Jump to content

Talk:Chicago Bears/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Improvement drive

National Football League is currently a candidate on WP:IDRIVE. Vote for it if you are interested in contributing.--Fenice 20:04, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

With the Bears into Super Bowl XLI - more attention will be in this article within the next few weeks. Therefore, article quality is at risk. So, what should or should not go into this article? KyuuA4 19:56, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
This article should be left the way it is until the Super Bowl is over --Happyman22 20:53, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
Indeed, as more attention should be directed to the Bear's history page. KyuuA4 21:29, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

1919 season

If we are going to include the 1919 season, we need specific sources cited so they can be verified by others. Based on these postings at the nflhistory.net forum (link removed), there are hard to get. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 20:35, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

  • Including the Decatur Staleys' 1919 season as part of their won-lost chronology would be a like including the Sioux City records of 1893-94 and the St. Paul records of 1895-99 with the Chicago White Sox's history, or including the Arizona Cardinals ("Chicago Athletic Club") records going back to 1898. The NFL (initially called the APFA) dates itself from 9/17/1920, when the league was formally organized amongst what were previously semi-pro clubs playing whenever they felt like it. Anything before the 1920 season is worth a mention historically, but doesn't count as part of the team's won-lost chronology. Wahkeenah 00:18, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
    • That is exactly why I reverted the edit by an anonymous user [1]. 1919 was still during the period when professional football was in a state of flux and confusion, and thus almost everything during that time is essentially unofficial and hard to verify. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 00:43, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Should we really be including the 1919 season? The Bears and the NFL obviously don't consider them the same team. There is some precedent - there have been several incarnations of the Toledo Mud Hens, one often forming the season after the former folded/moved. As it is, the article can't seem to make up its mind - it references both 1919 and 1920 as the beginning of the club. --Chancemichaels 20:47, 20 December 2006 (UTC)Chancemichaels

More Information, Please

This article just seems tremendously sparse considering the long history of this organization.

Thank you for your suggestion! When you feel an article needs improvement, please feel free to make whatever changes you feel are needed. Wikipedia is a wiki, so anyone can edit any article by simply following the Edit this page link at the top. You don't even need to log in! (Although there are some reasons why you might like to...) The Wikipedia community encourages you to be bold. Don't worry too much about making honest mistakes—they're likely to be found and corrected quickly. If you're not sure how editing works, check out how to edit a page, or use out the sandbox to try out your editing skills. New contributors are always welcome. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 16:10, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

There should probably be a section on the 2001 season . . . anybody have enough knowledge to do so? This whole article needs to be re-organized. The first paragraph goes from their founding to 1985. What's up with that? Maybe it should be broken up into sections decade-by-decade. Anybody have the time or inclination to do so? We have to make this page far superior to the Packer's page. Come on! 65.204.127.98, 17:35, 21 December 2005

  • Fortunately, that shouldn't be too difficult. That reminds me...
    • Q: What do you get when you have a capacity crowd at Lambeau Field?
    • A: One full set of teeth.

Wahkeenah 00:17, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Nice!  :)


Unfortunately, the content by 65.204.127.98 (talk · contribs) was lifted directly from the Bears' official website, so I had to revert to the last edit before the copyrighted content was added. ErikNY 15:23, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

  • Silly me, I thought 65.204.127.98 was going to actually write something rather than copy-and-paste it. No Bears fan would do that. It must have been a Packers fan. That's the last time I'll give someone unqualified encouragement. >:( Wahkeenah 15:32, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Apparently you've never heard of paraphrasing (few sentences were lifted directly). Naturally the information was gleaned elsewhere, as I do not have eighty years of Bears history memorized verbatum. That's why there's a "sources" section with external links. —the preceding unsigned comment is by 65.204.127.98 (talk • contribs)

  • "Paraphrasing" does not consist of copying-and-pasting the text and changing a synonym here and there. Your "uh-oh!" deletion of the footnote in the Bears-Packers article is what gave you away, son. Shame! Wahkeenah 19:58, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Season-By-Season

I believe that the Season-by-season records should be placed alone in the team history article since the team article should be a summary of each section about the team. I think that the current football season should be placed with the Franchise History section of a team article. --Happyman22 17:50, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

  • So what are your feelings when the current season ends? Zzyzx11 (Talk) 17:37, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
  • And I assume that you also object having one continuous table that all of the other NFL team articles, and all of the NHL team articles, have. And so others like me will have a harder time noticing different trends and stats (like noticing how the Bears made the playoffs 8 out of 11 times between 1984 and 1994) other than the arbitrary division by decade. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 18:47, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

--All I was saying that since team histories are divided up decades it would make more sense to have the records for that decade together, but if you want to divide the history up some other way such as critical eras in team history that would be fine. I do not object to a continuous season-by-season standings. The objection is that it is way too long to have a whole section dedicated to 85 years of standings without any historical text to go along with it. It would not be appealing to readers and it would never get any NFL team article to be featured on Wikipedia. --Happyman22 03:16, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

  • You're right on that point. I will admit that I have not been a very big fan of the season-by-season tables since September anyway. I started working on them for teams that were younger than 1960, but then I realized how long they were going to be for teams older than 1960 ... but someone else decided to work on them anyway. And then I noticed that they were not being evenly updated ... somebody would update the table right away for a popular team like the Patriots but the Cardinals' table would never be updated for almost a week. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 04:45, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

GA

I reviewed this article and determined it fit the criteria for a "Good article". One problem I saw was that some of the adjectives, such as 'awe-inspiring', come pretty close to POV. ike9898 16:55, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Bears-Packers

I think it should be time to start a Bears-Packers article about their historic rivalry. Any comments? --Happyman22 02:42, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Controversy

I personally would rather that this section did not appear on an NFL team page but I did notice a section on the Minnesota Vikings article that was similar about the boat cruise. I think we should consider removing this type of tabloid content from all team pages, it just doesn't seem appropriate for a team article. --Ortega 07:19, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

