Jump to content

Talk:Super Bowl XLVIII

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

Booth announcers

[edit]

Added Mike Pereira to the list of announcers who has been confirmed to be in the booth with Joe Buck and Troy Aikman. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.19.73.151 (talk) 20:37, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas

[edit]

A lot of the game recap just says "Thomas" without regards to which of the two Thomases on the Denver roster is being referred to. 2605:6000:EF13:6000:9528:691B:311E:F7A (talk) 21:51, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment

[edit]

How is showing United States commercials a violation of Canadian Federal Law74.101.124.213 (talk) 20:41, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

I don't know how to but I think that if someone could, please at least put up the official Super Bowl XLVIII logo. I saw it on http://www.metlifestadium.com/ but I don't know how to put it on here. JuggaloDan2013 (talk) 01:46, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The only logo I have seen so far (which is on the metlifestadium site) is the host committee logo, with the suspension bridge and the snowflake,[1] NOT the official logo with the Lombardi trophy, which has been the standard look for the past few years.[2] Zzyzx11 (talk) 05:12, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It's also up on sportslogos.net, so if you're interested in the logo go to http://news.sportslogos.net/2013/03/16/super-bowl-xlviii-logo-features-more-localization. NintendoFan (Talk, Contribs) 19:58, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

coupon drop down advertisements

[edit]

i'm not sure if it can be DI5ABLED in my browser or elsewhere, but instead of the usual mouse-over feature that i frequently use within wikipedia, i am now getting C0UPON DROP DOWN ADVERTISEMENTS. can someone please explain to me why this is happening and how to change it? i'd really appreciate the A5SISTANCE. each word with a number in it originally appeared as the exact thing i am having problems with. that is why i added numbers.

On Microsoft IE with other similar problems, I've had some success going to [Tools] along the top and then from the drop-down menu, picking either [Pop-up Blocker] or [Manage add-ons]. FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 03:48, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Local mayors threating to withhold emergency services? (February 2013)

[edit]
Because they were likely to take a financial bath. Now, this was a story from back in February 2103, a year before the scheduled Superbowl. Hopefully, it's been resolved, but it probably is something we should include. FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 03:42, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Mayors resisting Super Bowl cost, NorthJersey.com, MICHAEL COPLEY, STAFF WRITER, Saturday, February 9, 2013.

"A faction of Meadowlands District mayors is threatening to withhold police and other emergency services for next year’s Super Bowl at MetLife Stadium, saying they’ve been little compensated for the mounting cost of municipal services at past stadium events. . . "

page 2:

" . . . While we are forced to lay off police officers, the owners of the Jets and Giants are filling their pockets at taxpayers’ expense."

Secaucus, Carlstadt mayors threaten to withhold emergency services during Super Bowl, Pro Football Talk, Mike Florio, February 12, 2013.

' . . . Carlstadt mayor William Roseman said, referring to the Jets and Giants. “The teams don’t care about budget caps and what the impacts are on the taxpayers of Carlstadt. I had to cut back my police department budget by a total of a million dollars over the last several years. While we are forced to lay off Police Officers, the owners of the Jets and Giants are filling their pockets at taxpayers’ expense.” . . . '

MIDWEEK BRIEFS, Hudson Reporter, Feb 14, 2013.

" . . . MEADOWLANDS -- Secaucus Mayor Michael Gonnelli and four other mayors from the Meadowlands region are refusing to offer municipal services during the Super Bowl 2014 and will not provide any police, fire, or any other municipal services, they have said. . . "

WP:WORDPRECEDENT

[edit]

I deleted the flags of the countries whose broadcasting stations hold rights to televise the game. I was asked which part of MOS:FLAG I was relying on. It's under the headings of Flags/ Avoiding flag problems/Appropriate use. The shortcut is WP:WORDPRECEDENT:

Flag icons may be relevant in some subject areas, where the subject actually represents that country, government, or nationality – such as military units, government officials, or national sports teams. In lists or tables, flag icons may be relevant when the nationality of different subjects is pertinent to the purpose of the list or table itself. Words as the primary means of communication should be given greater precedence over flags and flags should not change the expected style or layout of infoboxes or lists to the detriment of words.

