Talk:List of Super Bowl champions/Archive 2

Cleveland Browns
The article currently reads, "(The Browns are officially viewed as one continuous franchise that began in 1946 as a member of the All-America Football Conference..." I think there should be some reference to the fact that they won all 4 AAFC titles before the merger with the NFL.  In other worlds, "The Brown are officially viewed as on continuous franchise that began in 1946 and won four professional football titles with the All-America Football Conference."50.201.228.200 (talk) 16:27, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Rematch correction
At the beginning of the third paragraph it states: "There have only been six times that the same franchises have met in multiple Super Bowls." Then gives a detailed account naming only FIVE pairs of teams (not six). There's also another organized listing further down the article with the heading: Super Bowl Rematches. It also lists the correct five (not six) pairs. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.31.113.14 (talk) 06:07, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
 * There have been six rematches involving five pairings: the Cowboys and Steelers have met three times; so count for two rematches and one pairing. -- Jayron  32  06:10, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Understood, however it is written in a manner that can easily be misunderstood. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.31.113.14 (talk) 06:28, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Revert needed in the lead
ChicoSNKR made this inappropriate edit in the lead. That paragraph is only about teams who played each other multiple times in the Super Bowl. Please revert the edit. Btw, in Baltimore Ravens, Chico changed a wikilink for Baltimore's division from AFC North to NFC North (which was reverted), so I'd keep an eye on his edits from now on. Thanks. 76.189.111.199 05:08, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Edits have been reverted. Thanks. Zzyzx11 (talk) 06:24, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Thank you. --76.189.111.199 (talk) 14:32, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Cities with a World Series and a Super Bowl victory in the same year
Is it worth it to add a paragragh to both the Wikipedia articles of the World Series and the Super Bowl about cities that have won both victories in the same year? It has happened five times in the past: 1969; New York Mets and New York Jets, 1970; Baltimore Orioles and Baltimore Ravens, 1979; Pittsburgh Pirates and Pittsburgh Steelers, 1986; New York Mets and New York Giants, and 2004; Boston Red Sox and New England Patriots. On February 3, 2013, the San Francisco 49ers Might win the Super Bowl. Since The San Francisco Giants won the World Series in 2012, I am sure it will be a popular, often repeated, trivia saying about the cities that have won both the World Series and the Super Bowl in the same year. I think a paragraph should be added to both the World Series and Super Bowl articles to point out that fact, especially considering how few times it has happened. New York city with the NY Mets and New York Yankees baseball teams, and the Giants and Jets football teams has only achieved that victory twice: in 1969 and 1986. 16:06, 1 February 2013 (UTC)Bennett Turk — Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.80.61.133 (talk)
 * It seems to border on the trivial. Such coincidences can be interesting to some people, but ultimately it really is outside the scope of Wikipedia's coverage here.  -- Jayron  32  18:34, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Just a followup sentence to the first paragraph. The Baltimore Ravens defeated the San Francisco 49ers (34 -31) on Sunday February 3, 2013; so San Francisco did not tie the Pittsburg Steelers with the most number of Super Bowl victories (6) or join the ranks of other cities that won the World Series and the Super Bowl in the same year (5 so far).204.80.61.133 (talk) 17:16, 4 February 2013 (UTC)Bennett Turk

Wrong appearance count for Steelers
The number of appearances listed parenthetically for the Steelers is correct in 1996 (5). It is incorrectly listed as (5) again in 2006. It is incorrectly listed as (6) in 2009.

75.111.4.153 (talk) 16:56, 14 August 2013 (UTC)Larry Trask (clash14@gmail.com)


 * Corrected now. Spparky (talk) 22:57, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Super Bowl XLIII Results Incorrect
The Cardinals are highlighted in green on the table for Super Bowl XLIII, but the Steelers won that Super Bowl. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Metolbeast (talk • contribs) 21:19, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
 * There is currently no green on this article, so it may be a problem with your monitor. Blue indicates an NFC team, and red indicates an AFC team. But again, there is no green. Zzyzx11 (talk) 22:13, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

Wrong Appearance Count for Patriots
In the sortable menu at the bottom of the page it has the Pats listed as 3-4 in Superbowls with an appearance count of 7. This should be 5 and they should be 3-2. 1996 and 2011 are incorrectly listed as years the Pats participated in the Superbowl.

jay — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jryanmenuey (talk • contribs) 04:40, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
 * The table is correct. There were 7 SB appearances for the Pats, not 5 (the ones from the 1996 and 2011 seasons are in bold):
 * Super Bowl XX (lost to Bears' 46 defense)
 * Super Bowl XXXI (lost to Favre and the Packers)
 * Super Bowl XXXVI (defeated Kurt Warner and the Rams on Adam Vinatieri's last minute kick)
 * Super Bowl XXXVIII (defeated the Panthers with another Vinatieri last minute score)
 * Super Bowl XXXIX (defeated Donavan McNabb and the Eagles)
 * Super Bowl XLII (The Giants spoil the Pats' perfect season)
 * Super Bowl XLVI (Giants defeat the Pats again)
 * I'm not sure how you thought the games at the end of the 1996 and 2011 seasons had different teams. Cheers. Zzyzx11 (talk) 05:35, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

--oops, transposed years on the chart above. i.e. 2012 Superbowl is 2011 season.

Denver Broncos
This lists Denver as winning three and losing four. The correct numbers should be 2 wins and five losses. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.129.171.217 (talk) 03:12, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 February 2014
The 3 Super Bowls that the New England Patriots won in 2002, 2004, and 2005 should have an asterisk stating that they were accused/used Spy cameras and were caught during those respective seasons.

166.76.0.1 (talk) 21:34, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: Rejected--Anaxagoras13 (talk) 22:19, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 February 2014
Please change the table under the heading "Super Bowl Championships 1966-present" because it incorrectly shows the Pittsburgh Steelers winning the Super Bowl 7 times instead of the correct 6. Super Bowl XL has "Pittsburgh Steelers (6)" denoting that it was their 6th year winning the Super Bowl when in fact it was their 5th year. Subsequently, Super Bowl XLIII reads "Pittsburgh Steelers (7)" when in fact it was their 6th year winning.

173.66.245.245 (talk) 03:54, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: The numbers in that table indicate Super Bowl appearences, not wins.   RudolfRed (talk) 04:42, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 April 2014
The Raiders should be listed above the Washington Redskins because the Raiders first appearance in the SB is before the Redskins first appearance. Additionally the Redskins are one of the teams the Raiders beat in the Superbowl. The Raiders should be moved up one row, swapping places with Washington. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.141.66.129 (talk) 04:40, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done. As stated at the top of the table, "teams are ordered first by number of appearances, then by number of wins, and finally by year of first appearance". The Raiders first appeared in SB II. The Redskins did not appear until SB VII. Zzyzx11 (talk) 05:06, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 May 2014
February 7 2018 is a Wednesday the super bowl LII page has it as feb 4 which is a sunday — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.116.191.43 (talk) 17:42, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

Houston Oilers
The Houston Oilers are not listed anywhere on the page. While the Houston Oilers never made a superbowl appearance, they could still be listed as a team that never made an appearance at the bottom. Another possible fix would be to use a slash and list them with the Tennessee Titans since they continued to go by the oiler name for a year after the move. Another possible fix would be a combination of the 2 and list them at the bottom as the Houston/Tennessee Oilers

99.155.24.48 (talk) 02:55, 6 September 2013 (UTC)OOJUGGALO

Why aren't you concern that the St Louis Cardinals are not included as well? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.116.191.43 (talk) 00:33, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 December 2014
In the table where teams are ordered first by number of appearances, then by number of wins, and finally by year of first appearance, Cincinnati and Philadelphia should be switched. This is what it currently reads: 2 Cincinnati Bengals† 0 2 .000 1981,† 1988† 2 Philadelphia Eagles* 0 2 .000 1980,* 2004*. It should read: 2 Philadelphia Eagles* 0 2 .000 1980,* 2004* 2 Cincinnati Bengals† 0 2 .000 1981,† 1988†. Thank you

✅ Laszlo Panaflex (talk) 16:40, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Section: Repeat Winners New England Patriots Super Bowl numbers are in error. Should be XXXV111 and XXX1X. ```` — Preceding unsigned comment added by DWAMP (talk • contribs) 00:04, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Done.--Anaxagoras13 (talk) 09:27, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Records
At the beginning of this article, where Super Bowl records are noted, "Dallas and Pittsburgh have the most Super Bowl appearances with eight" needs to be changed to read "Dallas, Pittsburgh, and New England have the most Super Bowl appearances with eight". - Joshua98.28.129.216 (talk) 06:22, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Taken care of Spparky (talk) 17:45, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 January 2015
"February 5, 2006 Pittsburgh Steelers† (6)" and "February 1, 2009 Pittsburgh Steelers† (7)" need to be changed to "February 5, 2006 Pittsburgh Steelers† (5)" and "February 1, 2009 Pittsburgh Steelers† (6)", respectively.

Naduerba (talk) 16:07, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: The numbers in that table indicate Super Bowl appearences, not wins.--Anaxagoras13 (talk) 16:19, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Super Bowl Wins by decades
The New York Giants are the only team to win the Super Bowl in 4 consecutive decades...1986, 1990, 2007, 2011..... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.175.189.169 (talk) 14:53, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
 * So what?--Anaxagoras13 (talk) 15:25, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I am thinking: it wouldn't be the worst idea to include a table of Super Bowl wins by decade. Illustrate the fact that, in each decade, you do seem to get a dominant franchise emerging: in the 60s - Packers win 2 (of a possible 4), in the 70s - Steelers win 4, in the 80s - 49ers win 4, in the 90s - Cowboys win 3, in the 00s - Patriots win 3.  Not looking so good for a dominant franchise in the 10s, but maybe it will be the Seahawks. --Legis (talk - contribs) 08:37, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Super Bowl Championship (1966–present): AFC/NFC columns
Hi. I think it would be better to change the Winning team/Losing Team columns to AFC/NFC. Please note how it's done on the NBA page - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_NBA_champions#NBA_champions. Any thoughts? Kvsh5 (talk) 12:36, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Why do you think there is a benefit? I think the NBA page has it backwards. This, List of World Series champions, List of Stanley Cup champions, and List of MLS Cup finals are consistent with the Champion/Runners-up column format used on such articles as the FIFA World Cup, various Olympics, and the other international competitions. More people seem to want the winners to be more salient. This format is also easier when one wants to sort the table by each winner using the sortable tables feature. Zzyzx11 (talk) 07:25, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 March 2015
The New York Giants were a Wild Card team in 2007 when they won the Super Bowl. That is not notified by a "Note" in the table of Super Bowl Champions.

