Talk:Tampa Bay Buccaneers

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Former featured article candidateTampa Bay Buccaneers is a former featured article candidate. Please view the links under Article milestones below to see why the nomination failed. For older candidates, please check the archive.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
August 18, 2006Featured article candidateNot promoted

Tampa Bay Buccaneers defense[edit]

In the defense section, should we add the 2020 Tampa Bay Buccaneers defense? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.75.130.212 (talk) 06:37, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Tampa Bay color codes[edit]

HTML/Wiki color codes used for the Tampa Bay Buccaneers Doctorindy (talk) 16:06, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Buccaneer red: background: #b20032
  • Pewter: #89765f
  • Florida Orange: #df6109
Thank You.--BigMac1212 (talk) 04:30, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]


Improvement drive[edit]

National Football League is currently a candidate on WP:IDRIVE. Vote for it if you are interested in contributing.--Fenice 20:03, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Post-merger expansion team?[edit]

The Baltimore Ravens are not an expansion team. Hence the Buccaneers would be the first post-merger expansion team to win the Super Bowl. (The Ravens are the old Browns ... the new Browns are the expansion team).—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.88.197.218 (talk • contribs) .

  • Wikipedia follows the official NFL view, naming conventions and official record book: the Baltimore Ravens are considered a 1996 expansion team while the Cleveland Browns are considered to have suspended operations from 1996-1998. Thanks. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 22:28, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Actually the 2006 Official NFL Record Book states that Baltimore received the "Browns operating unit" in 1996, but that all Browns records would stay in Cleveland. It nowhere mentions that the Baltimore team should be called an "expansion."

The pictures[edit]

Can there be any compromise. I read the fair use page, but seriously, those are the three most commonly seen Bucs logos Sportslogos.net 20:16, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's mostly used for deceration and it's clearly unnessarry thus violates WP:FU number 8 and number 3. Jaranda wat's sup 23:06, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you are talking about the picture of the black-sailed ship, it is not just decoration. It is a trademark of the Tampa Bay Buccaneers, and is depicted on the upper sleeves of the players' official field uniforms, directly below the sleeve numbers. It should absolutely be part of the main article per WP:FU, since it is an official part of the uniform, and therefore conforms to both minimal extent of use (3) and significance (8). If it's the prior "Buccaneer Bruce" logo, then it still follows at least (8), since the Glazers and the Tampa Bay Buccaneers front office maintain an active trademark for licensing with two rationales: 1) to license this older logo to high school football teams; and 2) to make sure NFL Properties uses it sparingly, if ever, since it is a part of the team history that many would rather see stay just that: history. Technically, by the way, all NFL outer uniforms (as opposed to pads, braces, helmet shells, etc.) could be considered "mostly used for decoration"; all that would be needed for on-field identification would be contrasting colors for the two teams and individual numbers for each player. Everything else is window-dressing, but it's considered significant for team spirit, for an understanding of the local and team cultures (which also, by the way, covers memorial patches and uniform elements, such as the "GSH" on all Chicago Bears uniforms to commemorate George Stanley Halas. As such, secondary, tertiary, and memorial logos are absolutely not unnecessary. Thank you for your time. P.F. Bruns 04:55, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Article needs to be locked[edit]

Some idiot radically destroyed this article! How do I get protection from getting this article to be prevented by vandalism?

This happens all the time. It isn't worth locking an article that people positively contribute to just because of a few vandalism attempts. It usually takes far less time to revert vandalism than it does to create it, especially if you use a tool like popups. Captkrob 14:25, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The "roster" seems to be mixed with the Miami Dolphins current roster.--wwshelton (talk) 01:12, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Team records??[edit]

As I was surfing through some of the other Team pages, I noticed that the Steelers had a Pittsburgh Steelers statistics page and the Bucs did not. So I created one ( Tampa Bay Buccaneers Records ) based on data from the Bucs website as well as from the NFL site. Should this be something in the main Buc article or separated out by itself such as the in the case of the Steelers. Yamokosk 16:40, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Chance Castellucio[edit]

Chance Castellucio - Video Games and Snacks coach. This seems unlikely. He is also the FSU Pope. God bless.It is also the name of a poster on blogs.tampabay.com. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.253.187.77 (talk) 06:25, 17 December 2006 (UTC).[reply]

