 22:19, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Inaccuracy

"The Colts finally reached the Playoffs under Mora, but were eliminated in a sound defeat by the Playoff tested Miami Dolphins in 2000."

the Colts were eliminated by the Titans in the 2000 playoffs. (PLAYOFFS?????) (sorry, had to). 207.29.128.130 14:52, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Wrong. The 2000 playoffs took place in 2001 at the end of the 2000 season. The playoffs in January 2000 were the 1999 playoffs. That's how the NFL recognizes it. 76.21.45.13 00:17, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

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

"and rookie cornerback Kelvin Hayden both intercepted Bears' quarterback"

DB Kelvin Hayden was not a rookie during the 2006 season. He was drafted in 2005 along with Marlin Jackson. gnasty 03:56, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

In the Baltimore Colts roster for 1970, long snapper Tom Goode's jersey number was 54 (not 53). Source: NFL Films Super Bowl V highlights.RomeoMike (talk) 03:33, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Constant changing of images in Uniforms and Logo Section.

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

Thanks for your responses.

Larry Lmcelhiney 03:02, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Too Long?

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

Should a subsection be added?

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

Stadium Announcer Discussion

This section, removed from the main page, is unreferenced. In addition, it is quite long and anecdotal. Please discuss before re-adding it into the article.

Stadium Announcer

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

---Lmcelhiney 13:22, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Regarding the relocation to Indianapolis portion

I am new here. In looking up some information via google I was led to this site and the Colts page. In reading some of the supposed information it was clear that some heavily slanted perspective was being given in the place of factual content [my impression is that a bitter Baltimorean was adding their nonsensical perspective as some sort of personal therapy...but truth be told, I do not know for sure].

I edited what I believed to be incorrect...someone else decided that they did not appreciate my changes and attempted to remove the edit as well as additional information provided.

So, we went back and forth.

It would appear that we have come to some sort of consensus regarding the body of the relocation segment. Fair and good.

I definitely did not intend to engage in some sort of adolescent edit war however, when correct...I will not be refused. Character flaw I suppose but nevertheless...

...thanks to wikipedia and all those involved in keeping your site on point.

-VaBthang4

As the other party involved in this asinine incident, I should have brought this here quite a while ago. It's obvious now that I quickly abandoned "assuming good faith," and for that I apologize. However, my "opponent" has clearly misplaced my intentions. I'm not a fan of the Colts (Go Packers!), have never supported any team from Baltimore, and could not care less about the particulars surrounding the relocation. The problem is this: the section is supposed to be about the relocation, but the edits cover events 22+ years after the franchise shift and the transition is terribly jarring. Details about the Browns to Baltimore situation, though probably interesting to many readers, don't belong in an article about another franchise. Mentioning it in passing (though I'm not sure where it would be appropriate) and linking to the relevant section in either the Browns or Ravens page seems like a far better course of action. If this content is deemed worthy to remain, I'd strongly suggest tying it in via a "bitterness remains in Baltimore" angle and reference one of the myriad press pieces about the Colts "welcome" by the Baltimore fans for last year's playoff.

I'm not really sure what PoV problems the previous poster is referring to, as I didn't look at versions before this "war," but I have no interest whatsoever in giving this a pro-Baltimore slant. I do think that it's tilting considerably the other way at the moment with references to events much later than the 1986 settlement that ended the relocation dispute. Majorclanger 00:46, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

I changed the statement "The city of Indianapolis was..." to "Politicians in the city of Indianapolis were..." This was done for the sake of accuracy and honesty. Bringing the Colts to Indianapolis was controversial then and remains controversial now. To imply that the majority of citizens were in favor it this is to exaggerate grossly. Even today the actual fan base is unwilling to support "their" team. As a result all citizens in central Indiana are taxed to supply a failed NFL francise with an extravagant, if unattractive, place to play. The contract leading to the current Stadium was done in secret and only unveiled after it was a done deal. The Indiana Legislature had to bribe the "donut conuties" to gain their support. This does not reflect a majority in favor of relocation or continued support for this team as implied by "The city of Indianapolis was..." Change it back if you will, but to do so is to tell a lie.S Bumgardner (talk) 17:54, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

=== This section is very inaccurate. Negotiations with Indianapolis were underway in earnest well before the legislature's effort to enable eminent domain. The move itself happened within hours of the bill being introduced in the General Assembly. Irsay's invocation of that as the excuse for the move simply isn't believable. _______________________

Negative.

