Jump to content

Talk:Super Bowl XLIX

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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 85.158.139.100 (talk) at 13:44, 28 January 2015 (→‎Roman numerals should be IL). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

A source

Here is a source for this article.

http://www.nfl.com/news/story/09000d5d81f8a0ea/article/nfl-says-tampa-arizona-are-2015-super-bowl-host-finalists

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.6.171.239 (talkcontribs) 15:41, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Roman numerals should be IL

Should we use the marker (sic) to indicate the deliberate error in the numeral IL for 49? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.64.26.23 (talk) 22:24, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"Super Bowl XLIX" is a brand name. We cannot change it. What you're saying is like saying that "The Lion King" should be called "The Lion at the Top of the Food Chain". Georgia guy (talk) 23:46, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I was confused too, so I Googled Roman Numerals, and by all accounts, 49 is correctly expressed as XLIX. That doesn't mean the Super Bowl numbering system isn't retarded though... 184.10.186.34 (talk) 00:53, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Guess we should have a "(sic)"...

Semi-protected edit request on 20 January 2015

In "Teams" section, claims the Seahawks had the league's lowest number of turnovers (14). This stat is incorrect. The Patriots tied for the league's lowest number with 13 turnovers. DLSmith93 (talk) 13:21, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made.  B E C K Y S A Y L E 14:19, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
5 seconds of Googling verifies what User:DLSmith93 is saying (for instance, [1], [2], [3], [4], or [5]), and I've thus removed the incorrect claim. Please let someone else answer the edit request if you're not going to provide a more helpful response. Note that the original claim that DLSmith93 wanted changed, that the Seahawks had the lowest number, was also uncited, and it's offputting and comes off as biting the newbie to dismiss an edit request for an easily-verified incorrect statistic as "calling for an uncited change" when the original statistic was also uncited and has been challenged. —Lowellian (reply) 01:08, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This is the Seahawks third Super Bowl appearcence not 2nd

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.171.96.253 (talk)

Where does it say this is the Seahawk's second Super Bowl appearance? - BilCat (talk) 03:12, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]