104.167.135.107 (talk) 04:23, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Uh, yeah it is. --Legis (talk - contribs) 04:55, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

❌ Incorrect request - see (note 3) on the article page, which hasn't been altered since 12 February - Arjayay (talk) 14:38, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 March 2015
104.167.135.107 (talk) 20:06, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: No request was given. Gparyani (talk) 04:39, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 March 2015
While there is a "Note 3" to notify that the New York Giants were a Wild Card team in 2007 in the actual list of Super Bowl games, there is not a "Note 3" in the Super Bowl Appearances by Team table in the Seasons column.

104.167.135.107 (talk) 20:08, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. Gparyani (talk) 04:40, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
 * ✅ It's clear to me, what change he wanted.--Anaxagoras13 (talk) 08:50, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 29 March 2015
104.167.135.107 (talk) 13:20, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: Empty request. Gparyani (talk) 16:16, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

Record vs. Appearances
In the table, would it make sense to have the Super Bowl record in parentheses versus just the number of appearances? For instance,

instead of

I know there's another table with the multiples, but I did find myself flipping up and down trying to find the *record* rather than just the appearance count. DukeEGR93 21:13, 3 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Hi Duke, I agree that this change would make the table clearer and uncover information that is currently obfuscated. We would also need to change the note at the very top of the section to reflect this change:

Numbers in parentheses in the table are Super Bowl appearances or team records, as of the date of that Super Bowl and are used as follows: instead of: Numbers in parentheses in the table are Super Bowl appearances, as of the date of that Super Bowl and are used as follows:
 * Winning team and Losing team columns indicate each respective teams' Super Bowl record to date.
 * Venue column indicates number of times that stadium has hosted a Super Bowl.
 * City column indicates number of times that that metropolitan area has hosted a Super Bowl.
 * Winning team and Losing team columns indicate the number of times that team has appeared in a Super Bowl.
 * Venue column indicates number of times that stadium has hosted a Super Bowl.
 * City column indicates number of times that that metropolitan area has hosted a Super Bowl.
 * This is a significant enough change to the table that we should probably get others' input in here as well before making the change. Anyone else want to chime in? Does anyone want to argue for both appearances and the team's Super Bowl record? (I don't think that is a good idea, but it may warrant a discussion.) ~ Paul T [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Psantora&action=edit +]/C 20:42, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Well, no one really commented, so I went ahead and added both appearances and teams' SB record to date to the table. For consistency it may make sense to make similar changes to the venue and city columns using a br and small tags for their respective numbers as well. ~ Paul T [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Psantora&action=edit +]/C 22:05, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 August 2014
Super Bowl 50 should use the Roman numeral "L" instead of the digits "50" and I wanted to edit that, but I can't. Please may I edit this?

Facemark (talk) 12:39, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

❌ - as it explains in our article Super Bowl 50 "Instead of naming it Super Bowl L with Roman numerals like in previous Super Bowls, this game will be marketed with the Arabic numeral "50."" - Arjayay (talk) 13:04, 11 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Shouldn’t 1 through 4 also have Arabic numerals then? The Roman numerals weren't used until Super Bowl V Unconventional2 (talk) 20:20, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

Edit request
Where it currently reads, "The Green Bay Packers won the first two Super Bowls, but had also won the NFL championship in the preceding year.", since the article takes the step of mentioning that three-peat, wouldn't it be worthwhile to follow that with something like, "They are the only team to have won three straight NFL Championships, and they have done it twice, having also won three straight non-Super Bowl NFL Championships in 1929-31." Seems highly pertinent. 216.75.212.5 (talk) 14:48, 28 October 2015 (UTC)BillV


 * I think that this point is already covered in the article: List of NFL champions (1920–69), which is probably more appropriate is this article refers to Super Bowl era only. The difference between an NFL championship and a Super Bowl win is that a Super Bowl win required a win over the AFL team (in the early days).  As impressive as the Packers feat was, (in my view) it is more correctly addressed in the article listing NFL championships. --Legis (talk - contribs) 16:06, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Where it currently reads "Super Bowls XXVII and XXVIII were both won by Dallas, in consecutive seasons.", would it be worth mentioning that this is, in fact. the only occurrence of a repeat Super Bowl matchup, where the AFC and NFC champions were the same teams two years in a row? It's unusual enough to merit distinction.

Semi-protected edit request on 13 December 2015
Seattle is currently highlighted in green as if they won XLIX. This should be corrected

Vector2222 (talk) 21:47, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: Seattle isn't highlighted in green anywhere in the article.--Je suis blocked by Darkwind 22:10, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

consecutive super bowl wins
In the article it says that no team has won more than 2 super bowls in a row but the Buffalo Bills won the 1990, 1991, 1992, and 1993 super bowl. Dodge55 (talk) 22:04, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Buffalo lost those Super Bowls.--Je suis blocked by Darkwind 22:17, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request of consecutive super bowl wins - Feb 8 2016
Looks like someone did a search for broncos and was overly excited and added superbowl 50 to the list of consecutive wins, even though the broncos didn't win last year. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.177.128.209 (talk) 04:55, 8 February 2016 (UTC)


 * ✅ - BilCat (talk) 05:16, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 February 2016
This page says that The Cleveland Browns had appeared in six NFL Championship games besides the ones that they've won. They've actually been to seven. The one that is missing is the 1965 NFL Championship game.

Ballsk1 (talk) 03:56, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
 * ✅, thank you.--Je suis blocked by Darkwind 10:26, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on List of Super Bowl champions. 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:
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.sportingnews.com/archives/superbowl/24.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.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 18:43, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

Rename
This article should probably be renamed, since this isn't a list of Super Bowl champions, it's a list of Super Bowls. By extension, I suppose that includes a list of Super Bowl champions, but the section below the chronological list is primarily sorted by the number of appearances each team has made in the Super Bowl, not the number of times they've won it. – PeeJay 20:58, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I see what you are saying, but am not completely convinced. The article is predominantly a list of the Super Bowl winners, but provides additional related information like who they played, where the Super Bowl was held, etc.  On balance I would probably keep the current title, but I am not super militant on the point.  Do you have an alternative suggested title that you feel would be better? --Legis (talk - contribs) 22:46, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
 * List of Super Bowls would suit me just fine. – PeeJay 23:01, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
 * The current "champions" title may have been relevant when this list page was first created more than ten years ago, but it has evolved to the point (including the addition of the "Super Bowl appearances by team" section) where both the List of Super Bowls and List of Super Bowl games now redirect here. Zzyzx11 (talk) 07:14, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Exactly my point, except I don't think a redirect is sufficient. – PeeJay 10:20, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
 * No worries. I will post a link on relevant WikiProject page in relation to the suggestion and we'll see if we can generate consensus on the proposed move / rename. --Legis (talk - contribs) 13:39, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment List of World Series champions, List of NBA champions, List of Stanley Cup champions, and List of MLS Cup finals seem similar/identical. Perhaps those should be included in the discussion.  Unrelated, there also seem to be potential of mutual classfication ala Category:North American Professional Sports Championships. UW Dawgs (talk) 16:16, 11 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Yeah, that is one of the reasons I oppose renaming: it would be inconsistent with all the other championship articles. Plus, the core and main point of these articles are a list of champions, and it is what most people are looking for when they come to the articles. The articles also show who each champion beat and other information, but does so as supplementary information that gives context to those championships and does not change that the core of the articles are lists of champions. —Lowellian (reply) 17:53, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

Reverted recent addition of "winners that failed to make the playoffs the following season" section
I reverted the recent addition of the "winners that failed to make the playoffs the following season" section, and I just thought I'd leave a note here explaining why: because it is a long trivia list that is bloating an already long page. Unlike the other sections around it, namely "Teams with no Super Bowl appearances", "Teams with Super Bowl appearances but no victories", "Teams with long Super Bowl droughts", and "Super Bowl rematches", all of which are lists that are more relevant to this page in that they are each lists directly involving Super Bowl appearances, this particular list of "winners that failed to make the playoffs the following season" is about ensuing playoff fates the following season instead of Super Bowl appearances directly. If this list were to stay, then there are all sorts of other minutiae about ensuing fates of Super Bowl teams that could be added. We have to draw the line somewhere to avoid an enormous page filled with trivia, and I don't think think this meets the standard of relevance set by the other sections around it. —Lowellian (reply) 04:13, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on List of Super Bowl champions. 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/20130319014514/http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/bulletins/2013/b13-01.pdf to http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/bulletins/2013/b13-01.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20050928213115/http://www.sportingnews.com/archives/superbowl/12.html to http://www.sportingnews.com/archives/superbowl/12.html
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.sportingnews.com/archives/superbowl/24.html

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) 15:20, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

Sort order for City column
Checking to see if there is any objection to me changing the sort order for the City column to correspond to the MSA. For example, I believe the sort for the following should be Los Angeles, not Pasadena (and clearly Inglewood needs to be changed).

|{{Sort|Pasadena, California 01|Los Angeles, California |{{Sort|Pasadena, California 02|Los Angeles, California (2) }} |{{Sort|Pasadena, California 03|Pasadena, California (3) }} |{{Sort|Pasadena, California 04|Pasadena, California (4) }} |{{Sort|Pasadena, California 05|Pasadena, California (5) }} |{{Sort|Pasadena, California 06|Pasadena, California (6) }} |{{Sort|Pasadena, California 07|Pasadena, California (7) }} |{{Sort|Inglewood, California 08|Inglewood, California (8) }}

Thanks Jb45424 (talk) 02:48, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

Clarification Request
On the list of super bowls by team, the Pittsburgh Steelers and Cleveland Browns should be colored the neutral color as the Colts are. They share the note and distinction of having been NFL teams that shifted to the AFC, but only the Colts get the color distinction. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.74.235.4 (talk) 16:19, 7 February 2017 (UTC)


