Talk:List of Super Bowl champions

Phoenix

For some reason I thought Phoenix was hosting a Superbowl after the New stadium was built. Did that fall through? Falphin 30 June 2005 20:09 (UTC)

• Never mind I didn't see Glendale. Falphin 30 June 2005 20:09 (UTC)
  • Yes, it's Glendale, not Phoenix. File:PhoenixSuns 100.pngPhoenix2File:Teamflag1.png 1 July 2005 02:32 (UTC)
    • Shouldn't Tempe count as the metro Phoenix areas first super bowl and Glendale count as the second? Pontiac and Detroit are both counted as Detroit super bowls. The cities of Tempe and Glendale both border the city of Phoenix. SkyWayMan 4 February 2006 00:17 UTC
      • Fixed. Paul^C/_T+ 03:09, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Pictures

The pictures on this page are only there to visually spice up the page, before adding so many that there is a huge blank space, consider replacing a picture of less significance. I created this list with the pictures only so that it could be featured, if it is causing problems remove them all together. Phoenix2 01:49, August 14, 2005 (UTC)

I think the pictures should be all the same width. Right now they have different sizes, and it doesn't look very good. Jacoplane 00:09, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

No edit section

Why does this article have those "_NOEDITSECTION_" They make it significantly more difficult to edit the article. All in 19:43, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

• A bit of history about this article: The user who first started this page split the content from the Super Bowl article for the primary purpose of getting it promoted to featured list status. The "_NOEDITSECTION_" was inserted in the very second edit of this article, and within a few moments afterwards, this page was posted on Peer review for advice before posting it as a featured list candidacy. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 20:37, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

• I fully understand why this article disallows editing--but if editing isn't going to be allowed, isn't it hypocritical to start the discussion page with a notice saying, "List of Super Bowl champions is a featured list, which means it has been identified as one of the best lists produced by the Wikipedia community. IF YOU CAN UPDATE OR IMPROVE IT, PLEASE DO SO." (emphasis added) If you're going to request that people make updates and improvements, then you need to unlock for them the ability to do so!!!  :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.15.255.227 (talk) 18:52, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Excessive notes...

We have way too many notes at this point. Information regarding the locations relative to older stadiums in the same city should be noted, but only when there is more than one SuperBowl at the location (like Phoenix, unlike San Francisco). Additionally, notes about past controversies regarding the SuperBowl locations should be noted on their individual pages. Current notes about future locations will be removed once the games are played. Of course, this is just my opinion. I think these changes should be discussed so I'm going to revert them and open up discussion here. Paul^C/_T+ 14:53, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Actually, that second note about Miami isn't needed either as it is covered by the actual article as well. The Kansas City note is still needed as official confirmation of the location is still pending. Paul^C/_T+ 15:20, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Cleveland Browns

-Just read this Wiki; there's some inconsistency regarding the Cleveland Browns. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cleveland_Browns <citation [9]> states that the current Browns franchise is an expansion team. The current article <citation [61]> states that the current Browns are not an expansion team, but are a team resuming play after suspended operations. I didn't know where to point this out - there's no Letter to the Editor page. Thanks.--76.126.244.40 (talk) 11:04, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

The page you're looking for to ask such questions like that is at Wikipedia:Reference desk. But I can probably answer your question here:

This article currently says, "The Browns are officially viewed as one continuous franchise that began in 1946 as a member of the All-American Football Conference, joined the NFL in 1950, suspended operations from 1996-1998, and resumed play in 1999". To me, it does not really explicitly mention whether it is an expansion team or not in that note. But it does correspond to where the Cleveland Browns article says, "Officially, the National Football League, Pro Football Hall of Fame, Cleveland Browns and Baltimore Ravens all consider the current Browns team to be a continuation of the team founded in 1946."

You see, as fully explained on Cleveland Browns#1996–1999: Inactivity, it was actually not a totally brand new expansion team in the purest sense. In 1996, when then-Browns owner Art Modell announced his plans to move the team to Baltimore, it sparked a furry of lawsuits that were filed by the City of Cleveland and its fans. This resulted in a legal settlement in which the Browns would be "deactivated" for three years, and in return Modell was granted a new team, the Baltimore Ravens, while retaining his current personnel and players. So when the Browns were "reactivated" in 1999, they were built up like a pure expansion team, with a roster restocked via an expansion draft. But since they retained the Browns' team history since 1946, they are legally not a totally brand new team like other expansion teams in general. Hope this helps. Zzyzx11 (talk) 05:52, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

BUT THIS TEAM REALLY SUCKS AND NEEDS SOME PRACTICE!!!!!!!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.15.171.121 (talk) 18:11, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

# of Super Bowl a City host

Why is Pasadena not included with Los Angeles, while they are in the same county and in the metro area, it would be not different then Detroit metro. slu2008 1 April 2006

Good call, I didn't know that or I would have added it earlier. I did change the wording of the note at the bottom tho. Nice additions. Paul^C/_T+ 21:08, 1 April 2006 (UTC)wat ever man!

Seeds

What does everyone think about also including each teams seeding throughout the playoffs? Might be some intersting information to have. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ballz1340 (talk • contribs) .

