Talk:Minneapolis Miracle

Name change?
Seven Heaven a cooler name? It is the play Keenum calls in the huddle. Cooldu1267 (talk) 04:49, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

Seven Heaven was the name of it in the playbook, but local and national media has dubbed it the Minnesota/Minneapolis Miracle. The Kip (talk) 05:38, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

Whiff 6
I'm going to keep removing that name unless a reliable source can be found, and even then I'd be hesitant. As far as I can tell, it's just a nickname created by angry Saints fans looking for a scapegoat. Marcus Williams was getting piled on across social media immediately after the play, and my understanding is that he has already received death threats. So we should be circumspect here. And I currently see no mention of that name anyway. —Torchiest talkedits 13:49, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

Hail Mary status
I have removed the mention of the "Hail Mary" from this article, and removed mention of this play from the Hail Mary article. This was not a Hail Mary by the textbook definition. Simply a blown tackle by the Saints in the wrong place at the wrong time. No one would be calling this a Hail Mary if it wasn't the game-winning play. Jdavi333 (talk) 14:27, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

Your right, and it was a ball that was thrown from the Vikings own 39 to the Saints 34, not even close to the end zone, in hence this play is the last thing I would think of Hail Mary Noahiscool1999 (talk) 02:13, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

Way too many Twitter references
This article currently cites a lot of tweets. While not explicitly disallowed (unless the tweet is about living persons, then it is disallowed per WP:BLPSPS), Twitter is just about the lowest one can go on the totem pole when citing a source. Don't be lazy; if the info is noteworthy it'll surely be mentioned by a more reliable source. Conversely, if the most reliable source for it is Twitter then it probably isn't noteworthy. Lizard (talk) 05:31, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Same goes for the YouTube references and blogs like SB Nation. This was one of the most discussed plays in NFL history, there's no need to resort to citing trash like this. Lizard  (talk) 05:42, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
 * I agree to an extent about Twitter and YouTube, but what's wrong with SB Nation? They don't let just anyone write for them; just because they're not ESPN or something doesn't make their content unreliable. – PeeJay 10:56, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Sure, the content probably goes through screening for major errors but it's still a blog. We should be using the best possible sources. Lizard  (talk) 20:47, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
 * I disagree. While the site may have started off as a blog, it's grown beyond that now. Plus they go into greater detail than many of the traditional sources would, which can sometimes make them the only source for some facts (and thus the best possible source by default). – PeeJay 22:51, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

Remove Redirect
I am considering removing the redirect for "Minnesota Miracle". There's a prior political event from the 1970's that has that name. See http://www.startribune.com/wendell-anderson-and-the-minnesota-miracle/387348651/, for example. Thoughts? Crumley (talk) 19:58, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Does that political event have a Wikipedia article? If it doesn't, then perhaps we should leave the redirect in place. Or are you intending to create an article about the political event at Minnesota Miracle? I've just Googled that term and references to the football game far outnumber the political event. If you want to create an article about the political event, then be bold and do so, but make sure you put a hatnote at the top of the article linking back to this page. – PeeJay 21:12, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I am intending to create the article, though it would be a short article. I agree that the game has more references now, but it will probably become less relevant in a few years. Crumley (talk) 15:57, 14 December 2018 (UTC)