Talk:Carolina Panthers

John Fox
Need to disambiguate John Fox. There's an article about a British statistician called John Fox!


 * I added the link to Coach John Fox Opuspup722 18:47, 19 July 2005 (UTC)


 * I love you! 24.162.236.171 05:41, 28 July 2006 (UTC)Malik1

Mathematical (score in game) impossibility...
Concerning Panthers Super Bowl: It's impossible for both teams to score 38 points in the last five minutes of half and to also end the half 14-10.
 * Fixed the problem. Anthony 16:01, July 14, 2005 (UTC)

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)

PSL sales
Not all PSLs sold on day one, just the club seats and luxury suites.

06 Draft
Should the recent 2006 draft picks be added to this page in some way? Opuspup722 05:26, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Logo
I do recall that the logo is supposed to be shaped (tilted counterclockwise a little bit) like the outline of North/South Carolina together. Here's at least one reference other than Wiki that says this:. I'll go look through one of Fowler's books on the Panthers to see if there's a reference there. SpikeJones 14:53, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

That link must have changed its content over the last six years, or I'm missing the reference to the logo. So far, this is the best reference I've seen for "explaining" what's up. Seriously, that needs a real ref if it's got any truth to it. Rufwork (talk) 01:23, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Hmmm, being from NC, I have always heard that the logo is the outline of the Carolina's, but I never even bothered to see if it was true! From the images on google, it looks like theres a loose correlation between the two, but anything from the Panther franchise? — Preceding unsigned comment added by NCPride321 (talk • contribs) 05:38, 24 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Im also curious. does anybody have any references on the matter?8panther2pride8 (talk) 16:14, 24 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Quick Question, how great of a source does it have to be. I see numerous sites stating its the outline, but none look too official. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 8panther2pride8 (talk • contribs) 00:34, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Founding date
I channged the year when the Panthers were founded to 1993; although the team did not begin play until 1995, the franchise was awarded on October 26, 1993 so the team was technically founded in 1993. I also moved the page to the "1993 establishments" category.

commentary on years in headings
I added the years into the headings as I felt it helped categorize each of those sections easier for a non-fan or casual WK reader to understand. The sections are already broken out into a year-by-year recap, but the casual observer wouldn't recognize that unless they bothered to read the associated section and noticed that it was talking about a specific year. Further, by having a title of "Cardiac Cats are Super Bowl Bound" implies that they are currently SB bound (present tense) OR were SB bound in every season, when in fact that section deals with just one specific previous season. Same thing with "Injury bug" -- is this a bug that the Panthers have had throughout their existence, or was it an issue that existed for just one season? Adding the years helps clarify. SpikeJones 13:49, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Fair point, but the paragraphs underneath each heading make it clear they only discuss one season (with the exception of the "Dark Times" header, which states the seasons it refers to). There aren't enough seasons in the Panthers history that it requires each year to be placed in the heading, and as I said, it's clear from the paragraph which season is under discussion.  Besides, the NFL WikiProject is supposedly going around to all the team pages and working on them so they fit a standard format, so we'll see how that pans out.  There's a lot of work to be done on this page, so the headings likely won't stay this way forever, but at least for now, it's overboard to post every single year.  Don't mean to piss on your efforts, so don't take this as someone just hating on you.  Anthony Hit me up... 18:22, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

'06 Season Section
This section was written by a Panthers' fan (not myself) and is GROSSLY opinionated. It should be re-written, pronto. I'd do it myself, if I had some assistance from a "football expert". Thanks! Keekee 05:50, 19 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Certainly lacks NPOV and is not encylopedic. I suggest gonging the whole section as unnecessary.SpikeJones 22:16, 21 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Sorry about the 2006 section of the page. It was my first article I wrote, so that might be the reason. And, yes I am a Panthers' fan, but I did go through my article and take out a few opinions that I put. Sorry again. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by NCBoi24 (talk • contribs) 22:18, 21 December 2006 (UTC).