I am not in favor of it. First of all, the NFL did not use a seeding system until the 1975 season; all home games were based on an annual rotation based on divisions. Secondly, in the playoff systems that were used between the 1975 to 1989 season, two teams from the same division could not play each other in the Divisional playoff round. This is probably why the NFL has never officially listed the playoff seeds from the 1975 to 1989 seasons in its annual Record and Fact Book, including the new 2006 edition (ISBN 1933405325)

With those issues in mind, I would rather have them kept on the individual playoff articles rather than risk this current featured list be put onto WP:FLRC Zzyzx11 (Talk) 16:00, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

I see your points, I didn't think about the fact that the seedings didn't start until 1975. If you want to remove this discussion please feel free to ballz1340

Wikipedia general policy is to not remove discussions from talk pages. They can be useful for reference in the future. —Lowellian (reply) 19:51, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Colors

Is it just me or is the color scheme on this page better suited for a post-Easter-egg-hunt-tea-party or a gay pride rally? Nothing against those things at all . . . but neither event would appreciate being adorned in black, grey, red, forest green, etc. Neither should a list of superbowl champions be adorned in colors that appeal to demographics in many ways opposite of the average football fan IMHO. Interested in other opinions on this before I put up a greyscale color code :) Hholt01 10:07, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

• iirc, the colors were put there as an aid so that this would be promoted to featured list status. You may change the colors, but please do not remove them completely. Thanks. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 15:12, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree, that is the first thing I noticed when I looked at the page-hideous. Quadzilla99 19:24, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

That Red Color for AFC is flat out an eyesore. KyuuA4 07:31, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

I mean don't get me wrong, the page is exceptional—the colors could just be replaced. Quadzilla99 05:22, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Numbers in parentheses

I think that posting the number of times a team has lost a Super Bowl in parentheses is just dumb. Wins? Of course. Appearances? Yeah, sure. But posting the number of losses is dumb. In a real sense, there are 31 losers every year. I would reorganize this table, with columns to show appearances and victories, or just take off the number of losses. Unschool 23:43, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

This is a good point. I was just thinking about this myself. However, before we remove the losses I think we should build a third list for total appearances below the wins list. This way it will be easier to calculate the total number of appearances for each team. Paul^C/_T+ 01:51, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

OR, since we already have a list of wins, would it make sense to just put appearances for each team in the main table and drop the wins? Paul^C/_T+ 01:54, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Away from the Basics

Let's not get away from the basics that got this article featured and add statistics "because we can". Phoenix2 02:34, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

NPOV

I've placed the NPOV tag on the yearly results section because I'm concerned the current view favors one team over another in a game that has yet to be played. In previous edits I have merged the relevant cells to display the upcoming matchup but that has been modified several times to place the Chicago Bears in the "Winning team" column. I do not think this is appropriate but have not been around this article for previous Super Bowls so I don't want to continue reverting without checking with the more experienced editors of this article first. PSUMark2006 talk | contribs 00:15, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Dealing with featured lists like this one can be tricky because the current view is one of the primary reasons it was promoted in the first place. As with any other featured list, if you change "the basics" that got this article featured, you risk getting it listed on Wikipedia:Featured list removal candidates. I do not know if some of the other pages listed on Wikipedia:Featured lists#Sport and games have been affected by the same problem here, where there is a pending match to be played, and there is a conflict about how this pending game should be displayed. It is only about 13 days from now, so I would like to keep something like "Colt v. Bears" in a cell that spans three rows. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 14:29, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

That was what I had in mind as well - the way it's displayed right now is how I had originally formatted it earlier on Saturday, and it was changed at one point to put one team in each column, hence the concern in my original comment. It looks fine to me now, and I agree with your assessment. PSUMark2006 talk | contribs 14:36, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Why the Colts are a different color for appearances vs wins

The reason why the Colts are a different color in SB appearances is because they are (and can be) the only team that played in the first 4 SBs as the NFL team and than played in a SB as an AFC team. They are not listed as a different color because they were in the NFL and than switch to the AFC, but because they played in a SB as the NFL team and later in a SB as an AFC team. The Steelers appearances have only been as the AFC team. The Browns when/if they make it to the SB will be as an AFC team (barring some sort of NFL realignment). I left the Colts the color the AFL/AFC team in SB victories because they did not win SB 3. So their SB victories have only been as an AFC team. Smith03 23:06, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm considering putting this page up for FLR

There are no citations, and the only reference that is on the page is an almanac from 2004, which wouldn't cover anything from after that. The "Teams with no Super Bowl appearances" needs a source. There should also be an image of the trophy on this page. Those are my biggest issues. I figured I'd give the page maintainers a chance to address my concerns first, so I'll give you guys a couple of weeks. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 19:44, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Like a number of other FA's and FL's, this page has degraded since it was promoted more than two years ago (plus the FL criteria and the users who frequent FLC and FLR has changed since then). Here's the version when it was promoted.[1] Zzyzx11 (Talk) 06:24, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

It could definitely use some new sources. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 21:25, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Mmmhm yeah when I put this up for FLC the Almanac was a sufficient reference, and the whole project wasn't reference crazy like it is now. This list in particular has come a long way. -- Phoenix2 ^(holla) 02:49, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