  • These broadcast entities do not represent their countries. Each is a single broadcast entity that competes with others in the same country. In some cases, they actually compete with the country's official government broadcaster. I.e. BBC and Sky Sports - The former is the government representative. The latter most assuredly is not. It's explicitly a competitor to the government representative. Similarly, the Brazilian government owned station is Empresa Brasil de Comunicação. ESPN Brasil is the competitor to the government representative.
  • These broadcat entities are in no way similar to the examples given for appropriate use: "...military units, government officials, or national sports teams..."
  • "Words as the primary means of communication should be given greater precedence over flags..." which is why the shortcut is called WP:WORDPRECEDENT.

Please discuss this to see if we can forge a consensus. David in DC (talk) 12:10, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

seems reasonable. Frietjes (talk) 18:15, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I preface my comment by saying that I am really a neutral messenger. I was not the first to initiate putting flag icons here. I was replicating what is already on the previous Super Bowl articles dating back to the Super Bowl XLI page. My question is how this reasoning is different from, for example, List of 2012 Summer Olympics broadcasters or List of 2014 Winter Olympics broadcasters? Would it be different if it was re-formated to a table instead of a bullet list like those Olympic broadcasters pages? Granted the list on this page is not long now, but it could be as long as those Olympic broadcasters lists. Based on the page histories, apparently the use of flag icons on these Super Bowl pages was initiated be a newbie who wanted to replicate those Olympic broadcaster pages, but did not have the expertise in wiki markup code to create a table (of course that was before the VisualEditor). Again, please answer my question, because even if you remove the flag icons now, it will not stop another newbie in the future from trying to add it back, and I'm unwilling to revert and remove the flags again without a sufficient rebuttal to the newbies' "what about article x?" argument (unless, of course, you gain consensus to also remove the flag icons from those Olympic broadcaster articles too). Zzyzx11 (talk) 02:57, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS isn't really a reason to keep things as clearly outside the MOS as this here. It's much more a reason to start cleaning things up, or to reach a new consensus on the relevant MOS page. David in DC (talk) 03:46, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

All I'm saying, from a practical point of view, is that if there is only consensus here to remove the flags on this page, it will be hard for me to enforce it six months from now (or even in February 2014 when the Super Bowl game is being held, and all the recentism edits will hit this article) while there is no specific consensus for this issue yet on MOS:ICON, and it conflicts with consensus on other similar pages. So, yes, I am recommending that you might as well initiate further discussions on WT:MOSICON. Thanks. Zzyzx11 (talk) 04:02, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I agree flags should be removed ,but maybe this is an issue for WikiProject National Football League in order to achieve con for all 40 odd super bowl articles? Gnevin (talk) 11:08, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Super Bowl Logo

[edit]

This needs to be the logo

http://i.nflcdn.com/static/site/5.19/img/superbowl/48/sb-header-bg.png — Preceding unsigned comment added by SancLunatic (talk • contribs) 20:15, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Roman Numerals

[edit]

The Roman Empire　fell a while ago and XLVIII is a meaningless string of letters to most people. Would it kill us to write 48 when we mean 48? Oh wait - does the Vatican have a team in this year? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Plain jack (talk • contribs) 21:24, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Actually most people know how to read roman numerals, it is something commonly learned in school. But no I would never be in favor of switching all the XLVIII's to 48's. You can probably get away with putting "(48)" after the first couple XLVIII'S, but nothing more.Zdawg1029 (talk) 16:51, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Playoffs

[edit]

Does anyone think it is worth adding this below to this page:

Within each conference, the four division winners and the top two non-division winners with the best overall regular season records) qualified for the playoffs. The four division winners are seeded 1–4 based on their overall won-lost-tied record, and the wild card teams are seeded 5–6. The NFL does not use a fixed bracket playoff system, and there are no restrictions regarding teams from the same division matching up in any round. In the first round, dubbed the wild-card playoffs or wild-card weekend, the third-seeded division winner hosts the sixth-seed wild card, and the fourth seed hosts the fifth. The 1 and 2 seeds from each conference received a first-round bye. In the second round, the divisional playoffs, the number 1 seed hosts the worst-surviving seed from the first round (seed 4, 5, or 6), while the number 2 seed will play the other team (seed 3, 4, or 5). The two surviving teams from each conference's divisional playoff games met in the respective AFC and NFC Conference Championship games, hosted by the higher seed. Although the Super Bowl, the championship round of the playoffs, is played at a neutral site, the designated home team is based on an annual rotation by conference.[1]

Playoff seeds
Seed AFC NFC
1 Denver Broncos (West winner) Seattle Seahawks (West winner)
2 New England Patriots (East winner) Carolina Panthers (South winner)
3 Cincinnati Bengals (North winner) Philadelphia Eagles (East winner)
4 Indianapolis Colts (South winner) Green Bay Packers (North winner)
5 Kansas City Chiefs (wild card) San Francisco 49ers (wild card)
6 San Diego Chargers (wild card) New Orleans Saints (wild card)


But just this, not the bracket, just to show who was on the path to the Super Bowl. And also above the table add the "main article: 2013-2014 playoffs" linkZdawg1029 (talk) 16:50, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

First time former divisional rivals have met in the Super Bowl

[edit]

No it isn't. The Bucs and Raiders were in the same division in the Bucs' inaugural season in 1976, then played in Super Bowl XXXVII. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.54.59.91 (talk) 12:41, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Edit conflict needs resolving

[edit]

These 4 edits of January 20 17:15 and 17:20 (UTC) by Ulric1313 and other editors were over-written by the edit of January 20, 18:14. Changes to the section Seattle Seahawks were lost. Consider re-integrating these lost changes into the article. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 19:22, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Mass Transit Super Bowl into main article?

[edit]
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
The result of this discussion was to not merge. The response to this request has been of full opposition. WP:SNOW Gloss • talk 18:28, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Should Mass Transit Super Bowl be merged with this article? I'm not certain that I fully understand the purpose or notability of the stand-alone article as currently written. For example, there is a similar Transportation section within 2014 Winter Olympics#Transportation, but not a robust stand-alone article noting all of the methods, schedules, and transit options associated with the event. UW Dawgs (talk) 01:35, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The two articles very different in the their focus, one about the sports event, the other about transportation in the region hosting it. The particulars about the Mass Transit Super Bowl are unique and extensive, and the article is 25,000 characters long already. A merge would overwhelm the Super Bowl (article now at 43,000) and make it way to long once expanded after the game. Djflem (talk) 01:47, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose: "Mass Transit Super Bowl" is a unique concept that focuses around getting more than 70 percent of the spectators to and from the Super Bowl plus the management of mobility for 400,000 fans to 1.5 million hangers-on during the Super Bowl Week. It is a shift (at least for this particular venue) in the Super Bowl culture toward mass transit as the preferred transportation option. It is such a notable concept that the name is given. The topics around the concept (not about the Super Bowl) are specifically discussed on mainstream media, [3], [4], [5], [6] and the list goes on... It was even a showcase in a transportation conference [7]. So, don't merge them. If the article as currently written doesn't provide a clear understanding, rewrite it, don't just merge. Z22 (talk) 05:10, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The lead section has been changed to clarify the point. Z22 (talk) 05:57, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think the Mass Transit Super Bowl article should not be merged with the main Super Bowl article. The Mass Transit Super Bowl is a good standalone article with a wealth of good information available on the different ways of getting to the super bowl. Carriearchdale (talk) 01:54, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Five people, including myself, the creator of the article, have edited the piece; three have have expressly said merge is not preferred. Have removed one-sided tag. Djflem (talk) 11:43, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose: Information can be condensed and covered in the main article. Wikipedia is not a travel guide. I also object to the alleged consensus because most of the people who have "expressly said" are either from or have edited NJ/NYC-related articles, giving an undue weight towards the opinions of residents in this discussion. ViperSnake151  Talk  17:31, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You oppose the merge? Djflem (talk) 21:11, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Using the known WP:BIAS as the only basis for discrediting certain editors who try to get consensus as WP:UNDUE is counter productive. We know that the majority of editors are from the United States. According to your logic, when there is a consensus being developed on an article related to the United States, we should somehow discredit those US editors without using the actual merit of their arguments? Additionally, common sense tells me that editors who usually edit a certain subject would be likely to participate in a discussion about that subject. So, according to your logic, let's say there are editors who like to edit about candies and there is a discussion about an article about candies, then those editors should be automatically discredited because it is an undue weight? They should all be banned from any discussion about candies because any consensus would be automatically considered as "alleged consensus"? My point is, if there are evidences of undue weight, give examples to point those out and discuss those specifics. Don't just assume it will be always undue weight only by the nature of the editors who are willing to participate in the discussion. We should always practice the principal of assuming good faith to honor the integrity of the editors. Z22 (talk) 23:17, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose-Besides the length, subject matter is too digressive. One article is about a sports game, the other about a transportation concept inspired by the game involving geography, mobility, transit & traffic planning, etc.specific to idiosyncrasies of the most densely populated metro area in North America. The concept of the first Mass Transit Super Bowl (MTSB) is significant not only because of its impetus. The Tri-State Area (NY-NJ-CT) has the highest rates of population density and public transportation use in North America. The system is complex and limited in its integration due to geography and administration. With the MTSB, a number of significant new approaches were introduced: a new regional transit map, Amtrak stopping at Secaucus, a westbound Lincoln Tunnel XBL, NJ-bound buses using alternative Manhattan boarding locations, among them. It also represents another effort by the transportation agencies to work collectively and highlights the intensity of Hudson River crossings which are maxing out. Djflem (talk) 07:34, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Semi-protected edit request on 30 January 2014