Strong agreement. P.F. Bruns 04:30, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

TRivia[edit]

I was going to be bold and delete the Trivia section according to WP:TRIV but I decided to ask you first. Really just should we move the trivia items into the regular text or just delete it? Felixboy 18:27, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My personal feeling is that at least in this case, the information is important; the only reason it hasn't found a place in the regular text is that it has always been difficult to put such information in narrative form. I hope to have a shot at this myself a bit later, time permitting. P.F. Bruns 06:45, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Buccaneers first round draft picks a FLC[edit]

Give feedback or support here

This list still needs three more Support votes to pass. Please if you feel this is worthy of being a FL show support. Buc 05:48, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:TB 1041.gif[edit]

Image:TB 1041.gif is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at 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 00:53, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Bucs 2.gif[edit]

Image:Bucs 2.gif is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at 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 12:38, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Bucs set sail.gif[edit]

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

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at 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 lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 03:56, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yardage conversions to Meters[edit]

I went ahead and edited all instances where a yardage total also showed a conversion to meters. No one refers to any of the distances in football by meters, which makes such a conversion utterly irrelevant. So, as a result I have removed all metric conversions on this page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.253.186.23 (talk) 17:54, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge List of Tampa Bay Buccaneers head coaches[edit]

Someone else left a tag on this article so I'm just going to leave a note here. Buc (talk) 08:04, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Preseason win[edit]

I don't want to revert again. You're not understanding my point on this one. I'm not talking about 18-1, where a Super Bowl loss was included. I'm talking about the 21-game winning streak the Patriots had from Week 5 of 2003 through Week 7 of 2004, including their 3 playoff wins. In reality, the Patriots lost 3 games during this stretch, all in the 2004 preseason. But they are completely irrelevant, and nobody cares that they lost them. Nor would anyone have cared if the Pats went 19-0 last season but lost all of their preseason games. Preseason games are exhibitions, and they should under no circumstance be used to "soften the blow" of winning or losing streaks such as the Bucs' losing streak early on. Pats1 T/C 13:01, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

i care for one....i think that mentioning the preseason win is a nice little asterisk to point out that even though they were 0-26, there was hope.....in any case, the win is factual and is relevant to the bucs and deserves to stay. wikipedia likes neutrality, so wins and losses, highs and lows, should be mentioned for balance. WillC (talk) 16:03, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm going to have to agree with Pats1 on this one. If you were to write on article on that season, then yes, it'd be notable. But when talking about regular season streaks, preseason performances are irrelevant because they simply don't count.►Chris NelsonHolla! 16:08, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If you were to mention that the Bucs had A preseason in in that fateful season, you would also have to mention that the Patriots were not undefeated going into the Super Bowl last season. The Bucs defeated the Patriots in the preseason last year. However, that never mattered as we all went through the endless coverage of the Patriots, Tom Brady, Randy Moss, Bill Bellichick, Spygate, the 1972 Miami Dolphins, Gisele Bündchen, etc. Preseason games are not the same as regular or postseason games because of the strategy involved. You wouldn't pull your starters out for backups in a Week 17 game that means the difference between the making or missing the playoffs. Tampabay721 (talk) 20:02, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
please note that in the pats article. WillC (talk) 13:28, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
i just checked and the loss to the bucs is in the 2007 season entry, even though it was in the preseason. WillC (talk) 16:35, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As Pats1 mentioned previously, preseason games are exhibitions. They do not count towards regular and postseason streaks and stats. The 2005 Colts lost all 5 preseason games, but were not considered "in a losing streak" prior to Week 1 of that season. Had the Patriots won Super Bowl XLII, they would be in the middle of a 19-game winning streak at the start of the upcoming season regardless if they are to lose any or all preseason games. Tampabay721 (talk) 01:45, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
that's not the argument....whether the loss "counts" or not. it is an interesting fact and that's it. WillC (talk) 11:14, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have to agree with Pats1 as well. JohnnySeoul (talk) 13:56, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe a dead discussion, and it's partially cut off, but appears to be about whether the fact about the 1st season preseason win should be included? We could argue back and forth about this all day, but I'm looking at a Sports Illustrated article from the time that refers to it as "their first victory". By Wikipedia standards, it's not so much whether it's right or wrong, but that it's verifiable, right? So the citation trumps all arguments, as far as I can see.GuySperanza (talk) 13:18, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Alternate uniform[edit]