  • It is appropriate, if it affects the current team. The infamous Lake Minnetonka cruise certainly affected the Vikings last year. I would leave it there for awhile as part of the "current events" of a team and ultimately delete it, unless it has some truly profound long-term impact, such as the team deciding to move to Tijuana because of it, or some such thing. Wahkeenah 23:37, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
    • This article is currently on peer review, asking advice about how to get it to featured article status. Knowing the culture on FAC, voters tend to be reluctant on tabloid current events. Therefore, I suggest that if we are going to keep it, the content should be moved to History of the Chicago Bears. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 00:47, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
      • I confess I've read nothing about it. The Lake Minnetonka cruise was a major story that shook the team and the city, much more than the individual outrageous antics of Randy Moss, for example. So, the question is, does the current Bears story come anywhere close to rising to the importance of the Vikings story last year? If not, it doesn't really belong in the summary article. Wahkeenah 01:22, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
      • Now that I've looked at it, I don't think it belongs. It's one player getting himself into trouble. Big deal. Wahkeenah 01:26, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
    • I like your idea about moving it to the Chicago Bears history page. I would like to suggest setting up a similar page for the Vikings if it does not already exist and move the boat cruise article there for consistency. Ortega 08:27, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Edits

Some things that need to be changed on the main article

  • Expansion of history section to include key players
  • Expansion of the uniform section
  • More indepth information about the stadium (maybe more about the old stadiums?)
  • Expansion of popular culture section

Any more suggestions? Please help us edit this article so it can reach feature status. Thanks, --Happyman22 22:03, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Article

Compared to the New England Patriots article, I think this article is slightly more informative in terms of all aspects of the Bears. However, this is also a negative in that some FA voters may find the information to be somewhat in excess. The prose of the two articles is about even; both are fairly well-written and generally in the limits of 2a. I think the major issue at hand is that the ownership section may need to be merged with the history to give it a sense of an organized, chronological order. You may also want to merge the logo and uniforms sections. — Deckiller 03:28, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

    • I also really, really like the statistics section, which is quite diffiuclt to merge with the history section, as it contains all-time stats. For the Patriots, we just used an external link to the statistics, which seemed to meet with approval. However, there shouldn't be any objections for including the section for this article. — Deckiller 22:44, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Why does the article refer to the "Northern Division". It's not a name for the NFC North I've come across anywhere before; a quick look at nfl.com suggests they're calling the division by its normal name. Is it a mistake or an alternative name?

Output of the peerreviewer script, testing WP guideline compliance

The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic javascript program, and may or may not be accurate for the article in question.

  • The lead of this article may be too long, or may contain too many paragraphs. Please follow guidelines at WP:LEAD; be aware that the lead should adequately summarize the article.
  • The lead is for summarizing the rest of the article, and should not introduce new topics not discussed in the rest of the article, as per WP:LEAD. Please ensure that the lead adequately summarizes the article.[1]
  • Per WP:CONTEXT and WP:MOSDATE, months and days of the week generally should not be linked. Years, decades, and centuries can be linked if they provide context for the article.
  • Per WP:MOS, avoid using words/phrases that indicate time periods relative to the current day. For example, recently might be terms that should be replaced with specific dates/times.[2]
  • Per WP:MOSNUM, there should be a non-breaking space -   between a number and the unit of measurement. For example, instead of 18mm, use 18 mm, which when you are editing the page, should look like: 18 mm.[3]
  • Per WP:MOSNUM, please spell out source units of measurements in text; for example, "the Moon is 380,000 kilometres (240,000 mi) from Earth.[4]
  • Per WP:CONTEXT and WP:BTW, years with full dates should be linked; for example, link January 15, 2006, but do not link January 2006.[5]
  • Per WP:MOS#Headings, headings generally do not start with the word "The". For example, ==The Biography== would be changed to ==Biography==.
  • As per WP:MOS, please do not link words in headings.
  • Please alphabetize the interlanguage links.[6]
  • Watch for redundancies that make the article too wordy instead of being crisp and concise. (You may wish to try Tony1's redundancy exercises.)
    • Temporal terms like “over the years”, “currently”, “now”, and “from time to time” often are too vague to be useful, but occasionally may be helpful. “I am now using a semi-bot to generate your peer review.”
  • As is done in WP:FOOTNOTE, for footnotes, the footnote should be located right after the punctuation mark, such that there is no space inbetween. For example, change blah blah [2]. to blah blah.[2]
  • Please ensure that the article has gone through a thorough copyediting so that the it exemplifies some of Wikipedia's best work. See also User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 2a. [7]

You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks, Wim van Dorst (Talk) 22:27, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Notable Player Section?

Can we get one together for this article? BIG Tuna 23:57, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

iirc, it was here but was moved to List of Chicago Bears players. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 23:59, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

LOL, yeah i just found that "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Chicago_Bears_players" do you think it should be merged since other NFL club pages have thier notable players on the same page? BIG Tuna 00:00, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

I believe that all other NFL club pages should have a separate page for notable players because the list can get too long --Happyman22 15:41, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Bronco Nagurksi

Why is his nationality listed as Canadian? I know he was born in Canada but he lived the vast majority of his life in the USA. Did he never get American citizenship? Why is nationality listed anyway? How many foreign nationals (not immigrant Americans) have been great NFL players over the years?

Probably just because some people are, it's just random and fun to know facts. I think it's good. DrSatan 00:01, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Honey Bears

DA BEARS used to have cheerleaders, you know? However, I'm not sure about the exact time frame. Chicagonese1 23:11, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Which is why it is clearly mentioned in the 1920-1970 Section. Consider learning to use word search. --ShadowJester07 04:22, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
Actually, I believe they had them until George Halas died in '83. --Slyder PilotE@ 02:24, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
According to this site [4], which squares with what I recall, Halas instituted the Honey Bears for the 1977 season, and they were dissolved at the end of their Super Bowl season of 1985, a couple of years after Halas died. For what it's worth, 1977 was the first time in about 10 years that they had done well in the regular season, and since 1985 they have not returned to the Super Bowl. The Bears management decided they didn't want women exploited this way, so they fired them. That's not quite true, just my cynical take on it. They thought dancing girls didn't belong in NFL games. Oddly enough, other NFL teams have them. The Bears were paying their cheerleaders almost nothing, but as I recall, the cynics at the time figured the Bears were just living up to their reputation of being cheapskates. Wahkeenah 09:41, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
So I wasn't too far off. --Slyder PilotE@ 12:49, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
Roger. Wahkeenah 13:03, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Missing Facts

I think it should be stated in the table that Ron Turner is the offensive coordinator, Ron Rivera is the defensive coordinator, and Dave Toub is the special teams coordinator. Not to mention all the assistants and the trainer. I also think that the Bears radio team, Jeff Joniak (play-by-play announcer) and Tom Thayer (analyst), should be mentioned. --7-0! 12:00, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

