Talk:Super Bowl 50/Archive 1

Requested move

 * The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: moved. While opposition to the move is reasonable, given the general distaste shown for altering article titles on the basis of "official" names, the consensus below concludes that a sufficient number of reliable sources have already arisen documenting the name change of the subject Super Bowl. As such, it is also reasonable to conclude that "Super Bowl 50" has very quickly become the common name of the event, an identification that logically will only deepen over time, as marketing for the game under that title intensifies. While it might have been reasonable to wait, the consensus determination below finds little harm in moving now, for reasons well grounded in policy. Xoloz (talk) 16:38, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Super Bowl L → Super Bowl 50 – The NFL has officially decided to call it "Super Bowl 50". It will resume roman numerals for Super Bowl LI. Per ESPN. Reference --Kitch (Talk : Contrib) 17:57, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Support per nom. This one is easy.  Calidum Talk To Me 20:55, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment can we wait to see what reliable third-party sources do? Red Slash 21:34, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Support per nom, per ESPN story link. UW Dawgs (talk) 22:06, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Support; it's what the NFL is calling it. 331dot (talk) 23:11, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Support per a third-party source. Demokra (talk) 23:22, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose This is a marketing move. Super bowls I-IV are known by their roman numerals because that's the general scheme but they were changed after the event to fit in with the rest.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:3:F80:1B9:B15E:BF49:EDC1:EC90 (talk) 01:07, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment The official logo, in the reference link, has the number "50". --Kitch (Talk : Contrib) 09:57, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose I agree, its a marketing move. Lets wait and see what the reliable sources use as the event gets closer. Otherwise there is no need to switch from convention.-- JOJ Hutton  01:24, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Support Marketing moves do not warrant a no-move. It's the official name of it and it's what NFL is calling it. Not to use this as a reason, only as an example, but look at the numbering of WrestleMania. It's all over the place, but it's how WWE wanted to name them. If the NFL say it's "Super Bowl 50", then it is.   srsrox  BlahBlahBlah...   02:06, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Support Offical spelling of 50 in arabic numbers insteed of roman numbers i.e L in other words its fair minor change than changing the name from AFL-NFL championship game. Super Bowl L = Super Bowl 50. 50 = L etc. And I guess they want to celebrate the 50th anniversary of the Super Bowl.
 * Oppose, not now. This RM discussion was initiated on the day of the official announcement that they will official use the Arabic numerals instead of the Roman ones. Per WP:AT, articles titles are based on the most common name used be reliable sources, not official names, nor reasons more based on recentism. Reliable sources have been using "Super Bowl L" with the Roman numerals prior to the announcement. I would prefer to wait and see until the news spike dies down, and the reliable sources start using it as a regular, long-term basis. Zzyzx11 (talk) 04:18, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Support This is its name and said name will be promulgated all over in the coming months. —Justin ( koavf ) ❤T☮C☺M☯ 04:34, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Support Official spelling of name. Jgera5 (talk) 05:23, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Support - It's the official spelling, there's no sensible reason not to reflect what the NFL calls it, and it's not in a format that the MOS prohibits. - BilCat (talk) 05:38, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose for now. The NFL just announced this marketing move today (keep in mind Super Bowl 51 will still be known as Super Bowl LI). We should wait a while and see how reliable sources react to the naming. Canuck 89 (chat with me) 05:56, June 5, 2014 (UTC)
 * Support. --Zimbabweed (talk) 08:17, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose, for now. We didn't move 2008 Stanley Cup Finals to 2008 Stanley Cup Final, despite the NHL changing the name of its championship series. While I would support a move in the future, unofficial sources need to have a clear consensus for 50 over L, which has not happened yet. As it is too soon for any unofficial source to have a consistent use of either name, and this move discussion does not have any consensus either, I recommend that the page remain where it is until a clear consensus can be established. ONR (talk) 19:22, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose for now for reasons of consistency. The NFL's announcement said they plan to return to using Roman numerals the following year with Super Bowl LI and that the use of "50" is simply for aesthetic reasons because they couldn't make "Super Bowl L" work well in a logo. I think it'd be very strange to have a single Super Bowl article using an Arabic numeral while all the others use Roman numerals. If the NFL decides to stick with the Arabic numerals after all, it would be easy to move this article then (and I strongly suspect they might wind up making that change because of how unwieldy Roman numerals become as they get longer and longer). I don't think it's especially important what the so-called "official" usage is (and I think a lot of people on Wikipedia and on the Internet in general obsess too much about the word "official"). As is noted above, the NHL incorrectly calls its championship series the "Stanley Cup Final" but consensus on Wikipedia was to stick with the traditional and proper form. 1995hoo (talk) 20:08, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Support. Super_Bowl_L should redirect to Super_Bowl_50... 50 is the actual name. The logo matches. While it is primarily a logo change, it is the name all news media and society will use to refer to this bowl. It is more confusing to look up Super Bowl 50 and find an article titled Super Bowl L.--TRL (talk) 21:50, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Support per nom, it's called Super Bowl 50 not Super Bowl L. Mattlore (talk) 05:06, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Support. The NFL has made this name change because they determined that "Super Bowl L" doesn't really look like the name of a Super Bowl. As a matter of aesthetics, they have a point. "L" by itself does not bring to mind a Roman numeral, it brings to mind the twelfth letter of the Latin alphabet. Presumably, the same issue will arise for Super Bowl C, Super Bowl D, and Super Bowl M. bd2412  T 16:05, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Host selection process
Minor quibble: Although the host selections for Super Bowl 50 and Super Bowl LI appear to have happened on the same day, is the selection for LI relevant to the article? If Sun Life had been rejected last minute for 50 and then accept for LI that might be notable, but that didn't happen. NewkirkPlaza (talk) 14:17, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