Can anybody sustain the claim that the black jersey is an authentic and not just a fashion jersey? The official style guides would be ideal, but the NFL guards those pretty jealously. The online shop does not include the black among the authentics it offers for sale (only replicas), so that fails to provide a citation. I'm adding the cite tag back one more time - please don't remove it until you can replace it with a citation - that's what the tag is there for. SixFourThree (talk) 19:51, 17 September 2008 (UTC)SixFourThree[reply]

Placing quotes around "alternate" still doesn't support the claim. Love the new graphic, though. SixFourThree (talk) 14:54, 18 September 2008 (UTC)SixFourThree[reply]

It's an official alternate jersey, regardless if its worn on the field or in the stands. The Tampa Bay Buccaneers Public Relations confirmed it (813)879-2827. I create all versions on NFL jerseys (present, past, and alternate). JohnnySeoul (talk) 22:08, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
So what you're saying is that you performed your own research, which is good, but it's not allowed on Wikipedia. You have to provide a published citation. The Bucs' website is good enough, although if the website changes, the citation's no good anymore.GuySperanza (talk) 13:24, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, but even if true it's not a reliable, third-party, published source. Please don't take the tag out again until somebody can provide one. For what it's worth, I include myself in that - I'm looking, too. This isn't about singling you out, it's about maintaining our standards to avoid spreading inaccurate information. SixFourThree (talk) 17:59, 19 September 2008 (UTC)SixFourThree[reply]
I think, to avoid an edit war, we need to start developing consensus here before anybody either removes the tag again or removes the image altogether. SixFourThree (talk) 18:09, 19 September 2008 (UTC)SixFourThree[reply]
It seems that you are the only one with a problem on here and on the Rams' and Chiefs' wiki pages. If the Public Relations department for the Tampa Bay Bucs says its an official alternate jersey to be worn by the fans, than its an OFFICIAL ALTERNATE JERSEY....end of discussion. The PR department are the ones that have the exact answer. Second, the Official Bucs Pro Shop is the official shop of the Tampa Bay Bucs....the only alernate jersey you can purchase on there is the BLACK alternate jersey. That is the OFFICIAL shop!! Get over yourself, SixFourThree. JohnnySeoul (talk) 22:45, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This is the link from the OFFICIAL Tampa Bay Bucs website. [1] **IMPORTANT NOTE: You will notice that the black jersey is the ONLY jersey listed as the official alternate jeresy....regardless if its a replica or not. This is the official alternate jersey for the fans. Show me another jersey listed on the OFFICIAL Tampa Bay Bucs pro shop that is listed as an alternate jersey and you have a legit arguement. But this link in conjunction with the PR department trump all. Good day.

Why wouldn't the PR department tell you that? Isn't it their job to sell team merchandise. "No that's not official, don't buy that." Most all merchandise with the team logo and NFL logo is officially licensed. The fact of the matter is they have never worn it and don't plan on wearing it, so we shouldn't mislead our viewers. Because if we include that, what should stop us from including everything else that's "official." Jc121383 (talk) 23:51, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So it's clear that I am not the only one who thinks such an inclusion dubious. Second, if you're going to cite that shop link, then the jersey should be identified as "replica" since nowhere on that site is it listed as a team authentic. I personlly don't think that something created solely for merchandising merits inclusion. SixFourThree (talk) 17:06, 22 September 2008 (UTC)SixFourThree[reply]

So, here's the question - should the uniform be included, and if it is included how shall it be identified? I say no, and if it must be identified then it should be labelled as it is on the "citation" - as an authentic replica jersey. SixFourThree (talk) 21:13, 29 September 2008 (UTC)SixFourThree[reply]

Fake Retired Numbers[edit]