 * I still say the entire "2006 season" section that was added is unencyclopedic; is there a need for a slightly biased play-by-play account of each game in this specific article? SpikeJones 15:48, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Steriods Scandal
2006 Season some information was revealed that around 2002 or 2003 (i cant recall exactly) members of the panthers were using banned substances or something of that nature. it was one of the bigger confirmed instances of such use. if anyone knows any exact info this is probably relevant even though as a fan i hate to see it on there almost as much as i hate remembering that 1-15 season. jieagles

Eras
I changed the titles of the historic periods from tacky POV to coaching eras. None of the content was changed. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 209.77.222.38 (talk) 19:34, 23 January 2007 (UTC).

Uniforms
I noticed that although the wiki desecribes the uniforms, their are no pictures or photos of the actual jersheys. Perhaps someone should find a picture for it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.67.142.193 (talk) 15:43, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:CarolinaPanthersAlt 2.gif
Image:CarolinaPanthersAlt 2.gif 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 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 19:50, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:CarolinaPanthersAlt helmet.png
Image:CarolinaPanthersAlt helmet.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 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 19:52, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:CarolinaPanthersAlt.png
Image:CarolinaPanthersAlt.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 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 19:56, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Addition of CarolinaPanthersBlog.com in external links.
CarolinaPanthersBlog.org ranks #2 for carolina panthers blog in Google, and it's focus is to provide the latest news on the Carolina Panthers with it's readers. We also do analysis of games and position breakdowns. We realize there is no SEO benefit in this, yet we feel that our website deserves to be on the page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Themanbeast9 (talk • contribs) 22:43, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
 * WP:SPAM. Wikipedia is not a link repository, and is not intended for advertising or promotion, especially for websites of which you are personally affiliated.  Pats 1  T / C  00:14, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Rivalries
I think the article overplays the Dallas/Carolina rivalry (albeit, there is a history of high-profile postseason games between the two), and downplays the Tampa Bay/Carolina rivalry. Carolina and Tampa Bay have had some extremely physical, close games through the years and games which are notable in their own right, such as Carolina blocking three kick attempts including what would have been a game-winning PAT by Martin Grammatica). Rpine75 (talk) 04:02, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

1995 NFL Draft
Does anyone know why the Jags got the first pick in the 1995 NFL Expansion Draft as well as getting to pick ahead of the Carolina Panthers in the 1995 NFL Draft? Doesn't seem very fair.--2008Olympian chitchatseemywork 04:26, 26 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I realize now that they didn't, the panthers traded their overall number one to the Bengals.--2008Olympian chitchatseemywork 08:29, 26 September 2008 (UTC)


 * The Panthers were "created" first and Jerry Richardson was given the choice of the first pick in the NFL draft or expansion draft he took the first pick in the draft- when the Jags were created they were given the first pick in the expansion draft. I cannot recall WHAT book I read it had the story in but If I find it I'll let you know. I think it was Bill Rosinski's book "Tales from the Carolina Panthers" (http://www.powells.com/biblio?isbn=9781596701786)

-But I'm not 100% sure. --David.snipes (talk) 16:12, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

07 Season Section
Whoever wrote that knows nothing about last year. It says that Jake failed to win the game against Atlanta early in the year, when in fact, the panthers won the game. Also, "Unfortunately for the Panthers, Carr suffered the first major injury of his career," is not right. Anyone one who has watched any game with Carr starting for Carolina would know that fans were glad when he was out of the game. Plus, the whole section is written in such a way that it is nearly impossible to follow. Needs to be re-written.66.194.118.10 (talk) 11:59, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Hall of Honor
It's called the Hall of Honor on the Carolina web page, not the ring of honor. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.177.224.61 (talk) 20:11, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