 * The Steelers and Browns are not colored that way because they never participated in any Super Bowls as an NFL/NFC team, unlike the Colts, who participated in Super Bowl III as the NFL/NFC representative. —Lowellian (reply) 03:44, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on List of Super Bowl champions. 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/20060208025113/http://www.sportingnews.com/archives/superbowl/3.html to http://www.sportingnews.com/archives/superbowl/3.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20051226074105/http://www.sportingnews.com/archives/superbowl/13.html to http://www.sportingnews.com/archives/superbowl/13.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090417164820/http://www.sportingnews.com/archives/superbowl/16.html to http://www.sportingnews.com/archives/superbowl/16.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080706024845/http://www.signonsandiego.com/uniontrib/20070128/news_1s28bears.html to http://www.signonsandiego.com/uniontrib/20070128/news_1s28bears.html

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) 00:20, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 February 2017
One image has a caption of "The Jets' victory over the Colts in Super Bowl III was the team's last championship appearance." Please expand it to ..."the former team's..." because "the team" could refer to the Jets or the Colts, so "former" distinguishes from "latter." 208.95.51.115 (talk) 14:18, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
 * ❌; it's obvious that the Jets are meant ("The Jet's victory...").--Anaxagoras13 (talk) 17:52, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
 * It can be interpreted to mean "the team's" last appearance in the championship game, and that's ambiguous. What if you made it "Their victory...III was the Jets' last championship appearance."  208.95.51.115 (talk) 20:03, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
 * I clarified this caption and reworded it to address this concern. We'll see if it lasts. ~ Paul T [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Psantora&action=edit +]/C 19:37, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

Super Bowl name
The article currently states that "Super Bowl III in January 1969 was the first such game that carried the "Super Bowl" moniker, the names "Super Bowl I" and "Super Bowl II" were only retroactively applied to the first two games." However, this is not true, and is easily contradicted. For example, in this famous broadcast of Max McGee's opening touchdown from Super Bowl I, you can hear the announcer saying "and the old veteran scores the first touchdown of the Super Bowl game": https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dVizBENi9cQ#t=27m54s I would love to edit it, but I'm worried it would just get reverted, so I'm posting here. The reference linked does not actually support the article's statement. The game was colloquially known as the Super Bowl, it just hadn't shown up in the branding yet. laddiebuck (talk) 01:23, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I added this information to the introduction using your reference. It would be great if we could have some additional references too to bolster this fact. Are you aware of any other references? Maybe on the Super Bowl article? ~ Paul T [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Psantora&action=edit +]/C 19:37, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

Consecutive Winners
The New England Patriots won back to back Super Bowls (XXXVIII and XXXIX) and have won 3 out of 4 consecutive title games beginning with their first Super Bowl win (XXXVI).

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.163.0.41 (talk • contribs) 16:21, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I added a bullet to this section to make this point and a similar point for the Steelers as well. ~ Paul T [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Psantora&action=edit +]/C 19:37, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 January 2018
Please change the 50 on the list of super bowls to an L so it is consistent to the rest HatboyRSS (talk) 20:30, 23 January 2018 (UTC)


 * 50 is the correct number of this super bowl!--Anaxagoras13 (talk) 20:44, 23 January 2018 (UTC)


 * As it says in the footnote that I've now added to that Super Bowl, unlike other Super Bowls, Super Bowl 50's official name, as designated by the NFL, uses the Arabic numeral "50" instead of the Roman numeral "L". —Lowellian (reply) 09:11, 3 February 2018 (UTC)


 * But now it looks terrible with the footnote in the column.--Anaxagoras13 (talk) 10:22, 3 February 2018 (UTC)


 * Hmm, okay, I added an explicit line break tag so that the "50" goes back to being centered in the column like the Roman numerals instead of shoved to the left and thus misaligned with the rest of the column. —Lowellian (reply) 02:57, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 March 2018
Second paragraph, third sentence (current):

Super Bowl III in January 1969 was the first such game that carried the "Super Bowl" moniker in official marketing, the names "Super Bowl I" and "Super Bowl II" were retroactively applied to the first two games.

Second paragraph, third sentence (edited):

Super Bowl III in January 1969 was the first such game that carried the "Super Bowl" moniker in official marketing; the names "Super Bowl I" and "Super Bowl II" were retroactively applied to the first two games.

Edit: The comma separating the two independent clauses should be changed to a semicolon to fix the run-on sentence error.

Second paragraph, fifth sentence (current):

Nineteen franchises, including teams that relocated to another city, have won the Super Bowl.

Second paragraph, fifth sentence (edited):

Twenty franchises, including teams that have relocated to another city, have won the Super Bowl.

Edits: Since the Eagles won the Super Bowl for the first time this year, there have now been twenty franchises to win the game. Inserting "have" improves the diction of the sentence.

"Teams with no Super Bowl appearances" section, first bullet point, third sentence (current):

The Baltimore Ravens were an expansion team created in 1996 with former Browns players.

"Teams with no Super Bowl appearances" section, first bullet point, third sentence (edited):

The Baltimore Ravens was created as an expansion team with former Browns players in 1996, and have since won two Super Bowls.

Edits: The Ravens is a singular team, and therefore should use the singular verb "was." The fact that they have won two Super Bowls since being relocated to Baltimore is interesting because the team was created from the old Browns players and staff and has been consistently good since, while the team that stayed in Cleveland has been continuously bad ever since reentering the league in 1999. The sentence has been restructured to accommodate this additional fact.

--PacchMann (talk) 02:59, 23 March 2018 (UTC) PacchMann (talk) 02:59, 23 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done      Spintendo       08:04, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

Baltimore Ravens
A point of correction. The Baltimore Ravens were not an expansion team. The Cleveland Browns moved to Baltimore after the Colts moved to Indianapolis.The city of Cleveland retained the rights to the "Browns" name. That's why the team was re-named "Ravens". But there was no expansion at that time. Later, the current Cleveland Browns were added to the league as an expansion team. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Loosedogs (talk • contribs) 23:59, 29 April 2017 (UTC)


 * While you're correct that the Baltimore Ravens were, on a practical basis, not actually an expansion team but instead one that moved, the NFL officially regards them as an expansion team in their records. That was part of the negotiations for the move, that the Ravens would be considered a new franchise, with old Browns records kept for the later-revived Browns franchise. —Lowellian (reply) 03:38, 21 September 2017 (UTC)


 * And if the NFL said dark was day and light was night would it be the truth? The Cleveland team moved to Baltimore, they left the name in Cleveland. If the league wants to fictionalize their history should we just except it?Corumplex (talk) 03:49, 22 January 2018 (UTC)


 * The NFL doesn't control night and day, but it does control itself. So if it treats the Baltimore Ravens as an expansion team, then that's what Wikipedia reports. - BilCat (talk) 07:36, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

So does the NFL have the right to fictionalize it's history? It is true that the NFL franchise in Cleveland changed it's name and moved to Baltimore. Also it is fact that later a new team using the "Browns" name started in Cleveland. I have no patience with groups who want to revise history through press releases. Why would we here on Wikipedia want to help them with their fictional revisionist history? The film industry says they moved to Hollywood to get away from gangs who were extorting money from them. The truth is that the Edison company had patents on the filming process and the 'gangs' were agents of Edison trying to collect the patent royalties he was entitled to. Industries and businesses often try and write their own histories, It's up to such as us to keep them honest. Corumplex (talk) 17:37, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

I propose that the situation involving the Browns and the Ravens be recorded to indicate that in order to make record keeping easier the NFL chooses to regard the Browns as one continuous franchise though the franchise did in fact move to Baltimore and was replaced by a new franchise of the same name.Corumplex (talk) 02:57, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 December 2018
It's shows the Arizona cardnails/st louis for Superbowl appernces. Only the AZ cards have been to a Superbowl not St Louis cardinals. Please change! 97.124.121.202 (talk) 01:49, 15 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. DannyS712 (talk) 02:15, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

Under first section "List of Super Bowl champions" .. 3rd paragraph, final sentence wording ...
The sentence currently reads ... "Four current NFL teams have never appeared in a Super Bowl, including franchise relocations and renaming: the Cleveland Browns, Detroit Lions, Jacksonville Jaguars, and Houston Texans, though both the Browns (1964) and Lions (1957) had won NFL championship games prior to the creation of the Super Bowl." ... which makes it seem as if both the Browns and Lions had each previously won just one NFL championship game. Actually, each had won four previous NFL titles - Cleveland in 1964, 1955, 1954, 1950 and Detroit in 1957, 1953, 1952, 1935.

Requested/suggested 3rd paragraph, final sentence wording ... "Four current NFL teams have never appeared in a Super Bowl, including franchise relocations and renaming: the Cleveland Browns, Detroit Lions, Houston Texans and Jacksonville Jaguars, though both the Browns (latest in 1964) and Lions (latest in 1957) had each won four NFL championship games prior to the creation of the Super Bowl."

Thanks for your time. 108.28.198.56 (talk) 14:28, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

Patriots listed as 5-5; They are 5-6.
The graphic of Super Bowl XX is also incorrect. Starterjacket (talk) 13:58, 22 January 2019 (UTC)


 * The New England Patriots have not played their 11th Super Bowl yet, nor have the Los Angeles Rams played their 4th Super Bowl. Rickie-d (talk) 21:11, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

This article is about *Champions* not Venues.
Since there have been 53 Super Bowls, there should be only 53 data rows in the table. It's great that we already know the venues for future Super Bowls, but it's premature to put that data in the table. If we absolutely want to keep the data here, we could put it in a paragraph after the table. Or create another table that follows.

I would think that a new row should only be added once either an AFC or NFC Champion has been determined, but not before. Zonker.in.geneva (talk) 16:51, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Sorry, this is longstanding practice for this article and barring significant reasons to change, the information is very relevant in context and should change. If others feel similarly to how you feel we can absolutely have the discussion, but as it stands they upcoming games make sense to include. - Paul T [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Psantora&action=edit +]/C 04:45, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
 * In the spirit of compromise, I added an additional label row to separate future games (with the exception of the current season's game). - Paul T [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Psantora&action=edit +]/C 15:28, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Agree with what Paul said: including the upcoming Super Bowls is longstanding practice, and there needs to be some place for that information. That said, I removed that new label row because it is unnecessary and looks jarringly discongruent in the middle of the table, and it looks even more out-of-place when you sort by the column headers, because then you end up with duplicate label rows stacked on top of each other. —Lowellian (reply) 04:09, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Just because something is long-standing practice, doesn't mean it shouldn't be re-thought. I'm not suggesting removing that information. Looking at other sporting events that know the venue for future competitions (e.g., Men's World Cup, Women's World Cup, America's Cup), those WikiPedia articles do one of three things: either the venue is not listed, the venue is listed but separately or there are two separate articles - one which deals only with the winners of past events and the the other that deals with the event, and therefore shows venues for future events. The same is true for different events at the Olympics. The current list for champions of the 100-m sprint stops in 2016, even though we know where the next two Olympics will be.