The Stadium's capacity goes to the heart of the problem that the Colts owner was facing. As to "conflicting" numbers. Those are wikis own numbers per the Memorial Stadium page. If you want to go back and try to correct that page and then update...so be it. But the number is wikis own. VaBthang4 16:44, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Anything else...

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

Baltimore Colts history?

Why in God's good name is the Baltimore Colts history included in the Indianapolis Colts page? While I realize the article has to acknowledge the Indianpolis franchise's Baltimore roots, and the NFL's stubborness in refusing to bifurcate the two different cities in the franchise's history (hence, Johnny Unitas is found in the Indianapolis Colts section in the Hall of Fame, and Peyton Manning and other Indy players are often mentioned as challenging "team" records set by Baltimore Colts), for all intents and purposes there are two Colts teams--one that played in Baltimore until March 1984, and one that has played in Indianapolis since March 1984. Of course it's an emotional sore spot for any Baltimorian who has to see the blue horseshoe associated with another city, but all emotions aside, it makes sense to recognize the two seperate eras of this franchise in two seperate articles. And I think in the end it helps Indianapolis too, in that that team's true identity can be traced to 1984, and not the Baltimore Colts roots. I don't know if it is Wikipedia SOP to include a sports franchise's different city incarnations in one article. While this may be the official NFL position on the matter (no matter how ridiculous that may be), it shouldn't stop Wikipedia from adopting what most football fans already see--that the Baltimore Colts and Indianapolis Colts are two seperate teams, NFL position notwithstanding.PeteU (talk) 12:54, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

What about the Brooklyn Dodgers, New York Giants (baseball), St. Louis Browns, Philadelphia Athletics, Kansas City Athletics, Dallas Texans (AFL), Los Angeles Chargers, Los Angeles Raiders, Cleveland Rams, Los Angeles Rams, Boston Redskins, Minneapolis Lakers, St. Louis Hawks, Buffalo Braves, and of course the Baltimore Bullets (who kept their name for some time after relocating)? --rogerd (talk) 13:32, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Personally, I think those teams deserve seperate articles, too. Once a team is relocated, virtually none of the fans who live in the original city continue to follow that team. They either wait until their city gets a new team, or follow a different team all together. While a franchise itself may move, the identity of the team while it was in the former city remains with the fans who supported that team while it was in the city. Hence, that is why the Baltimore Colts Marching Band and Baltimore Colts "Corrals" (fan clubs) remained in place long after 1984 in Baltimore and actually incorporated itself into both the CFL Stallions and the Ravens after they moved to town. Wikipedia should realize that teams are ultimately identified with the city they play in, not the chain of ownership groups who own them.PeteU (talk) 15:24, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

As much as I'd like to agree, the main problem is that wikipedia doesn't decide on its own about these matters. To do so would be original research. We merely can replicate what a reliable source, which in this case is the NFL, has to say on the matter. Neier (talk) 13:08, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

As Someone who doesnt care for football and lives on the west half of the USA I cannot be seen as biased in favour of Baltimore I would say The NFL is just lying not being a reliable source at all --209.181.16.93 (talk) 19:53, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:IndianapolisColts 1000.png

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

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

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

BetacommandBot 04:19, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Taken care of. =David^(talk)_(contribs) 04:29, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Blue facemask.png

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

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

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

BetacommandBot 01:59, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Blue script.png

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

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

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

BetacommandBot 02:06, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Dates are wrong!!!

The dates of the super bowl wins are wrong. It would be 2007 not 2006 for the Indianapolis Colts and also noticed the same problem for the New England Platroits. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.95.136.158 (talk) 05:00, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Incorrect. The Colts won the Super Bowl at the end of the 2006 season. It matters not that the game was played in 2007. 71.202.242.152 (talk) 09:39, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it does matter. Even if there is some convention in this regard generally understood by avid followers of the sport (assuing for the sake of argument, with great reservations as to its existence), we are addressing a wider audience and ought to make ourselves clear. Gene Nygaard (talk) 10:09, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:White facemask.png

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

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

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

BetacommandBot 19:08, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Mycolts.net

I think that there should be a article on mycolts.net-the social networking created by the Colts. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Brownga (talk • contribs) 03:44, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

It isn't notable enough for a separate article. The most it would deserve is a small mention in the Colts article with context provided. Pats1 ^T/C 03:53, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Could somebody do that then? I am not very good at writing stuff so it probably shouldn't be me.--Brownga (talk) 13:57, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Removal of Controversies section

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

Add Ring of Honor sub-section

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

Metric conversions...