It's been well over a month since I brought my concerns forward, but I'll give the normal contributors to this page a few more days before I nominate it. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 00:33, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

This list has been at Wikipedia:Featured list candidates#Nominations for removal since 11 January 2008. Some improvements have been made, but a few issues remain. Help is needed if this list is to keep its featured status! --Orlady (talk) 18:14, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Total Super Bowl wins

At the top of the page, where it says the NFC currently leads 19 to 18...the 19 needs to be changed to 20 given the New York Giants win tonight. Ivalum21 (talk) 03:37, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Table Sorting Issues

Apparently, the table sort is limited to alphabetical. Trying to resort to the original state (chronological) is only doable by refreshing the page. Is there a way to fix that? KyuuA4 (talk) 20:57, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Sorting by date does not work either. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.241.87.82 (talk) 13:50, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

The tables now use sort key templates, so sorting should work now. —Lowellian (reply) 19:48, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Stadiums

Shouldn't the stadiums' listed names be as they were called at the time? I disagree with listing Miami entries as LandShark stadium when the stadium did not bear that name when the games were played there. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.114.159.116 (talk) 16:08, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm considering putting this page up for FLR 2

Two people have raised concerns about sortability of the tables, and the issues still exist six months later. In the NFL Championships table, the Game column is sorted alphabetically -- err, they're number. The score column sorts by winning score. What about the losing score? The venue column doesn't sort LandShark correctly, and the City column sortability is completely messed up.

The footnotes use an archaic form that needs updating per WP:FOOT, References are too reliant on primary sources, and there should not be any columns for future games, since there are no champions yet. Someone claims that it was promoted to WP:FL like this; it wasn't. In the "List milestones" box at the top of the page, you can click the version of the page when it was promoted, and they are not there. They've crept in somewhere in the last 18 months. I've tried to remove them twice, but they've been put back in there for whatever reason.

Whoever maintains this page needs to get on top of the issues. It currently does not "exemplify our very best work" Matthewedwards :  Chat  17:28, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree with this comment, and I would further add that the list requires another table listing each Super Bowl winner and the number of times they have won, similar to the table at List of European Cup and UEFA Champions League winners#Results by clubs. If I wanted to see, at a glance, which team had won the most Super Bowls, I wouldn't want to have to trawl through the main table looking for each team's name. – PeeJay 13:21, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

See List of Super Bowl wins by team (which was originally part of this page but was removed during FLR1).

Regarding the future games, see the first time it was promoted to FL status. Also, I don't see on WP:FL?#3 (or WP:SAL) where it states that the future events shouldn't be listed. Only games that have a location and have a Wikipedia article are listed (now hidden in a comment).

Finally, I believe the sortability issue has been resolved at this point. ~ Paul^T+/_C 22:23, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

In that case, I suggest that List of Super Bowl wins by team be merged back into this article. I don't see any reason why it deserves a separate article. – PeeJay 22:31, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

The first time it was promoted was a long time ago and the FL criteria were not what they are today. The second time it was promoted, which occurred more recently, and they didn't have them in. I've opened a FLRC. I will only continue this there. Matthewedwards :  Chat  22:46, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Can we combine AFL/NFL + NFL tables?

I was thinking we could do something like this:

Super Bowls

Numbers in parentheses in the tables are used as follows:

• Winning team column indicates number of Super Bowl wins for that team after the completion of that Super Bowl.
• Venue column indicates number of times that stadium has hosted a Super Bowl as of the date of that Super Bowl.
• City column indicates number of times that that metropolitan area has hosted a Super Bowl as of the date of that Super Bowl.

National Football League (NFL)	American Football League (AFL)
NFL Champion‡	AFL Champion^
National Football Conference (NFC)	American Football Conference (AFC)
NFC Champion*	AFC Champion†