Zonker.in.geneva (talk) 21:28, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

Need to relabel second paragraph of "Consecutive Wins" section, as not a single team has "come close" to winning three in a row.
There is a section on this page entitled "Consecutive Wins," which lists the seven teams who have won two SBs in a row. The second paragraph states "No franchise has yet won three Super Bowls in a row, although six of the above seven have come close." First, the recently added phrase "of the above seven" is redundant and therefore, unnecessary. But, that's not the discussion I want to have.

The phrase "comes close" is really vague and should be defined more precisely. As I read it, that phrase takes on about four or five different meanings, from "won two in a row but lost the preceding SB" to "won two in a row but didn't even make the playoffs the following season."

In my view, and I say this as a Pats' fan, only teams that reached two in a row and reached the SB a third straight time qualify as "coming close." I mean, before LIII kicked off, I didn't think to myself, "Man, if the Pats win this game, we'll *almost* have won three in a row." Naw. You lose the SB, the counter starts at zero.

With this more precise definition, not a single team has truly come close. The Dolphins lost the first of their three straight. Not close. The Pats were in three in a row, but lost in the middle. Sorry, but not close. And GB - this article is about SB champions, not seasons prior, so, not close. Losing in a Conference Championship? Not close enough, for me. To say nothing of losing earlier in the Playoffs or not reaching the playoffs at all, such as Pittsburgh in the 1980 season.

I know it makes some of us feel good to see our teams' name in the list of "comes close," but factually, no one has come close.

Perhaps this little section could be renamed to "Sustained Success" oslt. Zonker.in.geneva (talk) 22:04, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

Inconsistent naming of teams that have moved
In some places, listed as San Diego/Los Angeles Chargers other places Los Angeles Chargers (played as San Diego Chargers in Super Bowl XXIX) should these be changed to be consistent? Sportooner1 (talk) 19:08, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
 * , Can you point to a specific example of an inconsistency? Generally the link is as specific as possible for the context in which it appears. For example, the XXIX link points to the 1994 Chargers season and they are labeled as the San Diego Chargers because that was their name during that season. In the places where multiple names are listed with a slash that is because the entry is referring to a period of time where the team had more than one name. - Paul T [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Psantora&action=edit +]/C 04:43, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Ok reading it that context makes sense. Thank you Sportooner1 (talk) 20:05, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

Why NFL‡/AFC†, etc? - proposed tweak to confusing superscript symbols
It seems to me that the superscript symbols used on this page are not the best choice. Here is how they are currently being used:

- NFL‡/NFC* - AFL^/AFC†

It seems strange to me that the NFL symbol was picked as one that closely matches the AFC symbol, when these are opposites in legacy. It would seem to make a lot more sense to have the strong similarity be between AFL to AFC, and likewise the NFL to NFC. And then the bigger question is why are cryptic symbols being used at all. We could simply use an 'N' to represent NFC and an 'A' to represent AFC. This could eliminate a lot of headscratching that is done by the average reader.

Proposed change:

- NFLv/NFCN - AFL^/AFCA

Here the '^' is a symbol that looks kind of like an 'A', so there's continuity there. And then the 'v' is the opposite of '^', and if you're into Greek, then you can read it as the letter 'nu'. This is a minor change being proposed here, but it could go a long way toward eliminating confusion. --Breezy Foal (talk) 23:27, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
 * This is a great idea. I never liked those symbols but they are necessary for accessibility per the style guide. I think this is a reasonable middle ground and it makes sense that NFL/NFC and AFL/AFC be similar to each other. - Paul T [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Psantora&action=edit +]/C 05:05, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
 * For some more context, the relevant guideline is here MOS:COLOR/WP:ACCESS and some of the previous discussion about this is here Featured list removal candidates/List of Super Bowl champions/archive2. - Paul T [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Psantora&action=edit +]/C 05:56, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I've been thinking about this some more and I don't think the idea of a "v" for the NFL symbol is good. It should be something that is consistent with the AFL symbol. I was looking through some options and I think logical "or" (∨) and logical "and" (∧) are better options for NFL/AFL respectively. It would look like this:
 * NFL∨/NFCN
 * AFL∧/AFCA
 * What do you think? - Paul T [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Psantora&action=edit +]/C 21:30, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I ended up making the change to use nN and aA:
 * NFLn/NFCN
 * AFLa/AFCA
 * Thanks for the inspiration! Let me know what you think or if there are other, better suggestions. - Paul T [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Psantora&action=edit +]/C 17:23, 11 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Your fix is an excellent improvement. The table is significantly more readable now.
 * Working together collaboratively to continually improve this encyclopedia is what Wikipedia is all about. It is what makes it so great.
 * (Usually.) --Breezy Foal (talk) 16:09, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

Table of Super Bowl appearances by team
This discussion started with an unexplained reversion by of the existing table. I reverted this change with the following explanation in the edit summary:
 * Undid revisions 829779527-829781887 by . The primary sort for this table is based on the number of appearances. It follows that the next most important item (after winning percentage) is how long each team has had that number of appearances and then that number of wins. It is easy to sort on other values by using the arrows at the top of the table, but this is the default. Regardless, removing the sort values entirely just because you don't agree with the order is not appropriate. Lets discuss this further on the talk page if you have questions or concerns about changing the default sorting options, I'm sure we can come to an agreed upon understanding of how the sorting should work. Thanks!

Bonesdonahue then posted the following to my talk page:
 * No you decided to change the sort from the original. When you sort by wins it has been and will remain wins/apperances/last time to appear. If your going to try and change that you need to at the very least change it correctly. The Panthers shouldn't end up below teams who haven't won a Super Bowl. Just because you disagreed with how the page was originally was set doesn't mean you get to change it. I will continue to reset your sort order cause it's done incorrectly and doesn't make sense. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bonesdonahue (talk • contribs) 04:14, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

I moved the discussion here to keep this back-and-forth all in one place. My response is below.
 * You are absolutely correct. Sorting by wins was not being done correctly. I have since corrected the table to reflect the correct sorting. Regardless, reverting changes without explanation is not helpful (and FYI can be considered vandalism). It would have been much easier (and faster) to come to an agreement if you had explained your rationale either in the edit summary or here on the talk page for the article. I probably should have done the latter in addition to my lengthy edit summary explaining why I reverted your unexplained revert. I also added this comment at the top of the section explaining how the sorting is being handled:

Appearances sort: Appearances/Wins/Years since last Appearance/Years since last Win/Years since last championship game prior to 1970 (if necessary); Wins sort: if Wins>0 Wins/Years since last Win, if Wins=0 Wins/Appearances/Years since last Win/Years since last Appearance/Years since last championship game prior to 1970 (if necessary); Losses sort: Losses/Appearances/Years since last Loss/Years since last Appearance/Years since last championship game prior to 1970 (if necessary)
 * The next step would be to apply a similar sorting to the "Winning percentage" column so that those teams with more appearances for a given winning percentage appear first when sorting by that column. Happy editing! - Paul T [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Psantora&action=edit +]/C 02:35, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

Paul/Psantora - I'm not Savvy in how to create sort orders in Wiki and reverting the changes wasn't vandalism seeing as it was the default of how the page was originally set. I still believe that when you sort by wins that that it should be based on wins then appearances. Example the Steelers appear first with 6 wins and 8 appearances followed by the Patriots 5 wins 10 appearances and so on but the only way I know how to do that is to revert the change. Maybe something you can look into. Thanks, Bonesdonahue — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bonesdonahue (talk • contribs) 04:57, 22 March 2018 (UTC)
 * The current sorting (which you just reverted, again without any explanation) for the "wins" column does exactly what you are asking. Why did you revert it? - Paul T [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Psantora&action=edit +]/C 05:07, 25 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Ah, I spoke too quickly. I see what you are talking about now. The sort for the wins column (as I'd like it to stand; option 1) gives preference to the team that reached that number of wins first. That is, the 49ers reached 5 wins before the Cowboys or Patriots even though both of those teams have more SB appearances than the 49ers. When sorting by wins it lists Steelers, 49ers, Cowboys, Patriots... and so on. You think it should go Steelers, Patriots, Cowboys, 49ers... and so on. Reasonable. I disagree. We'll have to wait and see if others who watch this page will chime in to see which way we go. In the meantime I'll revert back to the original way it was being sorted (with updated sort values so that ties are handled correctly) and provide examples of both options here. Just give me a little bit to get the code setup. - Paul T [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Psantora&action=edit +]/C 05:18, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

Option 1 - earlier team gets preference (reverted change)

 * Appearances sort: Appearances/Wins/Years since last Appearance/Years since last Win/Years since last championship game prior to 1970 (if necessary);
 * Wins sort: if Wins>0 Wins/Years since last Win, if Wins=0 Wins/Appearances/Years since last Win/Years since last Appearance/Years since last championship game prior to 1970 (if necessary);
 * Losses sort: Losses/Appearances/Years since last Loss/Years since last Appearance/Years since last championship game prior to 1970 (if necessary)

Option 2 - more appearances gets preference (current state of list)

 * Appearances sort: Appearances/Wins/Years since last Appearance/Years since last Win/Years since last championship game prior to 1970 (if necessary);
 * Wins sort: Wins/Appearances/Years since last Win/Years since last Appearance/Years since last championship game prior to 1970 (if necessary);
 * Losses sort: Losses/Appearances/Years since last Loss/Years since last Appearance/Years since last championship game prior to 1970 (if necessary)

Option 1 vs Option 2 discussion

 * Option 1 - My preference is for Option 1. The team with the higher winning percentage should be listed first when sorting by wins. - Paul T [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Psantora&action=edit +]/C 05:33, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

"Table of Super Bowl appearances" is a JOKE, right?!
This article is about Super Bowl Champions. When you win the Super Bowl, they hand you the Lombardi Trophy. They do not hand out Participation Trophies. So in what universe does the number of Appearances count more than the number of Wins? Where is the backlash from every single football fan who knows that the Super Bowl trophy is named for a man famous for his quote about what winning means? If you understand football, if you understand the NFL, if you understand the Super Bowl, if you understand Vince Lombardi ...then you know that if he had made a table himself, it would have only TWO COLUMNS: Team / Wins. And if he were pressed to have a 3rd column added, he would label that one TRIVIA.