2010 season
Someone tampered with the 2010 season section, claiming the Panthers had left the NFL to play in NCAA Division I football. I've removed this, but the section could use expanding by someone who has kept up with the team's results this season. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.25.207.19 (talk) 12:35, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Fox fired
State of NC has two legal statuses...laid off and fired...and he wasn't laid off. Ref has been provided. He performed lousy and was "cut" i.e. "fired". ⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 00:57, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I'll repeat what I just posted on your talk page: "Contract not renewed" and "fired" are not the same thing. "Contract not renewed" is technically accurate, but I'm not interested in an edit war. JTRH (talk) 01:02, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Me neither, that's why we open discussion here. Leaving the ref for the time being allows others to see it before commenting. "Contract not renewed" is a euphemism or nice way of saying your fired. Let's face it, he was fired for the poor performance. I understand what you're trying to say but respectfully disagree (with source). No need for edit warring because others can join in the discussion. ⋙–Berean–Hunter—►  ((⊕)) 01:09, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Legally, it's different. If he got "fired" as Capers and Seifert did, in the middle of his contract, the team would owe him money. Not re-hiring him (which is the effect of not renewing the contract upon its expiration) doesn't obligate them to pay him anything. But, yeah, the effect is the same: he's no longer the coach, because the team had a horrible year. JTRH (talk) 01:14, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
 * PS: I apologize for wiping out the reference in my last revert. JTRH (talk) 01:20, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
 * No problem. :) You bring up a good point (perspective). I was thinking along the legal lines of Termination by mutual agreement. Had he been doing well, they would likely have kept him. Conversely, because he wasn't doing well (poor job performance) the Panthers refused to renew. It was one-sided and wasn't up to Fox. That said, I'm open-minded about it. If you're willing, let's see if others would like to chime in on it over a day or two for more input. No rush. <b style="color:#00C">⋙–Ber</b><b style="color:#66f">ean–Hun</b><b style="color:#00C">ter—►</b>  (<b style="color:#00C">(⊕)</b>) 02:02, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't feel that strongly about it, but I'm interested in others' perspectives. And thanks for your understanding and cooperation. :) JTRH (talk) 14:04, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
 * You're welcome. <b style="color:#00C">⋙–Ber</b><b style="color:#66f">ean–Hun</b><b style="color:#00C">ter—►</b>  (<b style="color:#00C">(⊕)</b>) 14:10, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I would say he wasn't fired for performance at all; he was 'fired' because he didn't want to or try to fit in with the youth movement. And saying he was 'fired' is sketchy, since his contract was simply not renewed.  Toa   Nidhiki  05  02:42, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Yeah I have to agree Fox was not fired. There is a difference regardless if it doesn't change anything —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.213.252.75 (talk) 07:30, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