Game	Date	Winning team	Score	Losing team	Venue	City	Reference
I	January 15, 1967	Green Bay Packers‡	35–10	Kansas City Chiefs^	Los Angeles Memorial Coliseum	Los Angeles, California
II	January 14, 1968	Green Bay Packers‡ (2)	33–14	Oakland Raiders^	Miami Orange Bowl	Miami, Florida
III	January 12, 1969	New York Jets^	16–7	Baltimore Colts‡	Miami Orange Bowl (2)	Miami, Florida (2)
IV	January 11, 1970	Kansas City Chiefs^	23–7	Minnesota Vikings‡	Tulane Stadium	New Orleans, Louisiana
Game	Date	Winning team	Score	Losing team	Venue	City	Reference
V	January 17, 1971	Baltimore Colts†	16–13	Dallas Cowboys*	Miami Orange Bowl (3)	Miami, Florida (3)
VI	January 16, 1972	Dallas Cowboys*	24–3	Miami Dolphins†	Tulane Stadium (2)	New Orleans, Louisiana (2)
VII	January 14, 1973	Miami Dolphins†	14–7	Washington Redskins*	Los Angeles Memorial Coliseum (2)	Los Angeles, California (2)
VIII	January 13, 1974	Miami Dolphins† (2)	24–7	Minnesota Vikings*	Rice Stadium	Houston, Texas
IX	January 12, 1975	Pittsburgh Steelers†	16–6	Minnesota Vikings*	Tulane Stadium (3)	New Orleans, Louisiana (3)
X	January 18, 1976	Pittsburgh Steelers† (2)	21–17	Dallas Cowboys*	Miami Orange Bowl (4)	Miami, Florida (4)
XI	January 9, 1977	Oakland Raiders†	32–14	Minnesota Vikings*	Rose Bowl	Pasadena, California (3)
XII	January 15, 1978	Dallas Cowboys* (2)	27–10	Denver Broncos†	Louisiana Superdome	New Orleans, Louisiana (4)
XIII	January 21, 1979	Pittsburgh Steelers† (3)	35–31	Dallas Cowboys*	Miami Orange Bowl (5)	Miami, Florida (5)
XIV	January 20, 1980	Pittsburgh Steelers† (4)	31–19	Los Angeles Rams*	Rose Bowl (2)	Pasadena, California (4)
XV	January 25, 1981	Oakland Raiders† (2)	27–10	Philadelphia Eagles*	Louisiana Superdome (2)	New Orleans, Louisiana (5)
XVI	January 24, 1982	San Francisco 49ers*	26–21	Cincinnati Bengals†	Pontiac Silverdome	Pontiac, Michigan
XVII	January 30, 1983	Washington Redskins*	27–17	Miami Dolphins†	Rose Bowl (3)	Pasadena, California (5)
XVIII	January 22, 1984	Los Angeles Raiders† (3)	38–9	Washington Redskins*	Tampa Stadium	Tampa, Florida
XIX	January 20, 1985	San Francisco 49ers* (2)	38–16	Miami Dolphins†	Stanford Stadium	Stanford, California
XX	January 26, 1986	Chicago Bears*	46–10	New England Patriots†	Louisiana Superdome (3)	New Orleans, Louisiana (6)
XXI	January 25, 1987	New York Giants*	39–20	Denver Broncos†	Rose Bowl (4)	Pasadena, California (6)
XXII	January 31, 1988	Washington Redskins* (2)	42–10	Denver Broncos†	Jack Murphy Stadium	San Diego, California
XXIII	January 22, 1989	San Francisco 49ers* (3)	20–16	Cincinnati Bengals†	Joe Robbie Stadium	Miami, Florida (6)
XXIV	January 28, 1990	San Francisco 49ers* (4)	55–10	Denver Broncos†	Louisiana Superdome (4)	New Orleans, Louisiana (7)
XXV	January 27, 1991	New York Giants* (2)	20–19	Buffalo Bills†	Tampa Stadium (2)	Tampa, Florida (2)
XXVI	January 26, 1992	Washington Redskins* (3)	37–24	Buffalo Bills†	Hubert H. Humphrey Metrodome	Minneapolis, Minnesota
XXVII	January 31, 1993	Dallas Cowboys* (3)	52–17	Buffalo Bills†	Rose Bowl (5)	Pasadena, California (7)
XXVIII	January 30, 1994	Dallas Cowboys* (4)	30–13	Buffalo Bills†	Georgia Dome	Atlanta, Georgia
XXIX	January 29, 1995	San Francisco 49ers* (5)	49–26	San Diego Chargers†	Joe Robbie Stadium (2)	Miami, Florida (7)
XXX	January 28, 1996	Dallas Cowboys* (5)	27–17	Pittsburgh Steelers†	Sun Devil Stadium	Tempe, Arizona
XXXI	January 26, 1997	Green Bay Packers* (3)	35–21	New England Patriots†	Louisiana Superdome (5)	New Orleans, Louisiana (8)
XXXII	January 25, 1998	Denver Broncos†	31–24	Green Bay Packers*	Qualcomm Stadium (2)	San Diego, California (2)
XXXIII	January 31, 1999	Denver Broncos† (2)	34–19	Atlanta Falcons*	Pro Player Stadium (3)	Miami, Florida (8)
XXXIV	January 30, 2000	St. Louis Rams*	23–16	Tennessee Titans†	Georgia Dome (2)	Atlanta, Georgia (2)
XXXV	January 28, 2001	Baltimore Ravens†	34–7	New York Giants*	Raymond James Stadium	Tampa, Florida (3)
XXXVI	February 3, 2002	New England Patriots†	20–17	St. Louis Rams*	Louisiana Superdome (6)	New Orleans, Louisiana (9)
XXXVII	January 26, 2003	Tampa Bay Buccaneers*	48–21	Oakland Raiders†	Qualcomm Stadium (3)	San Diego, California (3)
XXXVIII	February 1, 2004	New England Patriots† (2)	32–29	Carolina Panthers*	Reliant Stadium	Houston, Texas (2)
XXXIX	February 6, 2005	New England Patriots† (3)	24–21	Philadelphia Eagles*	ALLTEL Stadium	Jacksonville, Florida
XL	February 5, 2006	Pittsburgh Steelers† (5)	21–10	Seattle Seahawks*	Ford Field	Detroit, Michigan (2)
XLI	February 4, 2007	Indianapolis Colts† (2)	29–17	Chicago Bears*	Dolphin Stadium (4)	Miami, Florida (9)
XLII	February 3, 2008	New York Giants* (3)	17–14	New England Patriots†	University of Phoenix Stadium	Glendale, Arizona (2)
XLIII	February 1, 2009	Pittsburgh Steelers† (6)	27–23	Arizona Cardinals*	Raymond James Stadium (2)	Tampa, Florida (4)
XLIV	February 7, 2010	2009–10 NFC Champion* at 2009–10 AFC Champion†	—	To be determined	Dolphin Stadium (5)	Miami, Florida (10)
XLV	February 6, 2011	2010–11 AFC Champion† at 2010–11 NFC Champion*	—	To be determined	Cowboys Stadium	Arlington, Texas
XLVI	February 5, 2012	2011–12 NFC Champion* at 2011–12 AFC Champion†	—	To be determined	Lucas Oil Stadium	Indianapolis, Indiana
XLVII	February 3, 2013	2012–13 AFC Champion† at 2012–13 NFC Champion*	—	To be determined	Louisiana Superdome (7)	New Orleans, Louisiana (10)