It is utterly improper to have a table that defaults to presenting the NE Pats above the Steelers in an article about Super Bowl Champions. I can see that a lot of effort went into building it. And if the creator feels attached to it, then I suggest starting a separate article titled List of Super Bowl Losers. You can put your table there. It does not belong here.--Breezy Foal (talk) 17:25, 13 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Disagree strongly. Aside from the possibility that this may be a moot point before Monday, along with your somewhat emotionally-charged rebuttal against a format that has existed on this page since 2007, I'll make my case with this question: Does the Buffalo Bills competing in and losing the Super Bowl in four consecutive years make them a good team or a bad team? Rickie-d (talk) 21:03, 31 January 2019 (UTC)


 * You clearly do not understand the criticism that has been highlighted here. This is obvious is because you have expressed this view that if the Patriots won yesterday, then the point is rendered moot.


 * The table is still BROKEN.


 * Yes, today it is proper to list the Patriots ahead of the Steelers (leaving alone a separate issue regarding the Pats and how they got to certain SBs). So the top of the list is no longer displaying an inversion.  But look just two lines lower, and what do you find:  The 3-5 Broncos listed AHEAD of the 5-1 SF 49ers.


 * The Bills losing 4 straight? That does not make them a bad team.  That does not make them a good team.  That makes them a GREAT team.  For those four straight years, they produced results that were greater than every other team in the NFL that year ...except for one.  So what they were was a great team.  But they were not the greatest team.  Let's be clear that we are having this discussion on an article about Super Bowl CHAMPIONS.  And you choose for your rebuttal to highlight the most iconic example of a Super Bowl loser.  You say that asking that question makes some kind of case.  I already showed the case that that kind of argument makes.  It is the argument that a "Participation Trophy" counts more than a Lombardi Trophy.


 * Now that point is not necessarily an illegitimate one, inherently. But if any weight is to be given to your position, then we must ask why this article is titled SB Champions.  And the more important question is where are the NFL SB Participation Trophies?  Why don't they give a trophy to the losers as well?  No "Participation Rings" either.  When you figure out the answers to those questions, then you can see how broken this table is.  It does not reflect the reality of what the NFL values.  The reality that the fans value.  The reality that anyone I know of who follows football in any way values.  This table is an INVERSION of those values.  And therefore, it does not fit with Wikipedia standards.  Wikipedia editors are not granted the liberty to REVERSE the values that are clearly upheld by society.  So I will restate the original question...


 * In what universe is it proper to list the Vikings & Bills (both 0-4) ahead of the Ravens (2-0)?


 * And your argument that it has been this way for 12 years holds no water either. I have seen plenty of articles broken on Wikipedia for many many years, and everyone just overlooks how broken it is, instead of making the effort to get it fixed.  It does nothing to excuse the fact that it is broken.  --Breezy Foal (talk) 00:20, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

Ok, the table has now been fixed so that it reflects an actual List of Super Bowl champions. Columns have been reprioritized by Wins first, then Appearances, and with teams that have the same SB W/L record, the team to have achieved it first is listed first. This change has been implemented with the need for this change having been highlighted more than 3 weeks ago. The only objection voiced during that time was by someone who did not understand the issue, saying that this problem would become moot if the Patriots won. The other grounds for objection was that this table had reflected the prioritization of appearances being counted more than wins since 2007. The rebuttal presented here is that something being broken for a dozen years does not qualify as valid grounds for not fixing it today. So it has been fixed. --Breezy Foal (talk) 06:46, 5 February 2019 (UTC)


 * When you "fixed" the table, you forgot to "fix" the bottom header. Next time you make unilateral decisions without waiting for any sort of quorum on 12-year old standards two days after the Super Bowl, make sure you actually finish what you're doing.


 * This "need for change" only had a single voice behind it: yours. No quorum was achieved, and when opposition was raised, you ignored and tried to delegitimize it, then made sweeping changes on your own, claiming that there was no opposition to a change that was "needed". I will be recommending that your series of edits be reviewed for possible reversion and actual discussion, since this site and this page are a community effort. Rickie-d (talk) 18:21, 5 February 2019 (UTC)


 * I strive to maintain respect for others, and honor the process according to policy, at all times. It is clear that you feel disrespected here.  I do not see myself to have ignored anything you presented.  And as for "without waiting", I actually saw myself as exercising extended patience.  I waited more than 3 weeks, when it is common for rapid changes to happen on Wikipedia over the span of 3 hours.  You posted your objections.  And then I waited 4 days after that.


 * ...and the reason why I waited those 4 days was purposeful. It was to wait for the results of LIII so that after the table had been updated, everyone could clearly see whether your assertion about this issue becoming moot was valid or not.  You say that I ignored and delegitimized your input.  My reply to you included "...that point is not necessarily an illegitimate one, inherently."  That was me trying to say that I see your point as being legitimate.


 * One angle I highlighted in my position was this idea of aligning with the values of society. One strong current in society is that there is this negative aspect to sports competition, where unless you go all the way and win the championship, you get branded as a loser.  The Bills are on the bleeding edge of that moniker.  (To the point of the old joke that BILLS stands for Boy I Love Losing Superbowls.)  There has been a strong backlash in society against this attitude, and because of that, there were sayings that gained a lot of traction, like:
 * "Winning isn't everything."
 * "It's not whether you win or lose. It's how you play the game."
 * Perhaps the most famous saying of Vince Lombardi is his counter to this counter. And there is actually an entire separate Wikipedia  article dedicated to that quote.  So those are the two contrasting values that are at work here.  And I see both to be legitimate.  Just getting to the SB is an amazing accomplishment.  Each year there are 30 teams who fail to do that, and only 2 teams that do.  So Appearances certainly count for something.  I understand your point about the Bills.


 * At lower levels of competition, the backlash against the harsh consequences of hyper-competitive attitudes gained a lot of traction. And that's when Participation Trophies started appearing.  If this trend of honoring participation instead of just honoring winning had reached the top level of football, then I would actually agree with your position.  I would see it to be proper for the table in this article to value Appearances over Lombardis.  But then wouldn't the broader argument here be why do we even have an article that focuses on the Super Bowl, while ignoring all the teams that participated in the NFL season, but didn't make it to the Super Bowl?  They all "participated" too.  They got to the NFL, while their other college teammates did not.  And then a further step back would choose to honor all those who failed to make it to the NFL.  And so on, until everyone gets recognized for what they did, along with what they didn't do.


 * This is the conundrum of participation trophies. This is the conundrum of presenting a table that values appearances over wins.  This is why participation trophies went away (as far as I saw).  The concept does not fit with the concept of competition.  So this leads us to the way things are.  There are no participation trophies in the Super Bowl.  You do not get a ring just for showing up.


 * Back to the process here...
 * I agree with you that it would be healthy to have a thorough discussion on this. I am well aware that unilateral decisions are not the best way to work here.  I waited 6 hours after posting my rebuttal before implementing the sweeping change.  Perhaps it would have been better if I had waited 6 days.  I welcome the discussion that me 'stirring the pot' here may bring about.


 * Now it is possible that such discussion could lead even further in the direction in which I have moved the chains. I actually see the position I took here as being a MIDDLE GROUND.  The table as it stands now reflects valuing Super Bowl losses.  Yet the title of the article remains as "List of Super Bowl champions".  A very strong argument could be made that the Pittsburgh Steelers belong ABOVE the Patriots, because this is the first club to have achieved the milestone of 6 wins.  The argument here is that the number of losses doesn't matter at all.  I myself have not taken that stand.  But it is a position that needs to be examined if we are going to have a healthy discussion on this topic.


 * Again, one way for us to gain guidance is by the values of the NFL themselves. Evidence this weekend's commercial by the NFL on "The 100-Year Game" (on YouTube).  One of the most notable aspects was the Aqua coats worn by the three players from the '72 Dolphins, while just about every other NFL player wore black.  The NFL is well aware that the 2007 Patriots also had a perfect regular season.  They even won more games than the '72 Dolphins, because the season was longer.  Yet no special status was given to them (Brady, etc).  The values reflected by the NFL in that commercial I see to be further support for this position that the thing that matters far more than anything else when it comes to the Super Bowl is winning it.  Appearances there are a distant second.


 * So let's have a full discussion here. It is quite possible that a better way to present this table is by listing the Steelers over the Pats.  The Iron Curtain got to 6 wins well before the Patriots did.  A full TEN YEARS before.


 * Also, thank you for fixing my incomplete edit. You had raised the point that the table had been this way since 2007.  As I was doing that edit, the thought dawned on me that perhaps one reason why no one else has done this in 12 years is because it was excruciating to do that change.  And then I dropped the ball right at the end.  My fumble.  Your recovery. --Breezy Foal (talk) 21:37, 5 February 2019 (UTC)


 * "The only objection voiced during that time was by someone who did not understand the issue" -- That looks like some pretty blatant disrespect to me. As for waiting a long-enough amount of time, this page is generally only updated in any considerable measure twice a year.  Waiting a few days and making sweeping structural changes without any other voices supporting the measure seems more damnable a move than leaving it be over a single opposing voice.


 * You seem to keep striving to make appeals to emotion over the direction of this page, claims that we need to observe society, heed the values of the NFL, listen to the opinion of the namesake of the trophy in order to better direct an encyclopedic entry. A good, analytical encyclopedia does not kowtow to emotions.  It is data in a digestible, readable format.


 * In fact, considering the bulk of this page is actually dedicated to simply listing each Super Bowl, its participants, the stadium, the score, etc., your constant assertion that because the title of the page is List of Super Bowl champions it necessitates your proposed (and enacted) change seems to be secondary to the conceit that the data on this page suggest it should perhaps be titled List of Super Bowl games instead. After all, what use is knowing the stadium Super Bowl XXI was played at on a page of champions?  What use is knowing the attendance at Super Bowl XLIII on a page of champions?