[edit]

Add to Pregame: "Before the National Anthem is sung, Queen Latifah and the New Jersey Youth Chorus will sing America the Beautiful." 98.221.11.188 (talk) 18:21, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

 Done, though you should provide a reference for it, otherwise it may be taken down. Epicgenius (talk) 23:27, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 31 January 2014

[edit]

Please change "Snipers have a better angle then anyone who is on the ground to actually hit that target." to "Snipers have a better angle than anyone who is on the ground to actually hit that target." Ologic (talk) 01:04, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Partly done: I looked that over and wound up rewriting most of the section. Part of said rewrite removed the sentence in question. Thanks, --ElHef (Meep?) 02:49, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 31 January 2014

[edit]

Don't forget to add info onto the page in reference to the wind simulations they will be showing on your screen during the football game. I believe the companies name is Autodesk. 108.8.194.47 (talk) 15:52, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not done: please make your request in a "change X to Y" format. Also please make sure to include reliable sources with your requested edit. --ElHef (Meep?) 01:32, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Remove merge tag at the top of this article for a bit?

[edit]

I'd like to remove the link from the article to the merge discussion. Given the visibility of the article over the next week or so, I don't think it's a good idea to have the very start of the article be a maintenance issue during that time. Per WP:BRD I did so and was reverted. Hoping to quickly get consensus one way or another on removing the tag for a week or so. Thanks. Hobit (talk) 16:48, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think there is ever a reason to temporary remove the merge tag when there is no concensus on it. Per WP:MERGE, in order to get a quick closure, an editor who hasn't involved in the discussion like yourself would make a judgement that the consensus is obvious and there is not much controversy. Then the consensus is consider reached and the merge discussion is concluded. That person would put a note on the conclusion of the merge discussion and the tags on both articles would be removed. If the consensus is not obvious, then the discussion would be left open (and the tags are preserved on the articles) for up to 30 days for other editors to participate in the discussion. Z22 (talk) 23:54, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 31 January 2014

[edit]

Request to add the alternate officials for the Super Bowl. Check prior Super Bowls for info (if needed).