I think 7-0 means that the coaches and trainers should be added to the depth chart. However, adding the radio team and all that jazz is somewhat superficial. It can be added to each game in the 2006 Chicago Bears article. --ShadowJester07 23:10, 30 October 2006 (UTC)


Logo Question

The logos have been around longer than the dates that have been posted. I was born in 1980 and I have pictures of myself wearing bears jerseys/t-shirts with the orange bear logo and the orange "c" logo on them. Also, take a look at these links: http://www.chicagobears.com/tradition/uniform.asp#1980 and http://www.sportslogos.net/team.php?t=169

the article currently says the Orange bear head logo was started in 1999. I know for a fact it is older than that. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 64.107.62.162 (talk) 19:11, 5 December 2006 (UTC). The current version of the orange logo was introduced in 1999, its their, being the Bears, words not mine. --Happyman22 21:11, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Redirect

Just wanted to let everyone know I redirected "the bears" to this article. --ClockFace 02:57, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

It would have made more sense to redirect "Da Bears" to this article. --ShadowJester07 03:02, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Barack Obama

Obama's appearance on the opening scene of ESPN's Bears-Rams broadcast has been so talked about in the media, even on BBC News. Shouldn't this appearance be mentioned in the popular culture section of the article? -Amit

It earned some heyday in the 2006 Chicago Bears article. --ShadowJester07 14:58, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Radio/Broadcast

I think that the local broadcast information does not belong on this article. It was the reason for the downfall of this article's first FA attempt. I have removed it and it could be added to each individual season team pages, but it does not belong on the main team article. --Happyman22 23:10, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Seemed like it didn't belong to me :p Isn't that information supposed to be presented in an InfoBox, or was that field removed? --ShadowJester07 00:10, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Today's featured article request

This is currently a candidate for today's featured article. Show support here [5] Buc 06:54, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

I love Da Bears just as much as anyone else in Chicago, but putting this on the main page the same day as the superbowl is probably a bit biased, IMHO. Perhaps wait until after we WIN the superbowl (wishful thinking ;-) and feature it the day after, or within the first week,... ;-) BEAR DOWN! Dr. Cash 22:53, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
Observing how the TFA is selected, it is highly unlikely to be picked, for basically the same reason Dr. Cash mentioned. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 04:22, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
It would be even more biased, considering the Pats were denied the same request last year :) — Deckiller 04:24, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

My Bad I Guess, about titles

Isn't NFC Champions a title? It definitely is, which means Lovie and Ditka should have more. Not sure though, your guys' call anyway. DrSatan 00:00, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Its a conference title...the coaches titles are only league championships. --Happyman22 00:46, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Why

WHY CANT I EDIT THE PAGE

Because it is semi-protected, due do vandalism, this means new and unregistered users can't edit the article. John Reaves (talk) 02:43, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Coaches W-L Records

Do those include playoffs? At this point, for Smith in particular, I am assuming the answer is "yes" to this question. KyuuA4 08:49, 8 February 2007 (UTC)


2018?

When talking about the teams logo the article says, "The team kept this until 2018, when the Bears trademark 'C' logo was first introduced by the team." This can't be right - could someone please change it. I'd do it myself but I'm not sure which year they really did change their logo. Master Strike 21:11, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

I think someone changed it back because I don't see it. --Happyman22 01:52, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Issues with images

A review of the use of images in all Featured Articles is currently ongoing. A few issues have been brought up in regards to this article. Please see Wikipedia:Featured articles/Image survey#Sport and games for a description of the issues. Feel free to address the issues and leave a comment on the survey page. Any questions to me personally can be left on my talk page. Thank you.↔NMajdan•talk 20:01, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Great to see this article featured on the main page today! Would've been better if they won the super bowl last month, but I guess there's always next year,... ;-) Dr. Cash 17:36, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

semi protect

let's just protect it since it's on today featured article and there are so many vandalisms Rockvee 23:02, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Isn't it like, an unwritten rule that the FA of the day stays unprotected? Potential Wikipedians should be given the impression of openness. It would be awfull hypocritical to say "you can edit this", and then have (what will probably be) the first link they click on be semiprotected. --Hojimachongtalk 23:24, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
Actually, it's a written rule. ~ UBeR 23:25, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
Really? I never knew that :O. Interesting stuff, I just assumed it, since the FA is never protected. --Hojimachongtalk 23:26, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Bear head ... 1999?

The article states that the orange bear head was introduced in 1999. Surely that can't possibly be right? I remember seeing the bear head logo growing up.

Anyone know more about the history of the bear head logo?

It refers to this one, [6]. Before that, they used this one, [7]. See SportsLogos.net for more info --  ShadowJester07  ►Talk  02:42, 8 February 2007 (UTC)


>>I'm sitting here coincidentally wearing a Chicago Bears sweater that has the orange bear head logo (no.1 of the ones you linked to, not no.2) that I got when I went to Chicago in March 1997 (I'm English and it's the only time I've ever been to the States, so I can be certain of the date!). So I have to agree with the first poster here, they were definitely using the logo before 1999! 84.64.229.91 22:18, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

No they weren’t the pre 1999 logo looked like the current Bear logo but the current one was retouched. --72.146.210.253 19:03, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Depth Chart

Does anyone have a link the verifies the content of the team's depth chart? The Bears official website states that the Thomas Jones is still the team's first string running back, while we all know that he left to play for the Jets. Additionally, the depth chart fails to include players like Garrett Wolfe and David Ball. I think the depth chart belongs on the 2007 Chicago Bears article - since its current incarnation looks kind of crude - even though Wikipedia is not about aesthetics --  ShadowJester07  ►Talk  00:01, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

The depth chart format has been updated. Various members, including myself, are going through and updating depth charts like the neglected Bears one, and both updating their format and maintaining them. Pats1 01:55, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
Er, I'm moving it to the 2007 page, I think it seems like it belongs there. It seems more important to add the players and coaches, before breaking down into a speculative template about how the team organizes their players. thanks for updating it though, the older incarnation was hard to look at :-p --  ShadowJester07  ►Talk  06:25, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
All NFL pages have the depth charts on the main page as well as (in most cases) on the specific season pages. Pats1 20:42, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Radio/Local TV

Who does this for Da Bears? WAVY 10 16:09, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