Modern Era?
what are you talking about with the words "modern era" ... there is the "super bowl era", but no one ever says "modern era" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.29.87.28 (talk) 06:27, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Counting back, "modern era" in this case starts at Super Bowl V, the first one after the 1970 NFL-AFL merger. Examples:
 * http://www.forbes.com/2006/12/22/mvp-nfl-bargain-biz-cx_tvr_1222nflmvp.html - "each team took in $3 million in 1970, the year the AFL/NFL merger took the league into its modern era"
 * http://www.realclearsports.com/articles/2010/01/23/nfl_playoffs_are_often_anticlimactic.html - "starting with the modern era in 1970 with the AFL-NFL merger"
 * http://www.miaminewtimes.com/news/miami-dolphins-lose-record-for-most-all-time-regular-season-wins-during-modern-nfl-era-6531532 - "that's the year the AFL and NFL merged and is generally considered the start of the modern era of the NFL"
 * http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/09/sports/football/al-davis-owner-of-raiders-dies-at-82.html?_r=0 - "In 1970, the leagues played a united schedule, creating the modern N.F.L."
 * Zzyzx11 (talk) 08:28, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Home / visiting team
I came to the article to see if SB50 this would be an AFC at NFC or NFC at AFC game. At present the article says nothing about that. It appears from Super Bowl that SB50 will be an NFC at AFC game. AT present this article does not seem to have a section about the game itself meaning I don't see a place where this could get added. --Marc Kupper&#124;talk 20:23, 16 January 2016 (UTC)
 * The parameter stays hidden until the team names are know and filled in after the conference championship games.Jdavi333 (talk) 23:39, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