NFL‡/NFC* Wins: 22

AFL^/AFC† Wins: 21

Does there need to be a way to denote the first four games in addition to the symbols listed at the beginning of the table? This would greatly simplify the list. ~ Paul^T+/_C 02:39, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

This looks much more streamlined than the current format. In fact, I would go all the way and remove the column headings after the fourth game, if possible. To denote the league/conference difference, it would be good to place years in parenthesis for both in the small key. Therefore, AFL/NFL could have (1967–1970) after the conference name, and AFC/NFC would have (1971–present). This eliminates the need for a sudden break in the middle of the table. Giants2008 (17–14) 14:48, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

I second the removal of the column headers 5 rows into the chart, between SB IV and V. I also propose the addition of the MVP in favor of making the date column thinner, and perhaps merging stadium and city for more real estate. Thoughts? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rrgrzcool (talk • contribs) 01:35, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Reverse Table Colors?

The AFC logo color is typically blue and the NFC's typically red. I think it's a bit confusing to have the colors reversed on the table. 68.33.57.206 (talk) 06:23, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

As I look at both the top and the bottom of http://www.nfl.com/teams, I have to ask, "You're joking right?" Zzyzx11 (talk) 06:29, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Uh actually theyre are correct. The 'A' is red for the AFC and the 'N' is blue for the NFC check any team hat logos, etc. Hell check the NFL.com Next time make sure your brains are loaded before you shoot off your mouth. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.165.95.99 (talk) 05:14, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Redskins?

I am new at this, and the editing would be a little complex for me, but the list of "Super Bowls by Game" indicates that the Redskins have appeared in five Super Bowls. The list of "Super Bowls by Team" omits them entirely. They should be listed as tied with the Raiders, 5 games, 3-2, .600. Thanks to anyone who can clear this up. 208.103.193.182 (talk) 21:16, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

This has been fixed. The Redskins were removed, along with the Dolphins and the Packers, in a vandalism edit by User:130.166.191.67 on October 6, the previous day. The Dolphins and Packers were immediately restored in the next two edits [2] [3] but the mistake with the Redskins went uncaught a little longer and was not fixed until the two days later, October 8, with this edit [4]. —Lowellian (reply) 01:43, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Legend for symbols

Can someone create a legend to explain what all the different footnote symbols mean? They are useless otherwise. ++68.187.205.80 (talk) 16:18, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

There is a legend. It's above the top of each table. —Lowellian (reply) 01:25, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Do we really even need the symbols? The definition of the Super Bowl is that it's a game between the NFC and AFC champions, as we state in the introduction. There's never been a case where any team but a conference's champion has represented the conference in the Super Bowl, and if it ever happened somehow, we could put a footnote then. Color-coding the teams is enough to differentiate the conferences, and I think the symbols just make it look cluttered. This isn't a long article; I say we can trust people's ability to follow the basic ideas. Rowsdower45 (talk) 00:00, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Not all browsers (text browsers and some microbrowsers, for instance) support color and/or cascading stylesheets. The footnote symbols are for maximum browser compatibility, so that all the information in the table is there for all browsers. —Lowellian (reply) 19:47, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Miami Gardens

I must admit that this has become a pet peeve of mine, but why are other "suburbs" given credit for hosting the game (Pontiac, Tempe, Glendale and Arlington) yet people always want to list the games (since 2003) that have been played in Dolphin/whatever it is called this week Stadium as being in Miami? I just think we should treat Miami Gardens the same as Glendale AZ and Arlington TX Smith03 (talk) 18:43, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Because, as the footnote says, "Miami Gardens was incorporated as a suburb of Miami in 2003. Prior to that, it was an unincorporated area of Miami-Dade County but the stadium had a Miami address." —Lowellian (reply) 00:43, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Maybe a list of back to back winning coaches would be appropriate?