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

little problem

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

I made the same mistake; look at the reserve list section at right... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 143.115.155.55 (talk) 12:27, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Blue The Mascot

Where Is Blue In The Article He Makes The Team I Think He Needs To Be Added Somewhere In The Article AndrewWeaver (talk) 18:05, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Check the infobox. HoosierState^Talk 18:14, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Exhaustive Research

Hello all.

Over the past two days I have researched the Colts franchise move from Baltimore to Indianapolis (previously I had done a little research regarding the franchises moves to and from other cities). I have sourced as much of it as possible and believe everything to be a fair and accurate representation of the events as they unfolded.

I understand that there are 'other perspectives' however, facts and not perspective were my motivation. Hope it stand on its own. —Preceding unsigned comment added by VaBthang4 (talk • contribs) 17:20, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with File:Baltimore Stadium, 33rd Street - Army Navy Game 1944 a.jpg

The image File:Baltimore Stadium, 33rd Street - Army Navy Game 1944 a.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

• That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
• That this article is linked to from the image description page.

The following images also have this problem:

• File:Super Bowl XLI.png

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --16:51, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Bob Sanders

Doesn't Bob Sanders need to be moved to reserve since he's injuried? 4.224.210.201 (talk) 22:24, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

No, just because players are injured, doesn't mean they get placed on a reserve list unless they are formally placed on injured reserve. Eagles24/7 22:31, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Logo on helmet

Ok, so the article said (without a source) that the Colts were the first team in the NFL to put the logo on their helmets. The VERY NEXT sentence specifically says that it was the Rams who did so, 5 years before the Colts, and then provides a source. If there's sourced material directly contradicting the unsourced material, then it has no place in the article, and has been removed. 99.169.250.133 (talk) 06:18, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

There was originally a source for the claim that the Colts had the first helmet logo. It was probably not reliable, as it happened to be a Baltimore webpage (http://www.pressboxonline.com/story.cfm?id=727). As that information was obviously wrong, I added the information about the LA Rams helmets (without a source) but I did not delete the original source. Someone then deleted both what I added about the Rams AND the source for the first claim (while keeping the claim in the article). Someone else then re-added the LA Ram material, with a source, although he did not restore the original source for the Colts' claim to the first helmet logo. I'm fine with deleting it all, as it is obvious the Colts' claim is false. My only point is, if the Colts' claim is made, the Rams' rival claim (which seems to be more credible) should be included to balance it out. 67.173.237.220 (talk) 20:22, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

IF there's a source refuting the claim, then neither need be mentioned. 99.169.250.133 (talk) 08:02, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Ring of Honor

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

Colts - Chiefs Rivalry Section

There was an independent article, which was deleted, in which multiple editors affirmed that no rivalry between these two teams exists. They've faced each other only 3 times in the past what...15 years? Sure, they played in the playoffs a couple times, that does not a rivalry make. There are ZERO sources to indicate such a rivalry and when the teams do play, there's no big media spectacle like when the Colts and Patriots play, or the Cowboys and Redskins. The article was deleted without a single dissenting vote on the AFD. Unless sources can be found which specifically refer to the rivalry, then it's all original research and has no place in the article. SpartanSWAT10 (talk) 23:08, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

I thought the article was deleted, because it was not notable for a Wikipedia article alone. I don't think it was deleted because it was a hoax. Eagles 24/7 (C) 23:49, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

I think it was deleted for a multitude of reasons. It was tagged as a hoax, but that's not an appropriate word I think in this instance. There are literally no sources that a rivalry even exists. To me, the article (and the paragraph here) are about one persons perceived rivalry, which does not reflect reality or even common knowledge (the way a Colts - Patriots rivalry is). It's not a notable rivalry, because no rivalry exists. SpartanSWAT10 (talk) 00:32, 5 December 2009 (UTC)