List of 17-1 teams to reach the Super Bowl
The 2015 Panthers are the fourth team to reach the Super Bowl with a record of 17-1 or better, including playoff games, joining the 1984 San Francisco 49ers, 1985 Chicago Bears, and the 2007 New England Patriots. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.108.196.229 (talk • contribs) 14:26, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Please note also that the Panthers are one of ten teams to finish the regular season with only one loss since the 1960 season, since there are plenty of teams before that year that finished a regular season with only one loss. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.108.196.236 (talk) 03:27, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 February 2016
Under the International television part, in the Netherlands the superbowl will not only be broadcasted on Fox Sports (pay television) but also free for all on the regular Fox channel. Backed up by two seperate sources (both Dutch): http://www.totaaltv.nl/nieuws/21843/super-bowl-2016-op-fox-en-fox-sports.html and http://radio.nl/809594/super-bowl-live-op-fox-en-fox-sports

so; ''The Netherlands In Netherlands, the pay television station Fox Sports 2 will air the event live on television[77]. The event will also be broadcasted on national television by FOX[79]. The broadcast will start at 8:30pm CET, the game will start at 12:30am on Monday february 8''

79 "SUPER BOWL 2016 OP FOX EN FOX SPORTS". http://www.totaaltv.nl/. January 9, 2016. Retrieved February 5, 2016.

Bear in mind the spelling.

82.75.154.209 (talk) 11:05, 5 February 2016 (UTC)


 * added this today. Ricodol74  ? 16:15, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Pictogram voting wait.svg Already done  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) Please &#123;&#123;re&#125;&#125; 19:06, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

International TV
Wouldn't it be easier and more space efficient to make a list/table of all the international broadcasts instead of separate sections, like in previous years? If I have the time I'll try to take care of it, but if someone else does it that would be awesome. Jdavi333 (talk) 00:44, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Added today, saw in previous years that there are much more countries where it was broadcasted, so any other that you know can be added. Ricodol74  ? 17:38, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Jdavi333 (talk) 18:38, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

Time?
I couldn't find the basic information about what time the kick off is / game starts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.157.50.255 (talk) 15:57, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 February 2016
Under "Pre-Game Notes," 5th paragraph, first line/word, "Concerns" is spelled wrong.

71.39.7.42 (talk) 17:38, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Pictogram voting wait.svg Already done Ricodol74  ? 17:45, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 February 2016
Under the "International Broadcasters" section, "United Kingdom and Ireland," under the "Rights Holder(s)" column, "Ireland" has been mis-spelled "Irelnad."

Under "France and Switzerland," "Switzerland" has been mis-spelled as "Switserland."

71.39.7.42 (talk) 17:46, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Pictogram voting wait.svg Already done Ricodol74  ? 17:50, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

Check for edit clarification
U.S. television subsection: In the last sentence of the second paragraph the content states "...while Martin, Allegre, and Sutcliffe will also participate contribute English-language reports...". I am not familiar with the term "participate contribute" unless the word and or by such as "participate by contributing" should be inserted. Would someone clarify this? Otr500 (talk) 18:10, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 February 2016
84.77.113.30 (talk) 22:46, 7 February 2016 (UTC) Lady Gaga is in Halftime Show
 * 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.  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) Please &#123;&#123;re&#125;&#125; 23:37, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

Fact edit on number of turnovers committed by the Carolina Panthers.
The third paragraph, first sentence is written like this: "Despite their offense gaining just 194 yards and 11 first downs, the Broncos took an early lead in Super Bowl 50 and never lost it, recording seven sacks and forcing three turnovers (including fumble recovery for a touchdown)."

It says that there are "three turnovers." In fact there were four turnovers committed by the Carolina Panthers: 2 fumbles by Cam Newton, 1 fumble by Mike Tolbert and 1 interception thrown by Cam Newton.