TV varies - Most noon/afternoon games during the season will presented on FOX or CBS, while prime time games were either presented on NBC. Monday night games will be presented by ESPN (ABC for local market), while Thursday night games will be broadcasted on the NFL Network. All games will be on 780 AM. [8] Also take note that the Bears will play 5thier games at 3:15 CST, 6 at Noon, 3 at 7 on Sunday, and 2 games at 7 during the the weekday. --  ShadowJester07  ►Talk  17:21, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
Should have clarified...Local TV and who calls the games. WAVY 10 19:38, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
Networks or announcers? I already said the local networks above (ABC, CBS, NBC, FOX). --  ShadowJester07  ►Talk  21:14, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:ChicagoBears 1000.png

Image:ChicagoBears 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 11:20, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Isn't the Arizona Cardinals franchise actually the oldest? Joel K. 'Jay' Furr 17:00, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:ChicagoBears 1000.png

Image:ChicagoBears 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 18:45, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

The Word packers should be linked to the packers page when citing their fierce rivalry. It's cited in the opposite way on the packers page. As a packers fan I think it would only be fair. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.81.113.60 (talk) 20:53, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Packers is already linked earlier in the same sections that ironically mentions the Packers have won more championships than the Bears. It would be redundant to link it twice. --ShadowJester07 ► Talk 06:28, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:1946Bears.jpg

Image:1946Bears.jpg 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 lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 04:08, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

The Forgotten Down?

Were the Bears one of the teams involved in the game somewhere around 1970 or so that I heard referred to as "The Game of the Forgotten Down"? There was a defensive pass interference penalty called very late in the game, the ball was called back, but the officials did not reset the down counter. As I recall nobody noticed until the game was over. Anyone have any details? --Wspencer11 (talk to me...) 18:11, 8 December 2008 (UTC)


first Franchise to win 700 games

per [8] Bears are 702-515-42. First franchise to win 700 games. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.184.214.36 (talk) 23:16, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Needs some rewriting?

"By 1933 the Bears donned all-orange jerseys with navy numbers and matching black helmets."

How does black match blue or orange? WHPratt (talk) 19:56, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Cleanup needed

I had a quick look at this article, in relation to another team's. I noticed a few things that are needed to bring this up to modern day FA standards:

  • Alt text is needed for the images.
  • A lot of the external links are dead, or do not contain the content they once did. here is a summary of the problems.
  • There is a lot of overlap between the head coaches section and the list it links to. Perhaps it would make more sense to cover the topic as prose here, and let the list focus on the statistical side of it?
  • Even ignoring the deadlinks, significant sections of the article are completely unreferenced. Several paragraphs in the history, uniforms and popular culture sections are unreferenced, as are the retired jerseys.
  • Prose quality isn't my strength, but sentences such as "Over the years, many Bears play-by-play broadcasters have included Jack Brickhouse and Wayne Larrivee." lead me to think that this could do with a copy-edit.

I hope those obervations help, and that we can keep this as a Featured Article. I'll be happy to help out with the alt text and drafting new prose sides of things, if someone in the know is willing to work on the referencing. Regards, WFCforLife (talk) 06:15, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

