Talk:San Francisco 49ers/Archive 1

Archive 1

External Links

I don't think a fan page contains any relevant information, not when there is an official site. --Feitclub 03:08, Sep 26, 2004 (UTC)

Incorrect. An "official site" gives you only the company line, and avoids speculation, criticism, and negatives regarding an organization. While the 49er fan sites may not be particularly controversial, consider the significant differently viewpoints available between the Bengals official site and MikeBrownSucks.com several years ago.--Valwen 06:16, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

The link does not violate any of WIKIPEDIA's guidelines...

"Bullying, or stubbornness: Some users cannot come to agreement with others who are willing to talk to them on an article's talk page, and repeatedly make changes opposed by everyone else. This is a matter of regret — you may wish to see our dispute resolution pages to get help. However, it is not vandalism. "

"Spam Adding inappropriate external links "

The link is very appropriate, right on topic in fact, it is only placed once and does not go against any of the guidelines of wikipedia...

Additionaly it offers plenty of information not available on the "official" 49ers page. Including newspaper articles from every major bay area newspaper, a 5 person writing team that writes original articles, more detailed statistics than the official page, as well as a more in-depth history, biography, download, chat and interactive section. Most 49ers fans find this site a nice compliment and in some cases an even more useful site than the official site. It is visited by over 5000 people a day.

In other words just because some people don't find it useful, does not mean others will not find it useful too.

Request for Comment

I've mentioned this on Wikipedia:Requests for comment, so we'll see what "others" think. --Feitclub

I have altered your comment next to the link to follow the guidelines mentioned on that page: "Please add a brief, neutral statement of the issue involved. Don't list arguments for or against any position, or try to assign blame for the dispute. Don't sign entries, just link to the appropriate page." The pre-editted statement clearly expressed your bias.

I guess we will see what others have to say over the coming days etc. In the mean time, please leave the link up as it is the only way others can truly determine its validity

User:24.103.63.56

Fair enough. --Feitclub 04:29, Sep 27, 2004 (UTC)

Just looking at the NFC teams, the Cardinals, Eagles, 49ers, and Redskins articles link to fan sites, the Giants' article links to an NFL page, and all of the teams' articles link to their official sites. It seems to me that the link can stay, but should be included below the official site. Gentgeen 04:58, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)

The fan site seems to be a pretty good one. I don't see any reason why it can't stay. --Lowellian 21:46, Sep 27, 2004 (UTC)

There is absolutely no reason to exclude external links to important fan sites for any topic, especially NFL teams. Fans are what makes such topics notable in the first place! The official NFL team websites are generally high-quality, but in almost every case, there's information about the teams out there that the official sites fail to cover. Getting outside views is always a good thing. Additionally: fan sites frequently have large forums with less conservative moderation. Also a good thing for our purposes (presenting the whole picture instead of a POV), and a useful resource to our readers.

This raises the question: is 49ersparadise.com an important fan site? To answer it, look to Alexa traffic rankings. 49ersparadise.com's ranking is 1,485,171 [1]. Compare that to the Alexa rankings for some of the other major NFL fan sites:

• 49erswebzone.com, 94,730 [2] (San Francisco 49ers)
• hailredskins.com, 178,642 [3] (Washington Redskins)
• purplepride.org, 877,630 [4] (Minnesota Vikings)
• theboys.com, 1,123,468 [5] (Dallas Cowboys)

All four of the above are the #1 non-official, non-ESPN Google hits when searching for the team name. 49ersparadise.com is not the #1 Google hit, but it has a somewhat respectible Alexa ranking (though on the lower end of the spectrum).