 * Your entire case is built on the title of the page—one that may not even be appropriate in the first place—and you have decided by yourself to be the arbiter of change of a 12-year existing setup without a single supporting voice.


 * As for a final note on this point, and as someone who has been helping edit this page since 2011 myself, a name change proposal was discussed in 2015, in which it was noted that both List of Super Bowls and List of Super Bowl games redirects to this page. In addition, the exact same appearance-dominant ranking is listed on the List of World Series champions page, the List of Stanley Cup champions page, and the List of MLS Cup finals page.  The final say on that discussion was that the core of the article focuses on the championships themselves and their winners, and the List of Appearances section is supplemental information.


 * I propose the list be reverted to appearance-dominant ranking. Rickie-d (talk) 17:19, 7 February 2019 (UTC)


 * You've quoted me and present it as an example of me being blatantly disrespectful to you. Notice that my words were perfectly accurate.  Society has laws against slander & libel.  But all you have to do is show the judge that your statement is true, and the case gets thrown out.  So then we could examine if my statement was unkind.  I certainly could have watered it down.  Or I could also have simply overlooked your error so that I would not risk hurting your feelings.  But the purpose of my statement was to present justification for me taking unilateral action.  If anyone has any suggestions on how I could have done that better, then I'd be glad to consider it.  You are saying that it would have been better for me to have waited longer.  I see three weeks to be an extremely long period of time, by Wikipedia norms.  If you had not said that Sunday could render this issue moot, then perhaps I would have waited longer.  But even waiting those 4 additional days like I did is approaching eternity, by Wikipedia norms.


 * Again, the position I have taken here is a middle ground. As I have stated before, a strong argument can be made that the Steelers should be listed ahead of the Patriots, because they are the first team that got to 6 wins (one decade earlier).  Here is the precedent for that as set here on Wikipedia:  List_of_NFL_champions_(1920–1969).


 * That table defaults to listing the 4-2 Lions ahead of the 4-7 Browns . The Canton Bulldogs ahead of the Cardinals, Rams & Redskins, etc.  (I myself have never once edited anything on that page.)


 * You see the foundation of my argument to be the title of this article saying "...champions". If you look back on what I wrote, you'll see that I had pointed to that fact as a reflections of the values.  And I also remember saying something to the effect that if the opposite position is to be upheld here, then the title needs to be changed.


 * You see my voice to be alone on this side of the argument. I will offer several more voices ...voices that I see to carry an infinite amount of weight more than mine:
 * Vince Lombardi: "There's no room for second place.  There's only one place, and that's FIRST place." (YouTube)


 * Lombardi goes on to say that he's finished second twice in his career, and he doesn't ever want that to happen again. There's another famous NFL coach who finished second twice.  Let's hear from him...


 * Don Shula: "So now I'm zero-and-two in the Super Bowls.  And when you're zero-and-two, people say very unkind things about you, like "He can't win the Big One."  So until you win the Big One, they're going to keep saying those bad things." (YouTube)


 * That very same clip presents your side of this argument, that just getting to the Super Bowl is to be valued, with Larry Little saying, "We had never tasted the Super Bowl before, and I think there was a feeling of a lot of guys that you were happy to be there, but my feeling were [sic] to go out there and win the football game."


 * Now these are quotes from key people who were involved in early Super Bowls. A question can be asked as to whether attitudes and values have shifted over the decades.  How bout we listen to a current player...


 * Cam Newton: "I've been on record to say I'm a sore loser.  Who likes to lose?  You show me a good loser, and I'm'na show you a loser." (YouTube)


 * Cam had just lost Super Bowl 50. And here he is quoting Vince Lombardi, in another one of his iconically famous sayings.  This shows that the attitude that "Winning isn't everything, it is the only thing" still prevails in the NFL today.  You asked about the Bills getting there in 4 straight years.  All of these people quoted above would say that this fact makes the Buffalo Bills the BIGGEST LOSERS in the history of the NFL.  Not the least successful.  I think everyone would agree that never making it there is less successful than making it there.  If you never get to the playoffs, then you tuck your tail in quietly, and wait for next year.  Many people will never notice.  But getting to the biggest stage and then blowing it is losing in the grandest of fashion.


 * Dick Anderson ('72 Dolphins): "We were called bums all off-season, because we lost the Super Bowl."
 * Larry Little ('72 Dolphins): "...We don't ever want to have that feeling again, by getting to the Super Bowl and not winning it." (YouTube)


 * So the counter-proposal to be examined here is that the table is still broken by listing the Pats ahead of the Steelers. It is not just Vince Lombardi & Don Shula who hold that losing the Super Bowl makes you a bum.  It is a prevalent attitude that is held by many through to today, voiced by current players like Cam Newton.  If we change the table yet again to list the Steelers AHEAD of the Patriots, then that will bring it in line with  the Table from the pre-Super Bowl era. --Breezy Foal (talk) 02:42, 8 February 2019 (UTC)


 * When Vince Lombardi, Don Shula, Cam Newton, Dick Anderson, and Larry Little start editing Wikipedia, I'll be happy to take their opinions into consideration. Rickie-d (talk) 17:16, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

I'll suggest that we resume this discussion at the new subsection just now created (below), with the idea that a clean re-start of this discussion would be helpful. 3 Options have been highlighted, including both proposals stated above. --Breezy Foal (talk) 14:42, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

New Option 2 discussion
New Option 2: Create a separate article titled List of Super Bowl Participants, and then get rid of that table from here, and move it to there. Those are the only two valid options I am seeing here. The table being discussed here is a table that is pertinent toward either losers or participants.--Breezy Foal (talk) 17:33, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

New title for this table: Lombardi Anathema Table. (proposed change, that from now on until its removal, this is what the table in question be referred to)--Breezy Foal (talk) 17:36, 13 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Creating a new article just for this needlessly fragments valuable information, and reordering the table by victories or win percentage is as simple as clicking the header indicating such. Rickie-d (talk) 21:07, 31 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Given two options: Either fix this table here on this article, or create a separate article dedicated to Super Bowl losers, then I would readily advocate the first option. My entire point, which appears to have gotten lost (or I never made clearly in the first place) was that this entire section, arguing over nuanced options, has completely missed the forest for the appearances of individual trees.


 * To rehash an old cliche... This discussion has been focused on how best to sort the deck chairs on the Titanic.  If you take a moment to open your eyes, you can readily see the need to jump ship entirely and seek a ship that will actually float.  Defaulting a priority of appearances over wins is the gaping hole in this hull.--Breezy Foal (talk) 00:37, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

Fix now implemented (see subsection above). --Breezy Foal (talk) 06:46, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

"Option Q" vs "Option R" vs "Option S"
There's been a lot of recent discussion in the subsections above. It might help to re-start with a clean sheet here in this new subsection. Two proposals are currently on the table. And add to those two the third option of keeping things as they are now. We can call these:


 * - Option Q: "QUICKER"
 * - Option R: REVERT
 * - Option S: STABILIZE  [Edit: here is the fix from Feb 5 which prioritizes wins over appearances]

Q: The "QUICKER" option values the first team that achieved a certain number of wins ahead of a team that accomplishes this later, with zero weight given to how many times a team may have Appeared without winning. This option says that the most recent change, where Wins are now valued over Appearances, did not go far enough. Option Q says that the Steelers should be listed ahead of the Patriots, because they are the ones who were first to achieve 6 Wins. How many times you get there matters little. What matters most is who got the most wins and who did this first.

R: The REVERT option is to return the table back to the form where Appearances are valued over Wins. That is to say, the proper default presentation would show the 0-4 Vikings and the 0-4 Bills ahead of the 2-0 Ravens, and so on. (NOTE: It has been asserted that this is the way this table has been since 2007.)

S: The STABILIZE option says to keep the table in its current form. Hold the table's default ordering as it is presented right now. This can be seen as a "middle ground", where wins are valued primarily, but appearances also count. So Option S says to keep the Patriots listed ahead of the Steelers, as it stands today.

Extensive arguments have been presented in other subsections above. But it might be good to get some fresh opinions voiced here. For the time being, I myself will withhold my own position as it is today (previous comments I have posted have highlighted certain advantages to each of these three options). --Breezy Foal (talk) 14:40, 8 February 2019 (UTC)


 * Breezy, I get that you don't agree with the current sorting of this table and think there should be changes. You may be right. To be honest, the points you are trying to make are very hard to follow. Can you please condense what you are trying to say? Let me summarize what I've gathered so far. Essentially, you don't think that appearances are as important as wins and that the primary sorting for this table should be by wins and not appearances. This will require significant changes to the table. I'm not sure I follow your exact rationale for one way over the other. In the meantime, I have reverted the table back to the version that was present before you proposed this change. If we are going to make a change lets come to a conensus here before implementing it in the article. I'm looking forward to the discussion. Thanks! - Paul T [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Psantora&action=edit +]/C 05:12, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
 * To summarize why the table is currently the way that it is, it was the result of a bunch of different discussions and compromises - including at one point having separate list articles for both List of Super Bowl wins by team and List of Super Bowl appearances. These were merged into this article as separate tables and then eventually combined into one big table mainly in the interest of ease of maintenance IIRC. This section primarily deals with the information *specifically* around appearances in the Super Bowl. Obviously, the information about wins is also present and the sorting allows for this view of information as well, but the primary lense *in this section* is around appearing in the game itself. I think there are valid reasons for this, but I can see the argument that this is an arbitrary decision and that the primary lense should be wins and not appearances. However, that would require a significant re-write of the *entire section* - not just re-ordering this table. - Paul T [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Psantora&action=edit +]/C 06:28, 13 February 2019 (UTC)


 * In a nutshell (quoting my words from above):
 * "The 3-5 Broncos are listed AHEAD of the 5-1 SF 49ers."
 * "...the Vikings & Bills (both 0-4) ahead of the Ravens (2-0)?"