NFL championships & retired jerseys

While Super Bowls I-IV were not NFL championships, all superbowls since have been. 98.82.190.226 (talk) 09:39, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Okay, I'll concede the point about the jerseys, not because I'm wrong--even a child could see the the placement of that statement about the most jerseys retired constituted a piece of the litany of greatness--but because it's not worth fighting over. But I am insistent on saying that they have nine NFL championships, because that's the fact, Jack. 98.82.190.226 (talk) 21:28, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
Per List of NFL champions, the Super Bowl is not considered an NFL championship; it's a Super Bowl. The previous wording was neutral in that it stated the Bears have 9 championships, 8 being NFL championships and one being the Super Bowl. Eagles 24/7 (C) 21:32, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
I'm not trying to be offensive here, but that's one of the stupidest things I've ever heard.
  • The FIRST sentence of Super Bowl reads: The Super Bowl is the championship game of the National Football League (NFL)
  • If the Super Bowl is not the championship of the NFL, then what is? Are you implying that the #1 sports league in the United States lacks a championship? How disappointed 300 million people will be to learn that.
Look, if that's what Wikipedia's official policy is, then its absurd on its face, and needs to be changed. Won't the sports writers of the world make a laughingstock of us once they learn that the Super Bowl is not an NFL championship in WikiWorld. 98.82.190.226 (talk) 21:47, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
The Super Bowl is an NFL championship, but the pre-Super Bowl championships are just considered "NFL championships" since they were never given an official name like "Super Bowl." Wikipedia is not the only site to use this system, especially considering we don't make things like this up. Eagles 24/7 (C) 21:53, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
Please, do me a favor. Imagine that you know nothing about football--you're just a European sports fan who wants to learn about football. Now read your sentence above:
The Super Bowl is an NFL championship, but the pre-Super Bowl championships are just considered "NFL championships" since they were never given an official name like "Super Bowl."''
Do you think that that makes any sense at all? I can't begin to get my head around that. You also say that Wikipedia is not unique in using this system. Could you point out to me where else this is being used? 98.82.190.226 (talk) 22:01, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
It doesn't matter that a European sports fan can't understand a statement I made to you, you aren't a European sports fan. I will explain what I am saying to you, however. Before the Super Bowl came to be, there was an NFL championship every year that was just called the "NFL championship game." When the NFL and AFL merged, they had a championship game between the NFL champions and the AFL champions called the "Super Bowl." There was still an NFL championship game and an AFL championship game that year (1967), and the winners went against each other in the Super Bowl (Super Bowl I). http://static.nfl.com/static/content/public/image/history/pdfs/History/Chronology.pdf Go to 1960: "Philadelphia defeated Green Bay 17-13 in the NFL Championship Game, December 26." Eagles 24/7 (C) 22:17, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
Oh my god, you are being patronizing. First of all, look at the first sentence of this section. It's quite easy to infer from that sentence that I clearly understand the history you just laid out for me. But more importantly, it does matter about how a European reads the sentence; we are writing for the world, not Eagles, Bears, or Broncos fans. And even I could not understand your sentence, despite the fact that I know the history (and am old enough to have personal memory of it). Your sentence was a tautology, and contributes nothing to clarifying your argument. Look, do you deny that the Bears have won a total of nine NFL championships? If not, then drop it. If so, then explain this: There was a significant change in how the NFL championship was determined in the early 1930s. Not just a name change, but a procedural change. In the early years of the NFL (forgive me if I'm being patronizing, but if you assume that I don't understand the NFL history of the 1960s, then there's nothing wrong with me assuming that you don't know the NFL history of the 1920s and 1930s), the NFL championship was simply based upon the regular season results--there were no playoff games. So do those NFL championships (three by the Packers, if memory serves) count or not? I know, I know, you say I'm missing the point, everyone recognizes that those were NFL championships and should count in the listing of championships, even though it was done differently back then. Well, Eagles, everyone today (except Wikipedia, according to you) recognizes that winning the Super Bowl is winning the NFL championship, and that such wins should count in the list of NFL championships. I assure you, the limited number of teams that have won both pre-merger NFL championships and post-merger NFL championships count both of them in their total. I'm guessing the NFL does as well. And so too should we. 98.82.190.226 (talk) 22:40, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
No, you are the only construing my words now. I provided a link that shows the National Football League recognizes that the NFL Championship Game (please click the link) that was played from 1933 to 1966 is not the same game as the Super Bowl. All of these championship games count, and that is not what we are discussing. The sentence you removed, which explains what the Bears' 9 championships are (all of them counting, of course), is the same as saying "I have nine siblings (8 brothers and one sister)." However, you are removing the parentheses, leaving "The Bears won 9 championships." Wouldn't it make much more sense to include the types of championship (and don't start up the Super Bowl/NFL championship debate again, because it is moot), to add detail to the sentence? Eagles 24/7 (C) 23:21, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
Your siblings analogy was fatally flawed, yet nonetheless, clarifying for me. You say its the same as saying siblings and then breaking it down, but the question is: What term is analogous to "sibling"? Clearly, the all-encompassing term, since it exists both before and after the merger, is the NFL championship. The Packers, for example, were the NFL champions for the 1936 and 1966 and 1996 seasons, right?
Look, imagine a Venn Diagram. For your analogy, there is a set "brothers" and another set "sisters" both inside of a larger set "siblings". That works. But what about football? You want to have one set "NFL championships" and another set "Super Bowls", and place them all inside of "professional American football league championships". Well, that's an admirable attempt, but it's poor for several reasons. 1) there are other "professional American football leagues", but surely you don't want to put this in the same category, 2) there is the possiblity that, given the subject, having the phrase "American football league" could confuse the casual reader who might think this refers to the AFL, and 3), it's just awkwardly phrased (my opinion, obviously). So instead, I see it like this, which is how I've edited it on the page now. Inside the big bubble are ALL the NFL championships. There are two bubbles within--one for pre-merger championships and one for post-merger championships. The post merger championships are the Super Bowls, right? But the winner of these Super Bowls were also NFL champions, right? Now what about the pre-merger championships. You say, these were explicitly "NFL championships, and indeed, they were. But I (and pretty much everyone else on the planet) am asserting that both the pre- and post-merger championships were NFL championships. The problem here is lack of terminology, which you seek to cure through verbal torsion. 98.82.190.226 (talk) 00:05, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
Re: [9]. Very good. 98.82.190.226 (talk) 00:07, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
Yep, looks good now. I didn't write the previous wording (the "professional American football league championships"), but I agree that it was bad wording. Eagles 24/7 (C) 00:12, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
Cooperative debate yields a better article. Ain't Wikipedia the greatest? 98.82.190.226 (talk) 00:30, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Recent additions

The entire "Criticisms" section is undue and, for the most part, only about certain players and not the team as a whole. Furthermore, the New Orleans Saints supposed "rivalry" is without merit. Eagles 24/7 (C) 22:55, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, back then, I saw the "Controversies" section on the Saints page, so I chose to add it in, and I also saw the Bears on the Saints as rivals, so I threw them in as well. ZappaOMati 22:32, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Sources

With the Bears redesigning their website on August 28, 2012, much of the sources from the website ended up becoming redirects to the Bears website home page. As a result, many pages may need heavy reference cleanup. ZappaOMati 22:32, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

1919

The Chicago Bears state that the team was founded in 1920[10], as do the NFL[11], and the Pro Football Hall of Fame[12] If we're going to say that these three authorities are wrong, it ought to be fully substantiated. As it is, there's no citation to support the assertion at all. I'm going to tag it for now - can anybody provide vertifiable, authoritative documentation to support the contention? SixFourThree (talk) 16:38, 28 February 2008 (UTC)SixFourThree


Halas By Halas, by George Halas, Gwen Morgan,& Arthur Veysey, McGraw Hill, 1979 p.53-54 "In March of 1920 a man telephoned me at the railroad office...George Chamberlain and he was general superintendent of the A.E. Staley Company...Three years earlier the company's Fellowship Club had formed a baseball team...In 1919 the Fellowship Club had formed a football team. It had done well against other local teams but Mr. Staley wanted to build it into a team that could compete successfully with the best semi-professional and industrial teams in the country....Mr Chamberlain asked if I would like to come to Decature and work for the Staley Company..."

Revmoran (talk) 23:58, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Apologies for this belated response, but I finally added the quote to the article. Zzyzx11 (talk) 06:09, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

According to Professional Football Researchers Association, it says that the Decatur Staleys was founded at a meeting of the plant welfare society on September 19, 1919. http://www.pfraforum.org/index.php?showtopic=1568&view=findpost&p=18726 Sheenmeister (talk) 09:44, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, but that is a link to the PFRA's discussion forum, not an actual article by the PFRA itself. Posts from any discussion board are not considered reliable sources to use as references to verify facts in Wikipedia articles. How do we know that the first poster who mentioned the September 19 date on that discussion thread is an authoritative member of the PFRA? Looks like some random anonymous poster. There is no indication where he got that information from. We need something more reliable than that post. Zzyzx11 (talk) 16:05, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Split long history into more sections

Per the "major goal" listed — because there have been so few modern Bears coaches, i think it would be a really easy way to break up the Bears Eras by major coaching changes: Halas, Ditka, and Lovie. 1919 to 1970, and 1970 to 2003 as topic headers seems way too expansive. I'd suggest as eras: "1919: The Decatur Staleys", "1920-45: Early Halas Era", "1946-1967: Late Halas Era", "1968-1981: Post-Halas Era", "1982-2003: Ditka & Post-Ditka Era", "2004-2012: Lovie Smith Era", and "Present Bears"? I'm open to discussion, so I'll check back in a few days and, if no protest, proceed to break up the page into those better-defined sub-sections. Thanks guys. Bear Down. StickerMug (talk) 23:05, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

