Talk:Super Bowl XLIX

This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

United States: Arizona C‑class Low‑importance

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles
C	This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	Arizona portal This article is supported by WikiProject Arizona (assessed as Mid-importance).

National Football League Unassessed High‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject National Football League, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the NFL on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.National Football LeagueWikipedia:WikiProject National Football LeagueTemplate:WikiProject National Football LeagueNational Football League articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

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 (talk • contribs) 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)"... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.158.139.100 (talk) 13:44, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not unless you have a reliable published source that specifically states it's almost universally considered incorrect, while ch is unlikely. As IP 187.xxx stated, 49 is correctly expressed as XLIX, so there's no need to state it's incorrect if it isn't, which is what (sic) would imply. - BilCat (talk) 15:14, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

On a related note, is it just twisted contrariness that studiously avoids indicating that this is the 49th Superbowl, and forces readers to go look up the Roman numerals elsewhere?FDCWint (talk) 19:15, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I just want to express that it's good this was taken up in the talk page without any edits to the article. To the very best of my understanding of Roman numerals and the rules regarding their construction, XLIX is correct, and IL is at the very least less favored... but probably considered wrong. Roman numerals are still treated as a decimal system, and one of the rules is that, when subtracting a value from the next numeral, both characters should be acting on the same decimal column... or the numeral that begins using the next column. That's not very well stated, but for example, IX or IV are appropriate and so are XC and XL... but IC and IL are definitely frowned upon, and no one writing the year 1999 as IMM would be taken seriously... it was MCMXCIX. Please appreciate that each decimal digit is created separately in there 1000 M, 900 CM, 90 XC, 9 IX. That's what I'm trying to explain. The first poster on this topic comes off as a tiny bit condescending or at least errantly certain, but it's IL that would be written "IL [sic]."

50.50.84.245 (talk) 14:40, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 20 January 2015

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

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. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 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]

Patriots wordmark in end zone

The following gist is currently WP:OR/unverifiable per WP:V, but if it remains as it is per my OR sources, I fully expect someone to attempt to add it later on (like all the other modifications to the field markings found throughout the Super Bowl articles):

The Patriots current wordmark, introduced in 2013, includes the team's full logo in the middle, underneath the lettering.[6] To avoid redundancy, the space in the end zone where the team logo would normally be to the left of the wordmark was left blank.

As always, I am neutral on whether these facts on the field markings should be included in the Super Bowl articles. Thanks. Zzyzx11 (talk) 07:26, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]