Alternate Referee - Clete Blakeman Alternate Umpire - Paul King Alternate Flank - Greg Bradley Alternate Deep - James Coleman Alternate Back Judge - Terrence Miles Snave59 (talk) 19:42, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not done for now: A reliable source is needed in order to add this to the article. I'm finding this information in a couple of places so I don't doubt its accuracy, but what I'm finding are all forum posts and not reliable. Is there a reputable news article or press release or somesuch that backs this up? --ElHef (Meep?) 01:44, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

>> Pro Gamblers Profit by Amateurs Wagering on Super Bowl Overtime(Lihaas (talk) 14:36, 2 February 2014 (UTC)).[reply]

Background: Winter outlook

[edit]

In the article, under "Background" and in the Winter outlook section, two things should be noted. First, according to USA Today (http://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/nfl/super/2014/02/01/super-bowl-tickets-nfl/5120379/) the actual weather prediction, as of early afternoon on game day, is that temperatures are expected to remain in the low to mid 40s at kickoff, with only light winds. Second, the Farmer's Almanac, one source of all the poor weather expectations, is notoriously unreliable. (Just Gooogle "Farmer's Almanac unreliable" for articles on its problems.) Fredwords (talk) 18:32, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The point of mentioning the Farmer's Almanac is mentioned in the next sentence: that it generated the attention of several media outlets who complained about the possible weather and location (i.e. reliable secondary sources reporting and commenting on a primary source). I added the USA Today citation. Thanks. Zzyzx11 (talk) 18:43, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 2 February 2014

[edit]

International broadcasters

[edit]
Country/Territory Rights holder(s)
Arab World OSN Sports
 Australia One HD
 Austria Puls 4[2]
 Belgium Telenet
 Brazil ESPN Brasil, Esporte Interativo
 Bulgaria ESPN America, Fox International
 Canada CTV will simulcast Fox's coverage
 Czech Republic,  Hungary,  Moldova,  Romania,  Slovakia Sport 1
 Denmark TV3+
 Finland Nelonen Pro 1, Nelonen Pro 1 HD with Finnish commentary and Nelonen Pro 2, Nelonen Pro 2 HD with English commentary.[3]
 France W9,[4] BeIN Sport[5]
 Germany SAT.1
 Greece Fox (Greece)[6]
 Hong Kong Now TV
 Iceland Stöð 2 Sport
 Italy Fox Sports 2 HD, Italia 1
 Japan NHK BS-1
Latin America ESPN, FOX Sports
 Mexico Televisa, FOX Sports, TV Azteca, ESPN
 Netherlands Fox Sports (Netherlands)
 New Zealand Sky Television, Sommet Sports
 Norway Viasat 4,[7] Viasat Sport[8]
 Philippines TV5, AksyonTV
 Portugal Sport TV
 Quebec RDS
 Russia NTV+
 Spain Canal+
 Sweden TV10[9]
  Switzerland RTS Deux
 Turkey FOX Sports
 UK (and  Ireland) Channel 4,[10] Sky Sports[11]

Aldagmc (talk) 21:48, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

 On hold Please provide a diff of what you would like to change first. Epicgenius (talk) 23:42, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
 Not done – superseded by the request below. Epicgenius (talk) 00:34, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ "NFL Playoff Procedures and Tiebreakers". Yahoo! Sports. December 31, 2006. Archived from the original on January 1, 2010.
  2. ^ "Die meistgestellten NFL Fragen - PULS 4 SPORT". Sport.puls4.com. Retrieved January 19, 2014.
  3. ^ NFL | Nelonen Pro. Retrieved December 28, 2013
  4. ^ Le Super Bowl encore 3 ans sur W9 En pleine lucarne, August 7, 2012. Retrieved October 27, 2013
  5. ^ La NFL jusqu'en 2015 sur beIN SPORT ! Sport TV, April 24, 2006. Retrieved December 29, 2013
  6. ^ "FOX Greece". Retrieved January 26, 2014.
  7. ^ "Super Bowl 2014" (in Norwegian Bokmål). Viasat 4. Retrieved January 19, 2014.
  8. ^ "TV-guide for direktesendinger på Viasat Sportskanaler" (in Norwegian Bokmål). Viasat.no. Retrieved January 19, 2014.
  9. ^ "Här är spelarna som kan ta sitt lag till Super Bowl" (in Swedish). TV10 Sweden. Retrieved January 19, 2014.
  10. ^ "Super Bowl head-to-heads - the five key battles". Channel 4. Retrieved January 25, 2014.
  11. ^ "Fixtures & Results – 2013 – Post Season". skysports.com. BSkyB. Retrieved January 25, 2014.