 * That's how your revert has defaulted this table to appear. And the argument is not just that I myself see this to be backward.  It is that everybody sees this to be backward.  There is no one in the universe who values appearance more than wins, so it is absolutely bizarre that any editor here would suggest that this is the proper way to present this table to the public.  THANK YOU for highlighting the history of this article from the archives.  You've answered some major questions that had left me scratching my head.  Now I fully understand how this inversion happened.  [Edit- for reference, here is what those two tables looked like prior to "the 2009 Merger": Wins by Team / Appearances] --Breezy Foal (talk) 23:19, 13 February 2019 (UTC)


 * The two examples you listed are explicitly because those teams have more appearances (8 vs 6 and 4 vs 2), as you would expect from the framing of the table. However, any reader can easily sort this table by wins by simply clicking on the wins column. I don't see how "everybody" sees this to be backward as I'm not currently aware of any others voicing your opinion. I'm open to hearing other opinions on this (I am by no means an authority here). I would like to come to some kind of compromise / consensus on this. - Paul T [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Psantora&action=edit +]/C 19:22, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

Ok, the proper way to present this table is so obvious to me that this is starting to feel like a Twilight Zone episode. Because of that, I will take an extended break from this discussion. (If there is anyone who would like anything else clarified from me, I can post that on your own UserTalk page.) The quotes I've presented from Lombardi & Shula, etc, above make the point far more strongly than any words from me. It seems severely strange that anyone would prefer this Option R. So I am stepping back, and for the time being I will leave it to others here to see what I clearly see:  a very broken table. Or not see that.

I've presented this argument as clearly as I can make it. I am now switching to "passive mode" here. Goodbye y'all. --Breezy Foal (talk) 23:46, 13 February 2019 (UTC)


 * I don't see the relevance of the Shula or Lombardi quotes. I understand your point about winning being "more important" than appearing in the Super Bowl but their (Lombardi/Shula/et al.) views don't have the same importance when writing a high-quality encyclopedia article about the games. I'm disappointed that you feel you need to take a break from this discussion (especially because I think with some work we can both make the article better - see your comments on the AFL/NFL // AFC/NFC symbols below), but I understand. I'd love to hear from others on this topic so we can improve the article. - Paul T [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Psantora&action=edit +]/C 19:22, 14 February 2019 (UTC)


 * Breezy, what do you think about "Option 1" above? This would sort the wins column with preference given to the team that reached the milestone first. When I started this section last year that was the change I was trying to make but no one chimed in to agree with me so I left the sorting as it was. I think it is a good comprimse between the current state of the appearances table and the more radical change you are proposing. This way, when sorting by wins you would see your preferred view of the table: Number of Wins, Years since last Win; if Wins=0 then default to appearances and years since last appearance. What do you think? - Paul T [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Psantora&action=edit +]/C 05:57, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

I am back. And I'm met with deep disappointment to find that this table is still broken. What do I think about Option 1? I think you are still not clear on the fundamental problem which has been highlighted. This article is about Super Bowl champions. Then it presents this table where the Vikings and Bills are placed ABOVE the Ravens. Neither the Vikings nor the Ravens are SB champs. An argument can be made that those teams do not belong in this table at all. No legitimate argument can be made that these teams are to be listed above a team that has won the Super Bowl a single time, let alone listing them above a team which has won the Super Bowl multiple times. It has been thoroughly explained above that the table, as it appears now, is something which would be fitting for an article on Super Bowl participation. Not Super Bowl champions.

If you were clear on this fundamental problem, then you would not be asking me about Option 1. That does absolutely nothing to fix this broken table. The core problem has nothing at all to do with sorting options. It has everything to do with having this article about championships, and then listing "Appearances" in the first column. And the default presentation prioritizes appearances over wins.

A big part of the reason why I took this extended break is because I had this expectation that just about everyone who follows football will see very clearly how this table is broken. And that there would be overwhelming input here in this talk section supporting this view. Not one single person has chimed in to that effect. The most that has been stated here, aside from my own comments, is this:


 * "I still believe that when you sort by wins that that it should be based on wins then appearances." --Bonesdonahue (22 Mar 2018)

Even Bonesdonahue did not voice objection to the fundamental issue of prioritizing Appearances over Wins. Best I can tell from what's been presented here, the crux of that person's argument was centered on this sorting thing.

Because there has been NO SUPPORT voiced for this error which is so clear to me, my plan will be to take another extended break. Perhaps with the upcoming SB LIV there will be people revisiting this article, and people just as shocked as I am to see this table which places the Vikings & Bills above the Ravens. And some of them might come here to see that this failure has been highlighted. And some of them might go so far as to voice support for this fix. But that might not happen. It hasn't happened throughout all of this time.

Should it be an accurate assessment that the consensus is actually that people see this to be a good table to keep, and that it is not just the product of one person who keeps pressing for it to be this way, and no one cares enough to tell the Emperor that he has no clothes, then the fix could go in the other direction to support the nakedness consensus: Change the title of the article to be List of Super Bowl participants.

Let's all be perfectly clear: That is NOT a table of Super Bowl champions. And it is not a table which belongs in an article on Super Bowl champions. The status quo here is that the public is being presented with an article reflecting Super Bowl participation. The title needs to reflect that, if anyone cares about being consistent.

I plan to be gone, away on another break. This time it may not be as long, depending upon what develops here over the next few weeks. If I don't come back, I will still be very interested to see how this broken article gets fixed. Either direction would make for consistency. Or folks here may decide to just let things remain broken. --Breezy Foal (talk) 17:00, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

And yes, as this article stands, it has Vince Lombardi and Don Shula turning in their graves. Shula's not dead yet, you say? Well if Don were to see this "Participation Table", it might be enough to give him a heart attack. So that might be the best argument. For the love of Don Shula, let's fix this table! --Breezy Foal (talk) 17:19, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

Short summary of why the "Appearances" table is broken, and does not belong in this article
There are only 20 teams that are Super Bowl champions. If we want to show a table which includes the 12 other teams, then those 12 could be listed in a separate table of teams that never won a single Super Bowl. Or if we wanted to list these 12 in the same table as with the 20 who have won, then those 12 would be listed at the bottom. There is absolutely no justification to list any of these 12 teams who have never won above any of the 20 who have won. Not in an article that bears the title "List of Super Bowl champions". For an article by this title, this section Super Bowl appearances by team has no place being here at all. This should be a section which totals the Wins by team, and presents a table with a default view of teams with the most wins at the top, and teams with no wins at the bottom (if listed at all). THIS EDIT shows what the Wins by team section and table look like (reverted here by Psantora/Paul). So fix the table, or change the title. Those are the only two reasonable courses of action I see here. (And I've elaborated above on why the fixing the table makes a lot more sense than changing the title.) --Breezy Foal (talk) 18:19, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

Ok, with this edit just now, I am done here for the time being. I wish you all the best. --Breezy Foal (talk) 18:41, 16 January 2020 (UTC) Oops. I see I've inadvertently clobbered these new columns for "Years since last app/win". I am busy right now but will return to fix that, unless someone else beats me to it. --Breezy Foal (talk) 18:59, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 December 2019
May you go to https://teamcolorcodes.com/nfl-team-color-codes/ and make a pie chart and insert the teams by Super Bowl Appearances (Conference Championship Wins), Super Bowl Wins, and Super Bowl Loses? 2601:2C6:80:E650:B447:277C:2434:F8B8 (talk) 00:49, 14 December 2019 (UTC)


 * ❌. See  for one approach.  But you might want to start a discussion to see if people think it's a reasonable idea to include.  Personally, I don't think a pie chart is a good choice for a large number of items, each with some small, discrete value. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon &bull; videos) 04:17, 14 December 2019 (UTC)


 * Typo needs a fix The Chart of appearances say it's been 24 years since the last win for both the 49ers and the Cowboys. Unless, they tied, this is impossible. It should be 25 years for the 49ers and 24 years for the Cowboys.128.122.88.142 (talk) 21:27, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 00:22, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Lombardi Super Bowl Trophy (11282338723).jpg

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 20:25, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Lombardi Super Bowl Trophy (11282338723).jpg

NFC now leads AFC 28-27 following last night's victory by the Buccaneers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2603:7080:203:2F56:C49C:2CB1:2FD0:EA26 (talk) 20:51, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

Vikings pre-Super Bowl league championship?
This article notes that the Vikings "won the NFL Championship in 1969" but then claims that "they have no pre-Super Bowl league championships." Isn't the 1969 NFL championship a pre-Super Bowl league championship? 74.71.77.137 (talk) 12:59, 3 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Winning NFL Championship in 1969 is equivalent to winning NFC Championship today. The NFL and AFL were separate leagues and each champion played for the Super Bowl. Either way there is some serious issue in dates here; 1969 Super Bowl the New York Jets beat the Baltimore Colts. 1970 Minnesota lost to KC Chiefs. Kav2001c (talk) 22:19, 7 February 2021 (UTC)kav2001c


 * As the article says, "they won the NFL Championship in 1969, the last year before the AFL–NFL merger, but failed to win the subsequent Super Bowl." Before the merger in 1970, the first four Super Bowls were "AFL-NFL World Championship games" between the two leagues. Mojoworker (talk) 06:18, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

refactoring AFL/YYYY NFL links in first 4 rows
Bergeronpp is making repeated WP:disruptive edits as seen 1) without any edit summary, 2) misleading/inaccurate edit summary, and 3) expressing this new layout as their aesthetic preference with a refusal to discuss.

This prior format of "AFL/NFL (1967)" with AFL/NFL both linked and alphabetized, and "(YYYY)" appended as inline text seems to work very well. Markup like:

AFL/NFL (1967)

The new edit(s) use non-alphabetized text and scope the YYYY to only one of two leagues. Both issues are resolved by the above example. UW Dawgs (talk) 21:02, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
 * And hovering the [sb 1] note displays "From 1966 to 1969, the first four Super Bowls were "AFL–NFL World Championship Games" games played between two independent professional football leagues, AFL and NFL, and when the league merged in 1970 the Super Bowl became the NFL Championship Game.[4]" with multiple references to "AFL-NFL" format and none to the "NFL-AFL" format seen in these edits. UW Dawgs (talk) 21:19, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

I think that the Date and Season should be separated into different columns.Bergeronpp (talk) 21:48, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 January 2021
I think we should add an indication to the wild card teams (like the World Series article has) and change this: to this (for all 10 wild card super bowl teams, can change Buccaneers after Super Bowl is over):

And for the 1969 Chiefs change this: to this:

And add this after the references list: Indicates a team that made the playoffs as a second-place team (rather than by winning a division). Indicates a team that made the playoffs as a wild card team (rather than by winning a division).