Bottom line: Should it 49ersparadise.com linked from our article? Probably. Should major fan sites in general be included? Absolutely; 49erswebzone.com for one. • Benc • 23:35, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Just to followup, one of the reason's that the alexa rating for 49ers Paradise is not higher is because until very recently the site used the URL *www.49ersparadise.cjb.net now with the new URL *www.49ersparadise.com it will take some time for the Alexa and google ratings to 'even' themselves out between the URLs

Improvement drive

National Football League is currently a candidate on WP:IDRIVE. Vote for it if you are interested in contributing.--Fenice 20:03, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

They "have never lost a Super Bowl"

I never understood why they "have never lost a Super Bowl" is notable. Could somebody explain to me why it is so? The same could be said about the Jets, the Bears, the Ravens, and the Buccaneers. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 19:34, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

I suppose it is just a bit of trivia, so I will not restore it, but I think it's a bit more notable for a team like the Niners, who are 5-0, since there's a long undefeated tradition. It also serves to differentiate them from the Cowboys, who are 5-3 lifetime in Super Bowls. Simishag 20:02, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

The Cowboys article already differentiates from the 49ers: Dallas holds the record for most Super Bowl appearances at 8; that is a notable record to mention. But it has never been clear to me why the Niners going undefeated in the Super Bowl is notable in itself. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 21:03, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

The 49ers are the only team undefeated in the Super Bowl to have won it more than once. I suppose that is what is notable.

It is noteable. Being the first team to achieve 5 super bowl victories and being the only team to do it with no loses is one of the major feats of the team, and in american football itself. Sports reporters even started using the term "King of the Super Bowls" or similar phrases when talking about the 49er's because of this (at least until the cowboys finally caught up later in the 90's). So, this is a very significant point. It needs to be added back, though properly stated. Fcsuper 23:05, 6 November 2006 (UTC)fcsuper

The Steelers are also undefeated with more than one Super Bowl win

Steelers have lost one super bowl to the cowboys. In fact, I didn't see any media hype for it that year, but it was the game that would've given either the cowboys or the steelers their fifth super bowl victory Fcsuper 22:54, 6 November 2006 (UTC)fcsuper

Greg Cook and Walsh

Walsh was a disciple of Paul Brown and as Brown's offensive coordinator with the Cincinnati Bengals created an offensive strategy that made star quarterbacks out of average talent such as Greg Cook, Virgil Carter and Ken Anderson. The problem with this statement is that Cook had enormous talent, and may have been the most talented quarterback ever to play the game. He led the NFL in just about every passing category as a rookie, and he did it using a vertical-passing attack created by Walsh. Walsh didn't come up with the "West Coast Offense" until after Cook suffered a career-ending injury. That made Carter the starter, and Carter had a weak arm that forced Walsh to design an offense based around the short-passing game. In short, Greg Cook is a major figure behind Walsh's offense, but not in the way this paragraph suggested.

an odd thing to say

"Currently, the club is the city's only "home grown" sports franchise, although the nearby San Jose Sharks are also home grown and are sometimes considered a local team to San Francisco."

This is silly. Although the sentence mentions the Sharks, it fails to mention the other home-grown pro Football team in the bay area, the Raiders. Now perhaps the word 'pro' is a bit of stretch for the Raiders at the moment, but still, seems to me that if one mentions a semi-major sports team that's 50 miles away, one should also mention a pro-franchise that resides within a 5 mile radius of the team at issue. The entire bit of trivia is a stretch anyway, seeing as how there are only 2 pro teams in San Fransisco proper, but if it's going to be mentioned, you have mention the Raiders too.

But the Raiders aren't considered their team. The Sharks once played in the Cow Palace before going to San Jose, and there's the connection. On another note, who allowed someone to vandalize the Santa Clara section by saying Borat planned to move the 49ers to Kazakhstan?

"But the Raiders aren't considered their team". Says you. Produce a reference please. As for tenous sharks cow palace connection, the Raiders used to play in keszar Stadium(former home of the 49ers and located in the middle of San Fransisco). This one is a loser. I'm taking it out.

The fact that the Raiders moved for years from the Bay Area eliminates them from the contest.

The 49ers are the FIRST homegrown team in the bay area. That's what you most likely read as "only" homegrown team...!

West Coast Offense

The comments regarding West Coast Offense are not point of facts, but are rather argumentive as to what the term means. Instead of arguing the point, the paragraph should state the origins of both uses of the term and how they've been applied to the 49ers style of play.