A stat on the NFL Channel stated that Mike Shanahan was one of six coaches to win back to back Super Bowls. So I was curious and used your table to figure out who the other coaches were (Nice table, by the way! Thanks!). That might make an interesting section add.Cjstanonis (talk) 23:52, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

That would fall into a separate article. There exists a short list for multiple starting QBs with rings. KyuuA4 (Talk:キュウ) 08:23, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from Yoiyitsu, 4 November 2010

{{edit semi-protected}} I think it could be a nice external link

• Map of Super Bowl champions by state

Yoiyitsu (talk) 15:58, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

 Not done: If such a map is required, it would be trivial for an editor to make one and add it directly to the article. -Atmoz (talk) 23:06, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

cheater markers

Patriots 'victories' need asterisks because they cheated. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.56.67.248 (talk) 20:41, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

You can address that at 18-1 or Spygate. KyuuA4 (Talk:キュウ) 23:07, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

49ers

I noticed an error about the 49ers but I don't know how to edit it myself. On "Super Bowls by game" it lists that the Dallas Cowboys won in 1994, but on "Super Bowl appearances by team" it lists that the San Francisco 49ers won in 1994. Can somebody fix this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Firemanj94 (talk • contribs) 23:31, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

No, this is not an error. Under "Super Bowls by game", it lists the Dallas Cowboys as winning the Super Bowl game played on January 30, 1994, which is correct. Under "Super Bowl appearances by team", it lists the San Francisco 49ers as having won the the Super Bowl for the 1994 NFL season, which is also correct. Remember that Super Bowls are played the January or February after the regular season. —Lowellian (reply) 01:32, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from 67.165.95.99, 13 January 2011

{{edit semi-protected}} I was reading the list of Super Bowl Champions and scrolled down to see the number of appearances each team have. When I was scrolling down I read the New England Patriots have gone 3/3 in Super Bowl appearances which by your own facts above that listing the games, the winners and loosers of each New England has 3 losses, 1 in Super Bowl 20(XX) in 31(XXXI) and in 42(XLII) so in fact they are 3/6 in Super Bowl Appearances. Since that would also change theyre win percentage in the big game too can you please adjust that to. I dont need Brady fans riding a wave a false-hoods, theyre not that good. Thank You, a Yappin Yinzer from Pittsburgh.

67.165.95.99 (talk) 05:07, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. The table columns are Wins, Losses, and Percentage, which correctly shows 3 wins, 3 losses, and a .500 win percentage. I don't see any changes to the article since you made your request, so I'm not quite sure what it is that you are looking at that seems to have that error. If I missed something, please make a new edit request. Qwyrxian (talk) 06:07, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

There must have been a change. I had a dipute with a friend about how many times a team has been to the Super Bowl vs how many times they won the superbowl and the page read 3/3 there was not a win/loss column, it was just a column that listed times appeared/times won. And the percentage was 1.00000, which means perfect. It appears the appropiate changes have been made now tho, and I thank you for reviewing this matter. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.165.95.99 (talk) 20:57, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

minor subtle table data corrections

There are "invisible" entries in the super bowl results table showing which appearance number for winning team, losing team, venue and city. They are in the html but not visible. An example of this is "Green Bay Packers 02 !" signifying their 2nd appearance.

I detect several "invisible" errors as follows.
For city "New Orleans, Louisiana !" s/b "New Orleans, Louisiana 01 !" (line 4 shown below)
"Dallas Cowboys 05 !" s/b "Dallas Cowboys 01 !" (line 5 shown below)
"04 !V" s/b "05 !V" at the start of that line (line 5 shown below)
"04 !VI" s/b "06 !VI" at the start of the line below that (line 6 not shown below)
"Los Angeles Rams 02 !" s/b "Miami Dolphins 02 !" (line 7)
"Pittsburgh Steelers 04 !" s/b "Pittsburgh Steelers 05 !" (line 30)
"Pittsburgh Steelers 05 !" s/b "Pittsburgh Steelers 06 !" (line 40)
"Seattle Seahawks !" s/b "Seattle Seahawks 01 !" (line 40)
"New York Giants 03 !" s/b "New York Giants 04 !" (line 42)
"Pittsburgh Steelers 06 !" s/b "Pittsburgh Steelers 07 !" (line 43)
______________________
To illustrate, below are 5 lines of the table data, captured with Control-C (only first 5 shown to save space) (the html itself is far more verbose - so this is just the data from Ctrl-C, with only hard linefeeds added):

Game Date Winning team Score Losing team Venue City Attendance Ref
01 !I 01967-01-15 January 15, 1967 Green Bay Packers 01 !Green Bay Packers‡ 3510 !35–10 Kansas City Chiefs 01 !Kansas City Chiefs^ Los Angeles Memorial Coliseum 01 !Los Angeles Memorial Coliseum Pasadena, California 01 !Los Angeles, California[note 1] 061946 !61,946 [5]
02 !II 01968-01-14 January 14, 1968 Green Bay Packers 02 !Green Bay Packers‡ (2) 3314 !33–14 Oakland Raiders 01 !Oakland Raiders^ Orange Bowl 01 !Orange Bowl Miami, Florida 01 !Miami, Florida[note 2] 075546 !75,546 [6]
03 !III 01969-01-12 January 12, 1969 New York Jets 01 !New York Jets^ 1607 !16–7 Indianapolis Colts 01 !Baltimore Colts‡ Orange Bowl 02 !Orange Bowl (2) Miami, Florida 02 !Miami, Florida (2)[note 2] 075389 !75,389 [7]
04 !IV 01970-01-11 January 11, 1970 Kansas City Chiefs 02 !Kansas City Chiefs^ (2) 2307 !23–7 Minnesota Vikings 01 !Minnesota Vikings‡ Tulane Stadium 01 !Tulane Stadium New Orleans, Louisiana !New Orleans, Louisiana 080562 !80,562 [8]
04 !V 01971-01-17 January 17, 1971 Baltimore Colts 02 !Baltimore Colts† (2) 1613 !16–13 Dallas Cowboys 05 !Dallas Cowboys* Orange Bowl 03 !Orange Bowl (3) Miami, Florida 03 !Miami, Florida (3) 079204 !79,204 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.122.225.32 (talk) 17:51, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
______________________
Edit, later 24 January 2011: Several more additions.
I have analyzed this very carefully but may have not communicated it well since I did not directly refer to html. These should be extremely easy for you to locate in the source. Note, you might want to add 1 to my line references as I did not count the table heading line.