I've renamed some of the sections, though they are rather rough on the edges. Feel free to modify them. ZappaOMati 05:01, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 November 2014

change the team name to polks yaar Booleanpolks (talk) 02:35, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Stickee (talk) 02:43, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 January 2015

general manager = Ryan Pace 38.75.3.70 (talk) 20:28, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Not done: Source provided does not mention Pace.  B E C K Y S A Y L E S  21:28, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Luckman and the Monsters

In the 1940's section, the final sentence about Luckman and records may need some tweaking. Cutler now owns 5 career passing records compared to Luckman's 3 according to List_of_Chicago_Bears_team_records. I'll give it a try and also tweaked the wording on Luckman's page. It might be better to just delete the whole last sentence as no longer accurate. Thoughts?

Iowajason (talk) 16:29, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

I edited the sentence to reflect Cutler's records. I do not know what's harder to believe: The fact that Luckman's records stood for 60+ years, or that they were finally broken by Jay Cutler. :) --  StarScream1007  ►Talk  03:43, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
I used to tell folks that Luckman was the first passing quarterback (with the development of the "T" Formation), and that the Bears hadn't had a good one since! I guess that I was right. WHPratt (talk) 20:34, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
Aw, Jim McMahon and Sexy Rexy Grossman weren't that bad! NFLisAwesome 18:13, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
McMahon was a head case, and Grossman was aptly named.  ;) Blanda and Lujack may have been the best they had to offer in those years! WHPratt (talk) 19:55, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Chicago Bears Owner

As on May 26th, 2015, the Wikipedia page for Chicago Bears football team depicts Sammy Delio as franchise owner: [9]

That's wrong. The owner, from 1983 to present time, is Virginia Halas McCaskey ([10]). You can find it in the 7th parragraph of this article:.[11]

Davidrd7 (talk) 21:24, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

That shows you how bad this page's vandalism is, that it's still around even after the page is protected. Don't worry, I fixed it. Zappa24Mati 22:41, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 29 May 2015

David harder320 (talk) 04:21, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

 Not done No request has been made. Zappa24Mati 04:23, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 24 external links on Chicago Bears. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 20:33, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Chicago Bears. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 22:39, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Chicago Bears. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 08:30, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 11 external links on Chicago Bears. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:20, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Chicago Bears. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:40, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Media Market

This article states, "Chicago is the National Football League's second largest market" under the Ownership article. I'm not quite sure that phrase is accurate. I am assuming they are referring to the television market, in which Chicago is behind New York City and Los Angeles. Should the phrasing in the article be changed to third largest television/media market? I'm also curious if Chicago would be considered the biggest media market since New York City and LA are split between two teams a=piece now. --  StarScream1007  ►Talk  05:50, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

My guess is that's just an outdated sentence. Until the Rams moved back to LA, Chicago was indeed the second largest media market with an NFL team since LA did not have a team. Obviously with the Rams and now the Chargers back in LA, Chicago is the 3rd largest media market in the NFL just like it is overall. --JonRidinger (talk) 17:02, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

Mascots

I changed the Mascots section to information about the Chicago Bears mascot. Does anyone have any questions about this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bearsfan1923 (talk • contribs) 15:02, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

As was pointed out on the first revert of your addition, you copied all the information from Staley Da Bear, so there's no need to repeat it here. Jauerbackdude?/dude. 15:12, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

Why would there not be information on the team's Mascot under the mascot section? There is no reason the information cannot be in two places. The first undo of my revision mentioned the lack of a citation to the internal page from which the information was copied. I did correct that. Bearsfan1923 (talk) 15:39, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

The section already references Staley Da Bear and gives enough context. He has an existing article which is linked in the given section. It is highly frowned upon and considered border-line plagiarism to copy and paste text within Wikipedia without any form of attribution. We do not usually list the same information in two places - especially if the content is copied and pasted from another article. --  StarScream1007  ►Talk  17:08, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

This is a new objection, as your previous objection stated: "While you are welcome to re-use Wikipedia's content, here or elsewhere, Wikipedia's licensing does require that you provide attribution to the original contributor(s)." [12] I added a cite to the content's original page, using your instructions. As for your new objection, "highly frowned upon" and "boderline plagiarism," it is not incorrect to have repeated information but rather "highly frowned upon"; and it is not plagiarism, if it is boderline, although there is now a citation which addresses this issue. The main issue, to me is that the section on Mascots refer to the Chicago Bears Mascot. As it stands, it concerns two fans. These fans are not mascots and should not be in this section (Mascots). I can re-write the copy, while still maintaining a cite to the Staley Da Bear page, if this will further quell any issues with repeated copy, although re-written material would have the same effect; however, the content under Mascots should be about the team's mascot. There is no reason there cannot be a blurb about the team's Mascot on the team's page and another page for the Mascot where additional, new information can be collected. But to use the mascot section for information not about Mascots is incorrect. This information would need another section or page. Bearsfan1923 (talk) 17:27, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

There’s nothing wrong with having information about a subject or topic in multiple places on Wikipedia. That’s not what we were initially arguing. Both Jauerback and I reverted your edits because they contained text that was blatantly copied from another article – not just the prose, but also the reflist, headers, external links. They were not even properly attributed using the Template:Copied and it’s parameters to properly notify where the content came from. If you want to draw attention to the subject of a section, you can also use {{main|}} or {{further|}} templates.
To address your other points – I agree with you that Bearman and Rocky are fans and not official mascots If the other editors feel the same way, we can remove the content and focus on Staley. --  StarScream1007  ►Talk 

A short blurb on Staley with a link to his main page makes sense to me. Bearsfan1923 (talk) 14:13, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

I'm okay with the idea of the proposed changes. More should be said about the actual mascot and less (or nothing at all) about the "mascot fans", but not to the extent of a recreation (copy) of the existing article. Jauerbackdude?/dude. 14:28, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

How about:

Mascots

Main article: Staley Da Bear
Staley Da Bear in 2008.

