Talk:Bears–Packers rivalry

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

Slanted toward Bears[edit]

This is a great page. But it is clearly slanted towards the Chicago Bears. It is not very objective. For starters, in every tie game, the phrase "Chicago Bears" is shown under the winners heading, while the phrase "Green Bay Packers" is under the heading of loser. That's hardly objective.

There should also be more Packer memorable Packer victories listed. In time, I'll be happy to list some.

But the biggest error is the fact that in that 1971 game, the Packers won, not the Bears. This is simple history, and can easily be verified anywhere.

Removing the Ditka quote is also biased. Ditka never disagreed with the call. He only disagreed with the length of time it took to make it. Again, this is a fact that should be included.

The tidbit about adding in the results of pre-season games is hardly slanted toward the Bears-- much the opposite in fact. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.108.139.78 (talk) 15:12, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Notable moments and games: Criteria[edit]

Around Wiki - the term "Notable" is very subjective. In this case, there needs to be some set criteria in determining notoriety. KyuuA4 20:05, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to me that some references would be desirable. Particularly if the references are from several years after the notable game took place. Stylteralmaldo (talk) 15:42, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

F.I.B.[edit]

I commented added the nickname F.I.B. for Bears fans to the namecalling section. As you may know, this nickname is to innapropriate to explain what each letter means. I'm leaving this desicion to all of you whether you want to explain what it means or delete the entire mention of it, it's fine with me. Libertyville | Talk 21:41, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for File:ChicagoBears 1000.png[edit]

File:ChicagoBears 1000.png is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 11:20, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for File:ChicagoBears 1000.png[edit]

File:ChicagoBears 1000.png is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 18:46, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image copyright problem with File:GreenBayPackers 100.svg[edit]

The image File:GreenBayPackers 100.svg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

  • That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
  • That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --06:53, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Hall of Fame list[edit]

This list is way too long. Noting the number of Hall of Famers for each team, with proper references would be good, and perhaps links to the appropriate section on each article. Otherwise, it is gaudy and gratuitous, IMO. LonelyBeacon (talk) 20:22, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is NO REASON to include a list of each teams' hall of famers here. This article is about the rivalry, not particular achievements about each team. View each team's own article to see their respective hall of famers. I've reverted this insertion (again). --ZimZalaBim talk 20:34, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I could see noting how many Hall of Famers each team had as I suspect part of the rivalry is a comparison of the teams accomplishments. But I completely agree that there is no need for this list. on this article. If a consensus cannot be easily achieved here, we may need to requestio comment more formally. LonelyBeacon (talk) 20:58, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

update team records[edit]

per [1] Chicago Bears are 702-515-42 and Packers are 668-528-36 [2] I will gladly update if for you guys. (UTC)

References

  1. ^ http://www.profootballhof.com/history/team.aspx?franchise_id=6
  2. ^ http://www.profootballhof.com/history/team/green-bay-packers/

Other Events[edit]

Certain rivalry articles have notable events outside the game itself that illustrate the intensity of the debate. I think those who contribute to this article would want to highlight some of those. A couple of examples are:

http://sports.espn.go.com/chicago/nfl/news/story?id=6056888 http://sports.espn.go.com/chicago/nfl/news/story?id=6049090

Think about it. Arnabdas (talk) 15:55, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This page is a perfect example for Wikipedia:WikiProject Countering systemic bias. The article should be deleted.--151.67.199.107 (talk) 09:15, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Still doesn't present a good argument for deletion. ZappaOMati 20:59, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Bears–Packers rivalry. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 21:12, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Bears–Packers rivalry. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:25, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Bears–Packers_rivalry&oldid=1206207700"