The reason for suggesting these changes is if someone copies and pastes to a spreadsheet they would pick up incorrect values.

I omitted one or two other cities or venues that omitted "01 !" for their first Super Bowl hosting which I could also supply.

Steelers on top of the list

(As a Pats fan, this hurts to say, but...) With the Steelers going to the Super Bowl for an 8th time, this ties them with the Cowboys for most Super Bowl appearances. However, the Cowboys are 5-3, and even if the Steelers lose, they will be 6-2. The Steelers should, by all logic, be positioned above the Cowboys. In a similar vein, the Packers should be positioned above the Dolphins. --Rickie-d (talk) 03:04, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

The table is completely logical as is; why waste the breath and time to presume it won't be when the new entry is made in 2 weeks? Unless you want to enter the winner and loser before the game is played :( (BTW I am not an editor) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.122.225.32 (talk • contribs) 23:34, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

"at"?

For future Super Bowls, this article lists the opponents as being "NFC Champion at AFC Champion", or vice versa.

I fully understand that one team is designated the home team in the game with regard to choosing which uniforms to wear, and who calls the coin toss, and things like that--But those are minor technicalities only for the sake of meeting the requirements of those few rules which are dictated by home and road designations. Wouldn't it make more sense--and more accurately reflect the vast majority of Super Bowl activities--to not say that future games will be one team "at" the other, but that they will be one team "vs." the other "at" the neutral site??? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.15.255.227 (talk) 18:43, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Using "at" in this way is the common and standard usage in the jargon of sportswriting. —Lowellian (reply) 20:10, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Error in "Appearances" table?

Currently (2/3/2011) the Appearances table shows a count of 1 for the Lions, Browns, Jaguars, and Texans in the far left column. This should be 0 as none of the teams has made a Super Bowl appearance (yet). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jugdish114 (talk • contribs) 00:27, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Fixed.  ~ Paul^T+/_C 17:31, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

please add Greenbay, Packers to superbowl 2011 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.176.8.186 (talk) 16:07, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

They are there. —Lowellian (reply) 03:09, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

It says that Houston's first playoff appearance was in 2012, which is true, but it's the 2011 season. In the chart, the years appearing are the regular season years, not the January of the following year. Shouldn't Houston be 2011 and not 2012, since the 2012 NFL season hasn't happened yet, and with everything else, it's the regular season, not the year for January?? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.11.179.169 (talk) 15:49, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Number of appearances

Listing the number of championships in a single column is normal. It's used on many pages, and it helps users determine what number that victory is. Spreading that data out over two columns makes things confusing. For example, I saw that Green Bay was listed as having 5 championships, and corrected it, believing it to be a mistake. Besides, there is an entire appearances table at the bottom, and its sole function is to summarize the number of appearances a team made in the game. I was told that there was previously a discussion and consensus about this here, but I checked and saw no discussion (admittedly, I could have missed it, but in that case it means that it was a very small and uninvolved debate). -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 04:26, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Sorry for any confusion, but that section clearly says at the top, "Numbers in parentheses in the table are Super Bowl appearances" (emphasis added). iirc, this change was made during the then-ongoing discussion now archived at Wikipedia:Featured list removal candidates/List of Super Bowl champions/archive2, and the issue came up about merging all of the similar pages, including List of Super Bowl wins by team, List of Super Bowl appearances, and List of Super Bowls, into this page. Of course, whether the debate was small or large may be moot; consensus can always change between August 2009 and February 2011. Zzyzx11 (talk) 06:50, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Okay, so there is a note, but it doesn't make it any less confusing. I've worked on quite a few lists here, and I've never seen formatting like that before. The table is already very cluttered with all kinds of notes. I'm just not sure what the purpose of listing total appearances is. If it was in column, then the purpose is clear, because it makes things easier to understand when sorted. But, it's not like you can sort entries over two columns. Plus, the appearances table lists all of the appearances and the years they were in. -- Scorpion0422 II (Talk) 19:57, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

It would be great if we could show both wins and appearances in the table, but for simplicity's sake keeping it with appearances makes the most sense. In every case the numbers in parenthesis in the table have to do with a count. Moving it to wins would remove any reason to have parenthesis in the losing column. (See the above proposed list in a comment from 2009.) Would it make sense to show each team's Super Bowl record as of the end of that game? IE the most recent game would show Packers (4-1) and Steelers (6-2). How about wins vs appearances like Packers (4/5), Steelers (6/8)? Or maybe appearances in the loser's column and wins vs appearances in the winner's column? IE Packers (4/5), Steelers (8). The problem arises in trying to explain what the numbers mean. I think the current note is as clear as it gets because it is the same for every number in the table. Having said that, I'd love to see a clearer note. Please share it if you can come up with a good example. ~ Paul^T+/_C 01:31, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Miami Dolphins