Semi-protected edit request on 2 February 2014

[edit]

Fox Sports on Airs only in Turkey all around the Europe please add this line

|  Turkey | FOX Sports [1] Aldagmc (talk) 00:06, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Epicgenius (talk) 00:34, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ "FOX Sports". Retrieved February 03, 2014. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |accessdate= (help)

Halftime Technology

[edit]

Would like to see a section called:

Halftime Technology:

and have someone post info about the technologies used to do the half-time!

Cartwrig (talk) 02:41, 3 February 2014 (UTC)Rob[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 3 February 2014

[edit]

Broncos Win 173.71.57.34 (talk) 02:56, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not done: That statment is not factual. The Seahawks won the game. Roborule (talk) 03:14, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 3 February 2014

[edit]
change tenses to past tense

173.71.57.34 (talk) 02:58, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Already done Most have been changed by now. Roborule (talk) 03:14, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 3 February 2014

[edit]
change tenses to past tense

173.71.57.34 (talk) 02:58, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I believe most of the tenses have been changed. Roborule (talk) 03:07, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Can "in this case FieldTurf" be moved to a footnote or something?

[edit]

Seems like an advertisement right at the beginning of an article. Is the brand of artificial turf really of encyclopedic importance? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.106.12.255 (talk) 05:04, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, there are differences between the different types/brands of field materials. ViperSnake151  Talk  04:28, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Injury Report/Full Roster

[edit]

In addition to the starting line up, consider imputing either a full roster or injury report of players who are inactive. This would inform the reader of players who were part of a super bowl roster. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.71.27.93 (talk) 05:24, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

We do provide a link to the Super Bowl Gamebook, which does provide that information. Perhaps it would be a good idea to add it somewhere, though I would suggest after everything else has been added. --Super Goku V (talk) 05:55, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Clarification requested

[edit]

"On the third play of Denver's ensuing possession, Manning was intercepted by Kam Chancellor, giving Seattle a first down on the Denver 37"

Was Manning intercepted by Chancellor, or Manning's pass intercepted by Chancellor? If this is the play I'm thinking of, Manning was rushed and his pass was partially blocked, turning it into a flubbed toss that was intercepted. It seems that the Seahawks players on both ends of the pass deserve mention. Maury Markowitz (talk) 16:39, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There isn't a citation for that statement, so it could be interpreted incorrectly from an unknown source. --Super Goku V (talk) 19:07, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the "help". [8] Maury Markowitz (talk) 21:09, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Help? I was just stating that there isn't a source for the section. The only citation is a single citation from ESPN: [9]. --Super Goku V (talk) 04:44, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 3 February 2014

[edit]

I find:

"The Broncos trailed 22–0 at halftime and by 36–0 towards the end of the third quarter."

For consistency, you could try removing "by" from the above.

128.63.16.20 (talk) 23:06, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Done. CombatWombat42 (talk) 23:33, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"No-fly zone"

[edit]

There was never a "no-fly zone" established in the airspace above the Super Bowl. This is erroneous information, and proven false by the aerial media coverage of the game.

For the FAA's Temporary Flight restriction, see the following link: http://www.faa.gov/news/fact_sheets/news_story.cfm?newsId=15514.

Please correct this, and use more care when describing current events.