He was definitely not fired by definition. He did not receive an offer to have his contract extended. That decision was probably made prior to the 2010 season. Evidence supporting that includes, that Fox was allowed to interview with the Buffalo Bills before the 2010 season (if he signed with another team, the Panthers would be off the hook for his 2010 salary) and Richardson said he didn't want to pay two coaching staffs in his press conference when asked about it. Not that all that needs to go into the article. But, Richardson made a big deal about Fox not having back to back winning seasons, perhaps that, and not a "disappointing record of 2-14" should be highlighted as the reason for Fox not being retained. It's semantics, but he was definitely not fired and the way it is written now should be cleaned up. Samwised (talk) 04:39, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
 * At the time you wrote this, it didn't say that Fox was fired as it had already been changed. I've just cleaned it up a bit as a contract not renewed situation per the consensus here. <b style="color:#00C">⋙–Ber</b><b style="color:#66f">ean–Hun</b><b style="color:#00C">ter—►</b>  (<b style="color:#00C">(⊕)</b>) 17:18, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Works for me. Thanks for your efforts on this. JTRH (talk) 17:52, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I was responding to the discussion, it reads better now. Samwised (talk) 17:30, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Changing 'American football' to 'football'
As a note, I have changed 'American football' to 'football'. Upon examining many featured articles on English soccer clubs (Manchester United F.C., Arsenal F.C., Chelsea F.C., Ipwitch Town F.C., Leek Town F.C., Liverpool F.C.), I discovered most, if not all of them, use the term 'football', because 'football' in England unequivocally means Association football, which we Americans call 'soccer'. Due to this, I think it is acceptable for this article to use the term 'football', because 'football' in the US unequivocally means 'American football'.  Toa   Nidhiki05  15:57, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
 * As I said in the GA review I'm opposed to this. Just because other articles (even FA's) use ambiguous terms doesn't make it a good idea. I think using the term American football in the first sentence of the lead makes the article more accessible - not everyone is going to immediately know that football means American football. Obviously any ambiguity would have been removed from then on, so I'm only arguing for the use of the full name in the opening sentence. -- Shudde  talk 23:53, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I'll remove for now, but if this is such an issue how have other FAs passed with similar wording? Not everyone is going to know 'football' is 'soccer'.  Toa   Nidhiki05  00:10, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I think that all articles should disambiguate the code of football in the first instance, but we're just focusing on this one for now! Some of the silliest edit wars on Wikipedia have been regarding the use of the term "football". It's crazy. I think the main consideration has got to be weighing up the options - nothing is lost by saying American football in the first use, but something is gained (for those readers, even though probably a minority, that weren't completely clear wwithout having to read further, or click a link, what code you were referring to). On the other hand, saying just football adds nothing, other than implying "that's what we call it here". The 'that's what we call it here' argument is actually quite common - but the readers probably couldn't care less. - Shudde  talk 02:55, 5 September 2013 (UTC)


 * This issue was previously debated three years ago, see Talk:Football/Archive 16. There was no consensus across the spectrum of all the articles on the various football codes, so the different styles remained where English soccer clubs used "football", the NFL articles used "American football" in the lead section, and so on. 2010 was also when the Chicago Bears page was still a featured article, and there was no problem with having the full "American football" in the first sentence. Zzyzx11 (talk) 03:53, 5 September 2013 (UTC)


 * We are an international encyclopedia so we tell the nationality of sports teams. All your English examples say they are an English football club in the opening sentence. Even if there wasn't a naming issue with the sport, it's good to say it's an American football team. When it further helps to clarify the sport in a World where football means association football almost everywhere else, it makes good sense to say it's an American football team in the opening sentence. And if we are going to say American anyway, it would be dumb to hide the sport in a piped link by saying "American football team" instead of "American football team". PrimeHunter (talk) 11:21, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

What, if any, post-FA promotion fixes are needed?
This article was recently promoted to FA status. I have no objections to promotion myself, nor do I believe that Maralia does. However, it seems that Maralia has identified some minor issues that should be addressed at some point. Unfortunately, I can't figure out what they are from reading the FAC review page. Having spent a considerable amount of time reviewing the FAC myself, I would like to make the article the best that I possibly can. Any suggestions as to what could be improved further would be greatly appreciated. Thanks! AmericanLemming (talk) 23:42, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Yeah, wiki formatting with strikeout and collapsed sections really doesn't lend itself to those types of discussions! There's just one minor point remaining: the placement of the hide/show link in the collapsible tables is super weird to me—hide/show is always on the right. Additionally, it's probably an accessibility issue to have the collapse link in a column rather than the table heading. I told Toa that I'd look into it, but haven't gotten around to it yet; I'll do it sooner or later if one of you doesn't beat me to it. Thanks. Maralia (talk) 23:55, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

Updating all-time record in real time?
Should we update the all-time record every week, or should we wait until the end of the season? AmericanLemming (talk) 01:32, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I'd prefer to update it after the season when records are officially updated. Doing otherwise is basically OR - we are adding up ourselves.  Toa   Nidhiki05  02:44, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Win-loss tables
An IP address editor recently removed the win-loss tables from the article. As the editor who both requested that such tables be added to the article and who spent many hours creating those tables in my sandbox, I guess I would like to see them come back. However, I do have to admit that, as the IP editor's edit summary stated, the tables do clutter the article somewhat.