The team's official mascot, Staley Da Bear, made his debut at Soldier Field in 2003. He is named after A.E. Staley, the team's founder. [13]

Bearsfan1923 (talk) 13:48, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on Chicago Bears. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:06, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

Roster

I think there should be a change to the Roster. Roy Robertson-Harris has moved to DE (from OLB). [14] Bearsfan1923 (talk) 13:34, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

Done. Thanks --  StarScream1007  ►Talk  14:17, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Chicago Bears. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:59, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Chicago Bears. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:32, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 June 2018

2601:248:5180:6DE0:BC9C:45D1:7B91:7A4F (talk) 01:02, 25 June 2018 (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.--QueerFilmNerdtalk 01:03, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

Super Bowl

The Chicago bears won a superbowl in 1985.

It’s in the article. Larry Hockett (Talk) 20:31, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

The Bears won the superbowl against the Patriots in 1985.

206.176.118.34 (talk) 17:38, 26 November 2018 (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. DannyS712 (talk) 17:43, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
To be clear, the Bears won Super Bowl XX, which was played on January 26, 1986. The article is correct. Another user has already pointed out that this is in the article. --  StarScream1007  ►Talk  19:57, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 21 January 2019 and 10 May 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Cclancy471.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 17:21, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Update rivalry head to head records

The Bears-Packers head to head is shown as 95–94–6 which needs to be changed to 97–95–6. The Bears-Vikings record is shown as 60–53–2 which needs to be changed to 60–54–2.

 Done NFLisAwesome (ZappaOMatic) 18:51, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

Shortened Franchise History section

Is there a way to rewrite all that condensed into 3-5 paragraphs? And then it is left as is. Any history expansion is then ported over to the main History of the Chicago Bears article. KyuuA4 (Talk:キュウ) 09:01, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

Factual error

The Green Bay Packers were founded in 1919. The Bears and Cardinals aren't the only two original franchises. GregCMCSE (talk) 03:33, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

@GregCMCSE: "Original franchises" refers to the 14 teams that were part of the NFL during the inaugural season in 1920. While the Packers predates the league's formation, they did not join it until 1921, so they are not considered a charter franchise. Zappa⚡Matic 04:37, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 October 2021

Return owner line from "Aaron Rodgers" back to: owner = Virginia Halas McCaskey[15]

References

  1. ^ See footnote
  2. ^ See footnote
  3. ^ See footnote
  4. ^ See footnote
  5. ^ See footnote
  6. ^ See footnote
  7. ^ See footnote
  8. ^ http://www.profootballhof.com/history/team.aspx?franchise_id=6
  9. ^ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chicago_Bears
  10. ^ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virginia_Halas_McCaskey
  11. ^ http://chicagoist.com/2015/05/26/bears_finally_release_ray_mcdonald.php
  12. ^ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Bearsfan1923#Chicago_Bears
  13. ^ http://www.chicagobears.com/kid-zone/staleys-page/index.html
  14. ^ http://www.chicagotribune.com/sports/columnists/ct-roy-robertson-harris-heat-illness-biggs-spt-0528-20170527-column.html
  15. ^ "Front Office". ChicagoBears.com. NFL Enterprises, LLC. Retrieved September 16, 2021.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: url-status (link)

Topherlopes (talk) 19:56, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

 Already done Vandalism was reverted. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 20:28, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

Extended protected

In case any of you were wondering why this page is extended confirmed locked:

A semi-inactive, autoconfirmed account added vandalism to the page and it got on Twitter and ESPN, which in turn made more inactive accounts (one of them was a sleeper account that hadn't edited since 2009) vandalize the page, so the only solution was to implement extended confirmed protection (the page was already autoconfirmed locked before, but it clearly wasn't helping). wizzito | say hello! 04:08, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

Looks like vandalism has started up again on the page for the current owner of the team, this talk page, and the page for the history of the Bears, and now all of them are semi-protected. This vandalism is unfunny and could potentially get you blocked from editing if you do so. wizzito | say hello! 21:41, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 10 January 2022

Change head coach from Matt Nagy to N/A 128.210.106.49 (talk) 21:14, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 21:17, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

New General Manager

Ryan Poles accepted the job offer for general manager. He is now the general manager of the Chicago Bears. 2600:1008:B025:9771:ED97:F26C:5502:D668 (talk) 18:35, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

While reports say that he has accepted the job, the team has yet to make a formal statement on it. Per WP:SPORTSTRANS, it is advised to wait until official confirmation from the team as there is always a chance—even if highly unlikely in this case—that it falls through. Zappa⚡Matic 20:02, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 27 January 2022

Head Coach Matt Eberflus Bennett.lewin (talk) 16:30, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 16:37, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
As of 10:57AM Central Time, the Bears have yet to officially confirm Eberflus has been hired as their new HC. When it's official from the team, we can add it. (WP:SPORTSTRANS) --  StarScream1007  ►Talk  16:57, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 28 January 2022

Change Head Coach from vacant to Matt Eberflus 73.22.95.105 (talk) 03:20, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

Looks like its already been added. RudolfRed (talk) 06:11, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 18 March 2022

Change "Current season" link from 2021 Chicago Bears season to 2022 Chicago Bears season. Zainnq (talk) 22:45, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

Done. --  StarScream1007  ►Talk  23:51, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 17 July 2022

Under the Top 100 greatest Bears of all-time section, change Devin Hester to style="background-color:#FBCEB1"Devin Hester𝐟

This is to reflect the fact that Devin Hester was named a finalist for the Pro Football Hall of Fame.


Note: you will also need to use a vertical bar in between the two characters "[ in order for it to display properly.

I had to omit it in my request because it kept hiding parts of my message. Consider using the format of the entry for Willie Gallimore or Beattie Feathers as a guide. Mmrh1 (talk) 22:17, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

 Done Changed, but do you have something to say he was a finalist? All that is on his page is that he was nominated last year, so I'm assuming that he was a finalist, not an official hall-of-fame-r. If ya do, put it on that page if you wouldn't mind. SWinxy (talk) 03:17, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

wrong information

change wrong informaton Qwintwick2 (talk) 19:24, 21 September 2022 (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. Cannolis (talk) 21:16, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

The letting go of Mitch Trubisky

I think we should add in the Matt Nagy era that after the 2021 season Mitch Trubisky was let go and that's why the bears selected Justin Fields. Kaner04 (talk) 14:00, 15 November 2022 (UTC)Kaner04 (talk) 13:59, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

Done. Good point and important moment in Nagy's tenure. --  StarScream1007  ►Talk  15:19, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: English 1101 093

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 15 November 2022 and 15 December 2022. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Rfuentes101 (article contribs).