The 49ers are the FIRST homegrown team in the bay area! That's most likely what you read as "only" homegrown team...!

article not very good....

Does anyone else feel this way?

The article was clearly written by fans, and that's ok, only it sort of shows, and its to the detriment of the article. I don't think we should be using the word miraculous, but that's sort of emblematic of the sort of embarassing enthusiasm that informs the entire article.

No one disagree?

-- Agreed. Expressions like "Glory Days", "Montana led a magnificent rally" etc. are rampant. I'm new but this might drive me to learn how to edit wikipedia.

OJ Simpson

The Simpson article says he played for the 49ers in his last two seasons starting 1978. This says he was pro bowl 49ers in 1985, and that is the year he was inducted into the NFL hall of fame. 69.253.121.205 01:42, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

He was a Pro Bowler in 1975, but retired by '85. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by SFGiants (talk • contribs) 22:44, 10 December 2006 (UTC).

I think '85 was when OJ went to the Hall of Fame

WAVY 10 22:50, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Dianne Feinstein

Could someone provide a link or a reference to the comment concerning Dianne Feinstein preventing the team from retaining San Francisco in their name? This is the first I've heard of this.

A link is here: [6]. I'll add the reference. ¿ςפקιДИτς! ☺ ☻ 00:06, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Is there really any need for her to compose a bill like this?

WAVY 10 22:49, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Super Bowl

I didnt see it when I read it, maybe I missed it but ESPN.com's "Page 2" just named the 1989 49ers the greatest Super Bowl team ever (#1 on the list of 80 possible Super Bowl teams) has this been added, and should it be added? Just curious - 203.205.124.12 09:00, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Jerry Rice, Where are you in that article!?

How can an article about the 1980s and 1990s 49ers only mention the name of Jerry Rice twice, once being about missed fumble call against the Packers?! 3 touchdowns in two different superbowls, over 1800 yards and 22 TDs in a strike shortened season (both current NFL records for recieving yards and TDs in a single season). Superbowl MVP. Greatest Reciever of All-Time. How do you miss this stuff!?!?! How can you talk about the 49ers and not mention Jerry Rice!?! 155.91.45.231 16:18, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Free agent signings

There should now be some mentioning of the team's recent acquisitions: Nate Clement, Michael Lewis, and a few others I think. Darn, the Niners haven't meant business like this in quite a while. -Amit, 03/03/07

Uniform Rumor

There's something mentioned about a rumor the Niners may revert to the 1980's era appearance. Even if it's true (which I hope it is, even though I'm a Steeler fan), it shouldn't be here unless it's able to be confirmed. WAVY 10 18:04, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Failed "good article" nomination

This article failed good article nomination. This is how the article, as of June 15, 2007, compares against the six good article criteria:

1. Well written?: Entire history section is written as proseline. This section is also proseline. San_Francisco_49ers#Move_out_of_San_Francisco needs a copyedit, some statements are repeated, such as "York later confirmed in a press conference on 9 November that the team will move to Santa Clara...." I'm not sure if all the season records are needed either. San_Francisco_49ers#Radio_and_television should be moved up, expanded, and sourced.

2. Factually accurate?: Only 3 references? For an article that long, there should be a lot more sources. I suggest tagging sections with {{fact}} and having someone go through it. Current roster definitely needs a source, so does current staff.

3. Broad in coverage?: Very ;)

4. Neutral point of view?: Statements like "in a game that wasn't as close as the score suggests." are POVed unless cited. As mentioned above, that's not cited. "Despite this, the Cowboys had one last chance to win. And indeed, on the first play of the next possession..." again, needs NPOV work. Countless more examples. I suggest you get someone from WP:LOCE to check it out.

5. Article stability? Appears to suffer from some vandalism, but that's understandable. I'm not suggesting protection yet, but you might want to have more people watching it.