As such, I have two questions:

1. Should those tables be in the article at all?
 * My original argument for the tables to be included was that the average reader who is not particularly informed about the Carolina Panthers (that is, someone like me) would be confused by History section, with all of its many seasons. A win-loss table would hopefully enable readers like me to keep all of the seasons straight.

2. If so, where should they go? Even if they belong in the article, putting them back where they were before isn't necessarily the best place for them.

Rather than reverting the IP editor's edit, I thought it would be more constructive to seek the opinion of other editors on the talk page (which will hopefully include a response from the IP editor as well). AmericanLemming (talk) 22:05, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I think the two tables can belong in the article. Yes it adds a bit of clutter, but it also adds some texture to a very long, imageless section. If they aren't re-added, there needs to be images added to the section to make it more interesting. In my opinion they should be put back, but win-loss totals should not be updated until after the season is over.  Toa   Nidhiki05  22:28, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm fine with not updating the win-loss totals until the end of the season. I think we should either wait a day or two before adding the tables back in (thus giving the IP editor a chance to respond here) or add it back immediately and leave an invitation for them to discuss the matter on the talk page in the edit summary. AmericanLemming (talk) 22:48, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Sounds fine either way... I'd prefer to wait a day or two just to see if anyone else besides the IP and us has input as well.  Toa   Nidhiki05  23:00, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Carolina Pansies
The page summary on the right says "Carolina Pansies" and not Panthers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.151.71.23 (talk) 19:30, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

Discussion at Files for discussion/2016 November 7
You are invited to join the discussion at. Marchjuly (talk) 00:48, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 one external links on Carolina Panthers. 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:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140418054523/http://msn.foxsports.com/nfl/story/Parcells-can-only-do-so-much-as-Cowboys-no-match-for-Panthers?cmpid=prn_foxsports to http://msn.foxsports.com/nfl/story/Parcells-can-only-do-so-much-as-Cowboys-no-match-for-Panthers?cmpid=prn_foxsports
 * Added tag to http://www.charlotteobserver.com/2008/10/25/279610/fifteen-years-of-the-panthers.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130118124944/http://www.panthers.com/fanzone/drumline/index.html to http://www.panthers.com/fanzone/drumline/index.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101102172727/http://www.newsobserver.com:80/2010/10/25/759184/panthers-like-sweet-sound-of-victory.html to http://www.newsobserver.com/2010/10/25/759184/panthers-like-sweet-sound-of-victory.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130915113104/http://www.panthers.com:80/community/panthers-charities.html to http://www.panthers.com/community/panthers-charities.html
 * Added tag to http://www.charlotteobserver.com/2008/09/28/218960/sorensen-falcons-vs-panthers-is.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140111061416/http://www.wwltv.com/sports/black-and-gold/Saints-Panthers-rivalry-deepening-after-New-Orleans-30-27-win-131475403.html to http://www.wwltv.com/sports/black-and-gold/Saints-Panthers-rivalry-deepening-after-New-Orleans-30-27-win-131475403.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130316060930/http://www.newsobserver.com/2011/01/05/900166/owner-looks-back-ahead.html to http://www.newsobserver.com/2011/01/05/900166/owner-looks-back-ahead.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130512224808/http://blogs.suntimes.com/bears/2009/10/change_in_nfl_ownership_rules.html to http://blogs.suntimes.com/bears/2009/10/change_in_nfl_ownership_rules.html

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 01:46, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 November 2016
I think that the Panthers were founded in 1995. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.229.78.220 (talk) 00:43, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Carolina Panthers. 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:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130911095124/http://msn.foxsports.com/nfl/lists/Top_10_Best_Super_Bowl_games to http://msn.foxsports.com/nfl/lists/Top_10_Best_Super_Bowl_games