Here is the box score for the game that lists all of the turnovers. http://espn.go.com/nfl/boxscore?gameId=400820438 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vandgar (talk • contribs) 10:25, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I think you posted that at the same time I had changed the lead to say they forced Newton into three turnovers. You are correct that the team had 4 turnovers.—Bagumba (talk) 10:31, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

Edit request: "European digits" not "Arabic numerals"
I propose to change the text (end of the first paragraph) from "Arabic numerals" to "European digits" in line with wikipedia's own article on Arabic numerals, which states, correctly, that the Unicode standard calls them European digits because of possible confusion (the name refers to the whole family of numerals of Arabic, Persian and Indian origin). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Montague Bodkin (talk • contribs) 13:15, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Have never heard such a usage, the common name for these digits is Arabic numerals. --Khajidha (talk) 14:44, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

International broadcasters
Hi! Why is Austria listed twice, and with diverging informations? Line 5 says in the 3 countries there’s only Sat.1 and live stream, even though Puls 4 did transmit, as line 1 says, too? --Galtzaile (talk) 14:33, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Correct, it wasn't double at first, (might have been overlooked) but someone placed it twice, that is now resolved and 1 deleted, also becaise the event is over, placed all in past tense. Ricodol74  ? 20:23, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

Edit request - final line of summary
"Carolina had two more drives, but failed to get a first down on each one." - this is not accurate. they did get a first down on their final drive inside the final minute. 2.222.71.129 (talk) 14:59, 8 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Still reads incorrectly over a day later. 2.222.71.129 (talk) 19:25, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done for now: Can you re-open this and provide how you would word the sentence? Thanks --allthefoxes (Talk) 19:41, 9 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Really?!?! You'd rather stick to the 'must say what you want to change it to' rule than fix an incorrect sentence - wiki is pathetic.  How about "Carolina had two more drives. They went 3 and out on their first drive, allowing Denver to take the clock down to one minute.  Their final drive resulted in one first down, but then a post play penalty (resulting in a 10 second run off) took down the clock to 1 second, effectively ending the game.  2.222.71.129 (talk) 13:09, 13 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Yellow check.svg Partly done: Good catch. I removed the part about failing to get first downs. It can be expanded if you or someone chooses to cite reliable sources that support the desired text.—Bagumba (talk) 20:51, 13 February 2016 (UTC)


 * erm... what? at the risk of sounding stupid - "the game itself' ... Where's your source for "failed to gain a first down on each one" - because this is quite simply WRONG - as anyone who watched the game would know.  I really can't believe that wiki is so stupid that it refuses to fix such an obvious error.  213.104.176.176 (talk) 13:07, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Kubiak: First coach to win Super Bowl with team he played for?
Heard this during broadcast and subsequently, but Tom Flores played for Raiders and Mike Ditka played for Bears. Is it that Kubiak was first head coach to win Super Bowl with team with which he appeared in a Super Bowl as a player? Xous (talk) 17:09, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
 * This one's pretty hard to explain. I think what Nantz was trying to say was that Kubiak is the first head coach to win a Super Bowl with a team that he had played for that had also made the Super Bowl. Flores and Ditka won NFL Championships with the same team, but technically not the Super Bowl during their playing days.  NFL  is  Awesome   (ZappaOMati) 19:08, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Kubiak never won a Super Bowl as a player though. I don't think Nantz knew what he was talking about.  ParkH.Davis (talk) 21:26, 8 February 2016 (UTC)


 * What they ment was, that Kubiak wins this Super bowl in his first year/season being head coach of the Denver Broncos. Ricodol74 ? 20:31, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Nantz made the claim that Kubiak was the first head coach to win a Super Bowl with the same team he had previously played for, which is false. ParkH.Davis (talk) 21:26, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Kubiak is the first to earn Super Bowl rings with the same team as both a coach and a player. That's undoubtedly what Nantz meant. Powers T 20:55, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

Name of Article
I suggest that the name of the article be changed from "Super Bowl 50" to "Super Bowl L" (50 in roman numerals) to fit with the titles other Super Bowl articles. — Preceding unsigned comment added by XenonElemental (talk • contribs) 18:41, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
 * If you read the above discussion, general consensus is to keep it as "50".  NFL  is  Awesome   (ZappaOMati) 19:05, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Also because it is/was the 50th super Bowl, they decided to step off from the Roman numerals for one time. Ricodol74  ? 20:27, 8 February 2016 (UTC)