6. Images?: Need fair use rationales. WP:FURG

When these issues are addressed, the article can be resubmitted for consideration. If you feel that this review is in error, feel free to take it to a GA review. Thank you for your work so far. — - G1ggy ^Talk/_Contribs 05:49, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

For the images, fair use rationales need to be added to the logos and any other copyrighted images. --Nehrams2020 06:00, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Indeed they do....I was just testing you :P Added to review. - G1ggy ^Talk/_Contribs 09:13, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Request for Comment

July 5th 2007 - I think it would be appropriate to mention where booster club / tailgating venues etc could be found for the team. Stuff like http://www.sf49ers.com/fanzone/booster_clubs.php?section=FZ%20Booster%20Clubs and ultimatetailgater.com where would this be appropriate?

Nowhere. That material isn't encyclopedic. But thanks for asking. Pats1 02:42, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

2007 Season

I wonder if the 49ers will wear a patch or decal to honor the recent passing of former coach Bill Walsh? WAVY 10 15:54, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes. It was on a local news program this morning, but I can't remember which chanel. They'll put a black oval sticker with the initials "BW" on the back of the helmets. Gentgeen 17:02, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

I added the pictures uniforms today which were all my own creation (crude though they may be) that hopefully will be a good visual reference on the evolution of the team's uniform. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Buonaparte69 (talk • contribs) 07:32, August 26, 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:SanFrancisco49ers 1000.png

Image:SanFrancisco49ers 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 03:55, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

what about the cheerleaders (goldrush)

no nfl football team is even exceptable without the cheerleaders I meen they are freaking awesome!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

oh and put in a lot of pictures that would be awesome!!!!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.15.155.162 (talk) 04:17, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Lal Heneghan

Unless the person who is adding Lal Heneghan as GM of the Niners has some new source to name, Nolan is acting as HC/GM of the team. Hence the comment by the teams owner that they would like to hire a GM, and remove that power from Mike Nolan. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zsiddique (talk • contribs) 02:16, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Balance, anybody?

In reading this article, I am struck by the unevenness of the coverage of the history of the team as there is almost as most space devoted to the years 1970-1972 (which, compared to over three year spans for the team, is rather nondescript) as for the first 24 seasons of the team's existence. The years 1946-1949 are far more noteworthy (especially in light that in 1948 the 49ers had only two losses in a full double round robin AAFC schedule but couldn't participate in the championship game because both losses were to the undefeated Browns!). There are no mentions of stars or coaches in the team's early years (no Y.A. Tittle, no Joe Perry, no Joe Vetrano, no Hugh McElhenny, no Buck Shaw... and Frankie Albert is mentioned only in terms of the death of a player that he coached after his days as a star quarterback were over). It is as if the 49ers did not have any noteworthy players prior to 1957 when it is clearly not the case.

Other periods in the team's history get the short shrift while some (more recent years, 1981, and the infamous 1970-1972) are much too detailed for such a general reference as Wikipedia. Each year should be treated the same, with the same detached objectivity and writing style from beginning to the end.

A major suggestion for those who truly want an excellent article here: start an article covering the AAFC edition of the 49ers and put a summary in this one as a separate section; trim this article and organize it decade-by-decade; include all key players and coaches of each decade (omission of members of the Pro Football Hall of Fame who played for the 49ers in each decade's summary is an avoidable embarrassment); create a more comprehensive history of the logo and uniforms (in 1946 a different color scheme was used - whipcord white and cardinal[7]) and have it as a stand-alone article; and remove from the article any and all sections that are sufficient enough to stand on their own.

Pardon the length of this... but I hope this helps. 147.70.242.40 (talk) 21:56, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

WP:SODOIT? I never noticed previously that the current pov tag on the article was added in conjunction with this post. I'm removing it the tag. This isn't a pov issue so much as just lack of detail in specific areas. --Sesameball^Talk 22:07, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Archive 1

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:San Francisco 49ers/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

12 images, 38 citations. JJ98 (Talk) 21:18, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Last edited at 21:18, 21 August 2014 (UTC). Substituted at 15:45, 1 May 2016 (UTC)