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 21:54, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Carolina Panthers. 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:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140111061255/http://www.tampabay.com/sports/football/bucs/carolina-panthers-cornerback-dante-wesley-suspended-for-hit-on-tampa-bay/1045286 to http://www.tampabay.com/sports/football/bucs/carolina-panthers-cornerback-dante-wesley-suspended-for-hit-on-tampa-bay/1045286

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 15:48, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

Roaring Riot Section
All of the information has been kept up to date and checked frequently, but one possible thing missing that could maybe be added would be a section about the panthers grassroots tailgate section, the "Roaring Riot". (Jonesdh123 (talk) 22:01, 5 February 2018 (UTC))

Semi-protected edit request on 14 September 2018
Change Personnel>President>Vacant to Personnel>President>Tom Glick

Tom Glick has been named as the Team President as of August 24, 2018.

https://www.panthers.com/news/tom-glick-named-panthers-team-president 69.132.51.158 (talk) 14:44, 14 September 2018 (UTC)


 * Done, thank you. --Bongwarrior (talk) 17:52, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 November 2018
{Under Seahawks-Panthers Rivalry} "On Sunday, November 25, 2018, the Panthers were defeated by the Seahawks at home by a score of 30-27." 66.108.136.189 (talk) 14:53, 26 November 2018 (UTC)


 * ✅ - Plus some general updating to that section to account for the result. A2soup (talk) 09:15, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

Infobox color question
I'm hoping someone can answer my question because I really have no answer to it. Is there a reason why the infobox colors of the team and it's players and coaches was changed from a black background with a blue outline to a blue background with a silver outline? It looks nearly identical to the Detroit Lions infobox colors and doesn't reflect what the predominant colors of the team are, which is black and blue. It seems like it is an unnecessary change and reverting it to what it was would make more sense. I'm not knowledgeable enough to do that, so in addition to asking why it was changed, I'm also asking if someone who is more knowledgeable could change it back (only if it is deemed appropriate to change, if someone explains why it should remain otherwise, then this part of the question is irrelevant.) Thanks in advance. Mannytool (talk) 02:38, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

Compromise to the lede
As I have done in my more recent edits, I am willing to make a compromise with the lede to include both the franchise history and the records held by the franchise. Currently, the lede is heavily focused on the former.

My issue with the former is it's going to keep getting longer to the point where the lede gets slapped with a "too long" tag, like the New Orleans Saints article. This isn't an article centered around a human with a normal lifespan. Sports teams can last for centuries. Eventually, the team's history will not be able to be summarized constructively in the lede, overwhelming the reader before they even get into the main article. As the Panthers are a young franchise, I do not object to retaining this for now, but unless they fold in the next few decades, this will become an issue.