Thanks, Mark Joinnides — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.180.48.122 (talk) 03:53, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A quote from the page provided.. "The FAA will establish two Temporary Flight Restrictions (TFR) over MetLife Stadium. From approximately noon to 5 p.m. EST, a small, one-nautical-mile radius TFR will cover the “NFL Experience” activities at the stadium. The one-mile TFR will extend up to 5,000 feet in altitude. From approximately 5 p.m. EST to one hour after the game ends, the FAA will establish a second TFR consisting of an outer 30-nautical-mile ring and an inner eight-nautical-mile ring." This leads me to believe that there was a no-fly zone over the Super Bowl. Roborule (talk) 04:11, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I would suggest that the FAA no-fly zone might not cover military security, unless you are referring to something else. --Super Goku V (talk) 04:46, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I think the IP is claiming that a TFR is not the same thing as a "no-fly zone", when officallay there is no such thing as a "no-fly zone" only a TFR. The media has taken to calling TFR's "no-fly zones". As for your comment about aerial media coverage, one can get an exeption from a TFR if one reaquest such from the FAA. As for "Please correct this, and use more care when describing current events.", Please be less passive agressive next time Mark, also learn what you are talking about. CombatWombat42 (talk) 22:00, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, thank you for clarifying that for me. If you would like to, please consider using the Edit Protected. Roborule (talk) 12:14, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Matthew Mills' quote

[edit]

Currently, the article reports Matthew Mills as saying "Investigate 9/11. 9/11 was perpetrated by people with your own government.”

the correct quote is: "Investigate 9/11. 9/11 was perpetrated by people within our own government.” — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.23.71.100 (talk) 04:38, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The two references I used to cite this section each gave a different quote.
The first reference [10] states that Matthew Mills said, "Investigate 9/11. 9/11 was perpetrated by people with your own government.” The sources below also suggest that same quote:
While the second reference I used [11] claims "Investigate 9/11. 9/11 was perpetrated by people within our own government.” This source [12] also claims the within our own response.
I'm not sure which one is correct but it seems the current quote should keep considering there are more sources to back it up. Do you have any references to support and confirm why you are so confident that is the correct quote? I wouldn't mind changing the quote if there is some legitimacy and support behind it. Let me hear your thoughts. Meatsgains (talk) 17:20, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 7 February 2014

[edit]

Currently, I am seeing this:

"On Denver's first play, center Manny Ramirez snapped the ball out of shotgun formation while Peyton Manning was in the process of calling an audible, resulting in a fumble that went into the end zone."

That was the game's 1st play from scrimmage after Denver received the opening kickoff. Also, I don't think Manning touched the ball as it went past him toward the end zone. So try this:

"On Denver's first play after receiving the opening kickoff, center Manny Ramirez snapped the ball while Peyton Manning was shifting forward (from shotgun formation) in the process of calling an audible, resulting in the ball going past Manning toward the end zone."

Could also insert this after mentioning the safety:

"(An illegal-motion penalty was called because of Manning moving forward at the time of the snap, but it was declined.)"

Did you want to insert the item about the declined penalty? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.63.16.20 (talk) 21:37, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

128.63.16.20 (talk) 15:04, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

 Done--JayJasper (talk) 17:44, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

stats correction

[edit]

Denver TE Julius Thomas - 4 catches 27 yards 11 long is missing from game stats, please correct it — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.144.52.126 (talk) 22:15, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Edit Request: Safety - caused by crowd noise

[edit]

Both the quarterback Payton Manning, and the snapper, Ramirez, attributed the botched snap to crowd noise during statements after the game.

Suggested edit: "The first play of the game resulted in the safety, caused by unanticipated crowd noise which prevented the center from hearing the snap count."[1][2][3]

[1] http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2014/02/02/manny-ramirez-i-never-heard-snap-count-on-game-opening-safety/ [2] http://sports.yahoo.com/blogs/nfl-shutdown-corner/watch-listen-really-caused-broncos-mistake-first-snap-151952943--nfl.html [3] http://nflspinzone.com/2014/02/03/broncos-prepared-crowd-noise/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jd12jr (talk • contribs) 14:02, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, since Peyton Manning was shifting forward at time of too-early snap, a motion penalty was called. The defense declined the penalty, so the play result (a safety) counts. Carlm0404 (talk) 01:49, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

TV audience

[edit]

Is the audience figure for the US or global? It should be clarified but the source refers to "US television history" which is ambiguous. - Sitush (talk) 18:31, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Super Bowl XLVIII. 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) 07:08, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Super Bowl XLVIII. 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) 16:13, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Super_Bowl_XLVIII&oldid=1243165745"