+ Super Bowl championships NFLfanforever (talk) 19:21, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Unclear, what is the request!--Anaxagoras13 (talk) 19:38, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
 * To add the above NFLfanforever (talk) 19:49, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

Adding the above would make sense to denote which teams are wild card and second place NFLfanforever (talk) 00:58, 26 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: strange activity has been associated with this request, involving multiple users who have similar edits. Due to my concerns in accordance with WP:SOCK, I must reject this request. P,TO 19104 (talk) (contribs) 22:24, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

Agreement to Wild Card indication
I agree with NFLfanforever when they say we should add an indication to the wild card teams (like the World Series article has) and change this: to this (for all 11 wild card super bowl teams):

And for the 1969 Chiefs change this: to this:

And add this after the references list: Indicates a team that made the playoffs as a second-place team (rather than by winning a division). Indicates a team that made the playoffs as a wild card team (rather than by winning a division). Sportsfanforlife (talk) 18:55, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

I believe that this is a good idea to add a flow between these pages. I will update this ASAP. MLBrockstar50 (talk) 11:52, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

Also in the future please post your agreement as a reply and not as a post. MLBrockstar50 (talk) 11:56, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

Super Bowl LVII incorrect date in table
While reading through the article, I noticed that there is an error in the table that shows when each Super Bowl was played. If the Super Bowl will now be held annually on the second Sunday of February instead of the first Sunday of February, then that means the date for Super Bowl LVII (57) would be on February 12, 2023, not on February 5, 2023, as listed in the table. Someone should correct that. JdhWrGrad2020 (talk) 20:56, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

Deletion of 17:19, 23 January 2022‎ by Sabbatino ‎→‎Super Bowl wins by conference
user:Sabbatino says breaking out "Wins by conference" information is: "That's completely false. Super Bowl and NFL Championship Game are two different things + the win-loss by conference is already listed in the section below"

Longest streak by conference

 * National Football Conference - 13 wins, XIX-XXXI (1984-1996)
 * American Football Conference - 5 wins, VII-XI (1972-1976)

This argument for removal is inconsistent. First, if it's false, then the win-loss record needs to be corrected in the rest of the article. If it's not false, but anything listed elsewhere is superfluous, then everything beyond the first section "Super Bowl championship (1966–present)" is superfluous.

The purpose of a listing article is to apply different algorithms to a table of information into smaller and more useful snippets of information without the reader having to physically calculate the larger table for each field themselves.

Breaking out a section for conference wins & losses is just as informative, if not just as superfluous as breaking out wins & losses by team, or calculating consecutive wins & losses by team.

The information in each of those sections is laid out in the table at the top, but has been broken out for ease of use, but if the reasoning for not including something is because it's already available, then all the sections beyond the original table is unnecessary and should be removed as well.

Finally, nowhere in the article is consecutive wins by conference calculated, however it is a valid question that should be answered without the reader having to physically calculate the streak every time they wish to figure it out (as happened to be the question posed in a bet the night before I added the information to the article. - 399scout (talk • contribs) 22:33, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I have not received a ping from you (but I see that it is here). First of all, NFL≠NFC and AFL≠AFC, which is a clear violation of WP:OR. Secondly, the very first table at List of Super Bowl champions lists the wins by NFL and NFC versus AFL and AFC. Thirdly, there is a List of Super Bowl champions section, which lists the consecutive wins by teams so I do not see the reason why the same information regarding NFL/AFL and NFC/AFC could not be listed in that section. – Sabbatino (talk) 09:46, 30 January 2022 (UTC)


 * - Just because you don't like the information doesn't make it false or irrelevant. WP:DBF WP:OWN. Your argument conflicts with the commonly accepted (and retroactively applied by the NFL) standard that the first 4 Super Bowls have been recognized by both the individual teams and conferences as legitimate Super Bowl wins. You can't claim WP:NOR when the information presented is basic arithmetic (WP:CALC) of the information offered in the article itself. I'm happy to work with you to find acceptable wording to present the figures but if you're stuck on continuing to simply removing the edit without making a valid argument why it isn't relevant, or where it should be placed instead, I'm happy to take this up on WP:DRN. - 399scout (talk) 00:42, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
 * You should refrain from making personal attacks towards me (accusing me of WP:DBF and WP:OWN). Meanwhile, I assume that you used to edit under a different account, because you certainly know what you are doing by mentioning policies and guidelines... Moving on to Your argument conflicts with the commonly accepted (and retroactively applied by the NFL) standard that the first 4 Super Bowls have been recognized by both the individual teams and conferences as legitimate Super Bowl wins. – this can already be found at List of Super Bowl champions ("Championships table key and summary" and "Super Bowl championships" tables). There is absolutely no need to repeat the information that is already present on the page. In addition, consecutive wins by conference can easily be listed at List of Super Bowl champions, because there is no mention that this section is solely about teams (however, I am still against listing such trivia). And keep your threats with WP:DRN to yourself, because you ignored WP:BRD and thought that WP:EW is the way to go. I also notified the editors of WP:NFL about this discussion (since this page is directly tied to that WikiProject), because you did not notify them (or did not want to). – Sabbatino (talk) 15:42, 31 January 2022 (UTC)


 * - Speaking of personal attacks, I am a relatively new editor and this has been the first time anyone has ever reverted an edit of mine and accused me of including fake information. I'm only following your example in regards to proper protocol and have actually read they redirects you refer to. You're the one who started the personal attacks by stating my calculations were false, and started the WP:EW by failing to follow your own recommended WP:BRD that states WP:ROWN. If you had simply said "consecutive wins already listed, streak would work better *here*", this would have been over. I KNOW the the conference wins are already listed. you're the one that said it was wrong (which I thought you meant I needed to clarify with the citation). The point is that no where in the article are the conference streaks listed and just hanging out by its own seemed weird. As for WP:NFL, I have no idea who they are so am happy you have included them. - 399scout (talk) 09:15, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
 * ...You're the one who started the personal attacks by stating my calculations were false... – that is not a personal attack nor did I say that anything is false. WP:BRD specifically says that you must start a discussion when you get reverted (ant not the other way around). I will repeat again that if you want to list the streak then do it at List of Super Bowl champions but do not create a new section that duplicates the already existing information. WP:NFL is a project that handles American football pages (articles, lists, categories, etc). You can read more about what a WikiProject is at WP:PROJECT. – Sabbatino (talk) 15:40, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
 * - ...nor did I say that anything is false... - You literally said "That's completely false" at 17:19 on 23 January in the summary of your revert. Frankly, I'm over the lecture about proper protocol from you since you still deny accusing me of putting up false information, and that is absolutely a personal attack. Had you started out more diplomatically, followed WP:ROWN, and conducted this discussion in a civilized manor, there never would have been any suggestion of fanaticism. I couldn't care less about about this page or most of the stats presented here. I simply followed WP:BRD by adding information I came to wiki to find (how long was the NFC streak in the 90s?), and not finding it anywhere else, assumed someone else might be interested and boldly put it up on the one page that gave the information to calculate said information. Your actions have completely soured my experience here and don't care if anyone else comes looking for that information again, I want nothing to do with this page. If you actually want anyone to take your advice regarding wikipedia seriously, I suggest looking in the mirror and following your own advice rather than attacking other contributors. 399scout (talk) 20:30, 5 February 2022 (UTC)


 * The article's called "List of Super Bowl champions" & that's what the content is & should be. Nothing more, nothing less. If you want, add such info to the List of NFC champions & List of AFC champions articles. GoodDay (talk) 17:06, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
 * - I'm sorry, I don't understand what position you're arguing. Are you saying everything beyond the raw data is superfluous and should be removed...because that was my question above. If you're saying which conference has the most championships doesn't belong in a list of champions, then neither does "Teams with no Super Bowl appearances", "Teams with long active Super Bowl appearance droughts", or "Teams with Super Bowl appearances but no victories". If only champion teams should be listed, the name of the article should be "List of Super Bowl championship teams", and should not include "Consecutive losses" or "Consecutive appearances" either. Also how would a tabulation of Super Bowl wins by conference be more appropriate in List of NFC champions & List of AFC champions? - 399scout (talk) 09:15, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I'll the two of you figure it out. GoodDay (talk) 15:15, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 March 2022
I want to fix the box where it lists the NFC and AFC wins and losses and update them to 56, NFC 29 and the AFC 27 Bigman4566 (talk) 18:18, 4 March 2022 (UTC)
 * ✅ casualdejekyll  14:21, 14 March 2022 (UTC)
 * undone, it was correct as it was, the AFL-NFL Super Bowls doesn't count here--Anaxagoras13 (talk) 16:10, 14 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Oh. Whoops. Didn't catch that. casualdejekyll  18:09, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

Mistake on Champion of Super Bowl XLIX (2014 season)
As a Seahawks fan the Malcolm Butler Interception is still very present. The score is the wrong way around, the Patriots won 28-24 (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Super_Bowl_XLIX) TheoBa (talk) 19:55, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

The New York Jets were the 1st AFL/AFC team to win a Super Bowl. The Packers were part of the NFL and today a part of the NFC.
See above and correct.

I actually believed everything on wikipedia was “fact” 209.172.251.101 (talk) 04:57, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

"Green team" in legend
I'm well aware what it represents. The problem is, by combining the conferences' records with this legend, the overall conference records are unnecessarily confusing. How should the NFC/AFC records read? It's fine to keep the "green" entry on the key to make clear what it represents. But I'd at least suggest separating the records to a position outside of the key to prevent this confusion. Jtrevor99 (talk) 04:24, 13 February 2023 (UTC)
 * NFC 29-28 and AFC 28-29: the records if the "green" team is included in the stats.
 * NFC 28-25 and AFC 25-28: the records if the four games the "green" team participated in are fully excluded.
 * NFC 29-27 and AFC 26-28: the records if only the "green" team's record is excluded.
 * Edit: Be sure to update the standings in the lead as well. Having been twice reverted when trying to update these records, I'm not going to bother trying again. Jtrevor99 (talk) 04:26, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

I updated it to hopefully makes more sense to you. That overall scores are separate from the green box, that is solely a key for the Colts because of their unique history. Derknasnort (talk) 07:53, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

Also, there is a citation at the end of the green box that can be clicked on if someone requires more clarification. Derknasnort (talk) 08:02, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

Thank you. Jtrevor99 (talk) 17:29, 13 February 2023 (UTC)