If there is reason not to retain the latter in the lede, I would like to understand why. It is notable that the Panthers hold NFL records related to their young age, as well as being the only non-Super Bowl winning franchise with a winning playoff; this is what makes them distinctive and stand out among other NFL franchises. The most distinctive information about a sports team belongs in the lede. Bluerules (talk) 17:55, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
 * You’re inserting random trivia into a featured article. This lead is not abnormally long (WP:LEDE) but definitely does not have room for additional random trivia. This information might be useful somewhere else (maybe List of Carolina Panthers seasons), but not in the lead. <i style="color: green; font-family: Mistral;">Toa</i> <i style="color: green; font-family: Mistral;">Nidhiki05</i> 18:45, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
 * It is not "random trivia" to identify a franchise as accomplishing feats younger than other franchises. Explain to me how the Panthers' "all-time best [record] for an NFL expansion team's first season" and "the team's five NFC South titles since the division's establishment in 2002 rank second only to the New Orleans Saints" are not random trivia, yet the Panthers being the youngest to clinch their division, reach a conference championship, appear in the Super Bowl, and have multiple Super Bowl appearances are deemed as such. This is information that's already in the lede, but not specifically identified to readers.
 * The Panthers are a franchise that's experienced early successes in their young history, but have not claimed a championship. That's the general summary of the franchise right now and that's what the new information conveys in a direct and concise manner. The very purpose of the lede is to contain summarized information, which is why this is precise lede material; readers learn from the onset what the Panthers have accomplished and what they haven't.
 * The lede is not long now because the Panthers are a young franchise whose entire history can be summarized in a paragraph or two. Eventually, barring an improbable folding of the team, trying to summarize the franchise history in the lede will make it too long. The Saints' lede became too long because the lede was trying to summarize the entire history of a 50+ year old franchise. At some point, the lede will need to be overhauled to prevent a length issue. Bluerules (talk) 04:07, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
 * The lead currently presents an overview of the history section - the major seasons the team has had, and can (and will) be trimmed gradually over future decades as new seasons of higher importance emerge. Trivia about playoff win percentage (a stat very few people know about) doesn't need to be here. <i style="color: green; font-family: Mistral;">Toa</i> <i style="color: green; font-family: Mistral;">Nidhiki05</i> 14:11, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Just because people don't know certain information doesn't mean they don't want to know it. A team's history boils down to their wins and losses because their ultimate purpose (at least to the general public) is to win games. Readers want to know the team's overall performance from the onset. While I don't agree with always putting the win-loss record/winning percentage in the lede, it needs to be in the lede when there's a record associated with it. In the case of the Panthers, they are the only NFL franchise with a winning postseason record to not have a Super Bowl title. That's not anymore random trivia than saying the Panthers were 7–9 in their first season or they're second behind the Saints in division titles. It is a record and records belong in the lede.
 * Furthermore, this does not explain why the Panthers being the youngest NFL franchise to win their division, reach the conference championship game, appear in the Super Bowl, and have multiple Super Bowl appearances. Like I said, this is already in the lede, but not specifically identified to readers. Just like the reference to the 7–9 record being the best for an NFL expansion franchise, this can be mentioned alongside the team history. For example, the second paragraph could say this in its first two sentences instead:
 * "After going 7–9 in their first season, the best inaugural finish for an NFL expansion franchise, the Panthers' second season saw them become the youngest NFL franchise to win their division and reach the conference championship game. Seven years later, they became the youngest NFL franchise to appear in the Super Bowl."
 * This would also remove information that is random trivia. It is not necessary to mention they lost to the Packers (or even that the Packers were the eventual Super Bowl champions), they lost to the Patriots, the score of their first Super Bowl, and they lost to the Broncos. Who they lost two isn't relevant in the summary of the subject - what matters is they lost. The ledes of the featured Miami Heat and Toronto Raptors don't mention who they beat or lost two in championships.
 * While both the Heat and Raptors articles also use this approach of a history overview for the lede, these too are young franchises that can summarize the entire history in a few paragraphs. The featured Calgary Flames article does not because they are 50 years old. Eventually, the lede here will need to follow a similar approach of highlighting the most important seasons and accomplishments. It's best to be proactive on preparing the lede as the Panthers continue to have a lengthier history. Bluerules (talk) 22:04, 19 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Other articles do not matter here. This is a featured article and the lede is established consensus. I am not sure why you are so invested in these other, inferior articles and how they do things - that doesn't matter here. <i style="color: green; font-family: Mistral;">Toa</i> <i style="color: green; font-family: Mistral;">Nidhiki05</i> 23:01, 19 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure why you consider other featured articles to be "inferior". This isn't about information that's included/excluded, which is what WP:OTHERSTUFF focuses on, but about good writing practices for articles. The Flames article obtained featured status without recapping the entire team history because there wasn't room for it and eventually, there will not be enough room to recap the entire Panthers' history. When this article received featured status, the lede established by consensus was different. It's since become jumbled, repetitive, and stuffed with unnecessary information. Featured status isn't a permanent status and in order to maintain featured status, the article has to undergo improvements when necessary. Even the top of talk page asks for improvements and this is a case where improvements are warranted. Bluerules (talk) 05:14, 28 March 2021 (UTC)