— Assignment last updated by Rfuentes101 (talk) 20:53, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 16 May 2023

please replace the "massive" in front of heart attack with "severe" or just remove it all together. It really does nothing to add to the sentiment beyond "he died hard" which hardly seems necessary. BolshoiBorzoi (talk) 17:47, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

Done. Thanks --  StarScream1007  ►Talk  20:41, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 6 August 2023

I would like to add a logo section to the article near the top to show every previous logo the Chicago Bears have used. Nicocarps (talk) 18:34, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

There is already an article devoted to the Bears logos here: Logos and uniforms of the Chicago Bears but it's missing quite a few.[13]. We could add them to that article, but they would need a proper fair use write up since they are non-free images. --  StarScream1007  ►Talk  18:39, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 10 August 2023

Change the “Logo” to the orange bears head. That’s the Bears’ primary logo now. 2603:8080:C601:D741:1865:B12D:E278:BF27 (talk) 17:57, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

Done. --  StarScream1007  ►Talk  23:00, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

Bears at Commanders: 10/05/2023

On October 5, 2023, the Chicago Bears doubled the scores of the Washington Commanders. Shouldn't we add this to the History section of the page? Hyperoperations (talk) 16:34, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

By that logic, a 6-3 or 14-7 victory would merit inclusion :) A 20-point victory is not really notable. It may be worth mentioning that the Bears snapped a franchise record 14-game losing record.[14], but it's not notable for the score. --  StarScream1007  ►Talk  16:55, 7 October 2023 (UTC)
I just pressed the link, and it says that "the content is only for subscribers" of the Chicago Tribune. What I'm saying is that the website is telling me I need to pay money.
-Hyperoperations (talk) 23:05, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 15 January 2024

Under the year established it says 1920, that's not accurate and should be changed. The Chicago bears are the second oldest team and were founded in 1919 before the Green Bay Packers. Derknasnort (talk) 03:33, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

By the team and league count the start date is in 1920 when they became "pro" team, not 1919 when they were industrial team. The multiple mentions in this and sister articles also mention the de-facto starting date. Ccui123 (talk) 15:55, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
I understand what you're saying but this is not a NFL page, otherwise you should take everything off that was pre-NFL. This is the Chicago Bears page and just like the Arizona Cardinals and Green Bay Packers pages, this page should reflect the date that the team was actually established and not the date they started as an NFL team. The Cardinals were established in 1898 but they joined the NFL in 1920, the Packers were established in 1919 but joined the NFL in 1921. Derknasnort (talk) 16:28, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
As I mentioned, contrary to the other teams you mentioned, the Bears themselves does not considering the 1919 season as part of their history...[1] Although I agree that the 1919 season is part of the team history, the team has a good enough explanation for the exclusion of the 1919 season for it not be considered Historical revisionism. Ccui123 (talk) 16:49, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
I understand that the Chicago Bears don't claim the 1919 season, that is irrelevant, their team still was still established in 1919 which is the point I am making. It has nothing to do with that season of football. It has everything to do with that they had in fact established the football team in 1919, professional or not, that is now known as the Chicago Bears. In the article you linked it only says that they don't recognize that season, it says nothing about the fact that they don't recognize that their team was established in 1919. Derknasnort (talk) 17:05, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
I'll let others chime in, but pro teams history is sometimes messy. The "Bears" were considered a "new" team by the league in 1922 when they changed the name (and all their players were considered FA's). The year before Green Bay Packers were expelled by the league and registered as a different club ("The Blues"). There's also loose connection between the Frankford Yellow Jackets and the Philadelphia Eagles, while the Baltimore Colts had connection to the original Texans, etc. (and don't let me start about the teams in the CFL). As I see it, the 1920 "start" year is a good compromise (for lack of a better word). Ccui123 (talk) 19:40, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
Again, you keep bringing up pro teams and "the league" and seem to not be able to get past that these teams existed independently of pro football, neither of these things matter in any way when it comes to when the Chicago Bears were established in 1919, which there is not a single piece of evidence to prove otherwise. You seem to be making this much more convoluted than it actually is, there is nothing messy about the fact that both of the other two teams around at that time also recognize that they were the second team established in 1919 before the Packers. Also, the article says that the team was founded on September 20, 1920, and then became a professional team on September 17, 1920. So, the team became a professional team 3 days before it was founded? Derknasnort (talk) 20:59, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
Who's to establish the connection to the 1919 team? You and me? The HOF historians? Other historians? As I mentioned, the 1922 team was newly registered team by the league, on later date the NFL decided there's a connection between the 1920-1921 teams to the newly form Bears, as they decided differently about the Yellow Jackets-Eagles and Colts-Texans; like I said it's massy... This issue exist for other leagues as well, with newly formed Arena teams or recently with the USFL teams. Again, you and I thinking the same - the 1919 season in part of the Bears history - but there's no one of note who said it publicly, and we can't go by original research. Regarding the exact date - you're probably right. Ccui123 (talk) 21:12, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ "why the Bears never considered the 1919 season as an official season in their records".

Date confusion

"The franchise was founded in Decatur, Illinois, on September 20, 1920, and became professional on September 17, 1920" - the franchise became professional three days BEFORE being founded......? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:37, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

It seems the bit about "became professional" was added in this edit. I think this is a typo by the editor. The Bears began playing football on September 20, 1919.[15][16] The team joined a pro league (The precursor to the NFL) on September 17, 1920.[17] --  StarScream1007  ►Talk 
@Tails Wx:, I think, based on this, we should add this back to the main article and List of Chicago Bears first-round draft picks. I guess someone just mistakenly changed the date from 1919 to 1920 at some point. Hey man im josh (talk) 13:15, 29 January 2024 (UTC)
Ok, sounds good. I also was confused at that fact and presumed that it was founded and became professional on September 17, 1920 per the bearswire.usatoday.com source...good find! ~ Tails Wx (he/him • aroace • 🐾) 13:22, 29 January 2024 (UTC)
That's the date that the NFL was founded and the Bears were a founding member, so that's the date they turned professional. Hey man im josh (talk) 13:38, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 8 February 2024

Typo. 78.174.52.181 (talk) 16:50, 8 February 2024 (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. Shadow311 (talk) 17:12, 8 February 2024 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Chicago_Bears/Archive_1&oldid=1241678575"