The Miami Dolphins are the only team in NFL History to appear in 3 back to back super bowls: 1972, 1973 and 1974 respectively appearing in Super Bowls 6,7 and 8 and the only team to win a Super Bowl after an undefeated regular season. 08:29, 20 September 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Oceanstar40 (talk • contribs)

Appearances w/o Win

The Seattle Seahawks had an appearance (Superbowl XL), but lost to the Steelers. This is noted in the chart, but not in the "Appearances without a win" section. It is the Seahawks' only Superbowl appearance — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.36.234.234 (talk) 01:01, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Also missing from this section are the Bengals — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.36.234.234 (talk) 01:11, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

I currently see no issue because this list is prefaced with the following sentence: "The following teams have had Super Bowl appearances, but their last league championship occurred prior to the first Super Bowl in 1967" (emphasis added). Zzyzx11 (talk) 05:30, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

After another question was raised about this over on the entertainment reference desk, and it was pointed out that the contents of the section did not match the heading of the section, the section has now been rewritten by several editors to fit the heading, so this is now fixed. —Lowellian (reply) 03:09, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Error in Notes #7

There is in error in this sentence. "^ a b The Seahawks switched conferences with the newly founded Buccaneers in 1976 but switched back to the NFC in 2002 due to an NFL realignment plan..."

The Seahawks switched conferences with the Buccaneers in 1977, not 1976. Also, there should be a comma before "but".

Both teams entered the league in the 1976 season. For the first year only (1976), the Seahawks were in the NFC and the Buccaneers were in the AFC. They switched conferences for the 1977 season, and it remained that way until 2002 when the Seahawks moved back to the NFC. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.160.116.100 (talk) 04:06, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Per your comment, I changed the year from 1976 to 1977. However, no comma is necessary before "but", as in this case, the phrase after the conjunction is not an independent clause. —Lowellian (reply) 09:19, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Wrong year for Houston's first playoff appearance.

In the "Teams with no Super Bowl appearances" section, it says: "Houston Texans, 2002 expansion team; first NFL playoff appearance in 2012."

Technically this is true because the 2011 playoffs are played in 2012, but it is incorrect and should say "first NFL playoff appearance in 2011." This should be changed to be consistent with every other reference on the page where the year of the regular season is used to refer to appearances in the playoffs and Super Bowls instead of the year in which the game was actually played.

For Example: "Jacksonville Jaguars, 1995 expansion team; appeared in two AFC Championship Games in 1996 and 1999." This is correct, even though these 2 Championship Games were actually played in 1997 and 2000 respectively. The same is true for the Detroit Lions and Cleveland Browns references in this same section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.255.203.216 (talk) 08:41, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Okay, it's fixed. —Lowellian (reply) 00:21, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Time to add the Cowboys to the "Droughts" list - since 1995.

Considering only 5 NFC teams haven't been to the Super Bowl since 1999, it is appropriate to add the Dallas Cowboys to the list of longest Super Bowl droughts (since 1995). — Preceding unsigned comment added by STylerson (talk • contribs) 23:36, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

green bay won 4 not 5

in the total tally in the appearance table it shows that they won 5, but they won 4. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.102.14.19 (talk) 19:28, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

No, it doesn't. Look at the table again: it says they won 4. You're confusing the appearances column with the wins column. —Lowellian (reply) 02:32, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 23 January 2012

There is an error in the following script under the "Super Bowl Appearances by Team" section. The New England Patriots have made 7 appearances, but the number of wins (3) and losses (3) only add to 6. The Patriots have actually won (3) and lost (4) and therefore have a winning percentage below .500. Here is my recommended correction:

|align="center"|7||bgcolor="#FFCCCC"|New England Patriots^† |align="center"|3||align="center"|4||align="right"|.429 |1985,^† 1996,^† 2001,^† 2003,^† 2004,^† 2007,^† 2011^†

Please review and correct. Thank you.

Andrewdv3 (talk) 07:03, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

 Done, thanks for pointing it out--Jac16888 ^Talk 15:59, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

I rolled back. The reason for the funny math is simply that the game hasn't been played yet. Wknight94 ^talk 16:13, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Ah fair enough, I was just going by it saying 2011 and assumed they'd played, and lost since it wasn't bold. My bad, should have checked--Jac16888 ^Talk 16:28, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

No, the NFL season is peculiar in that the regular season is late in the calendar year while the shorter postseason and championship are played in January of the following calendar year. For clarity, it should be called the 2011-2012 season, but that isn't the convention (for whatever reason). Wknight94 ^talk 13:29, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Percentage?

How can a percentage be .500? That is not right, there should be a % sign somewhere. As in wikipedia's own Percentage article: For example, an increase of $ 0.15 on a price of $ 2.50 is an increase by a fraction of 0.15/2.50 = 0.06. Expressed as a percentage, this is therefore a 6% increase. 82.141.66.232 (talk) 05:02, 29 January 2012 (UTC)