The Buccaneers did not retire Mike Alstott's number #40 at halftime during the Seahawks game (2008). They only honored him. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.161.66.6 (talk) 19:29, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Then remove it. Tampabay721 (talk) 19:34, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I did. SixFourThree (talk) 14:00, 22 October 2008 (UTC)SixFourThree[reply]
And since some anonymous user put it back in, here's the reason it was removed in the first place.[2] The Bucs' site has an article on the ceremony, but no mention at all of retiring the number.[3] SixFourThree (talk) 20:25, 22 October 2008 (UTC)SixFourThree[reply]
I added it back in with a source. I watched the interview with Alstott after halftime and they mentioned retiring the number as well, though it may be that the media confused an honoring with number retiring. --WTStoffs (talk) 22:02, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Confusion seems to be the case, since the only source is the photo caption - the article itself doesn't mention a number retirement at all. Neither does the press release indicate such an honor. The ceremony was very similar to a number retirement ceremony, but certainly if that was the case the team would have said so. Seems to me that we need something official to confirm that the number was in fact retired, especially since the NFL has muddied the waters lately with "jersey retirement" vs. "number retirement" (see Reggie White and the Packers - his jersey was retired a couple years before his number, although the distinction seems a bit arcane to me). Since the team hasn't specified, we don't yet know exactly what level of honor has been accorded him, we should be wary of making a declarative statement either way and shouldn't repeat the presumptions of others. SixFourThree (talk) 15:36, 10 November 2008 (UTC)SixFourThree[reply]
This also includes on-air declarations on either NBC or FOX, both of which recently having announcers mention a "retirement" of Alstott's number (vs. jersey). 147.70.242.43 (talk) 22:05, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]


This may or may not be a strong source, but bucem.com reports that the jersey was not retired at the event, and goes on to make a case that Alstott's jersey should be retired and added to the Ring of Honor.[4] Both of the major Bay-area newspapers covered the event, but neither article states that Alstott's number or jersey was retired. [5] [6]GuySperanza (talk) 13:53, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

#40 Not Retired[edit]

The Buccaneers press release following the death of Lee Roy Selmon states that Selmon's #63 is the ONLY Buccaneer jersey to be retired. Therefore, it is official that Alstott's #40 was never retired. No need to worry about any other source. This is straight from the Tampa Bay Buccaneers.[7] To quote a line from the article, "On September 7, 1986, Selmon’s #63 jersey became the first – and still the only – number ever retired by the Buccaneers." BucsWeb (talk) 11:13, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Follow-up on the Mike Alstott "jersey/number" retirement debate. Here is a link to a video of the 2008 ceremony. As expected, nowhere is it mentioned that the jersey or the #40 was in the process of being retired. They did present him with two framed jerseys as a gift. All they did was honor him that night. The discussion was settled, but this adds additional direct proof. Doctorindy↔Talk 17:18, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Bucs "Ring of Honor" 2009 season uniforms[edit]

The "Ring of Honor" Tampa Bay Buccaneers uniform template (currently located on the uniform section) will replace the current default uniform template upon completion of the 2008 season. The "Ring of Honor" patch will also be included on the jerseys after it is officially revealed. JohnnySeoul (talk) 12:30, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Since the 2008 season is officially over for the Bucs, I've updated the uniforms to reflect the upcoming season. JohnnySeoul (talk) 19:19, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Inclusion of "Bay" in location of team[edit]

Is there any insight as to why exactly the term "Bay" is included in the team's name? Why would the team be named for a nearby body of water rather than the city itself? I do not know of any other examples of such, and wonder if this merits any significance of mention in the article. 173.105.223.128 (talk) 08:00, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It refers to the Tampa Bay Area. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 15:41, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No other examples? All of their sports teams are. Just look at the Tampa Bay Rays. The play in St. Pete. As for other cities, look at the AFC East. In particular, the New England Patriots and the New York Jets. Jc121383 (talk) 21:38, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There are two major cities in the Tampa Bay area, Tampa and St. Petersburg. Also, Clearwater, Sarasota, and Bradenton. If you name it after one city, you offend all the others. Look at the Florida Marlins and Florida Panthers: they're so named so that they're not considered Miami's team or Ft. Lauderdale's team, but so they appeal to fans from both areas, and Palm Beach County as well. I can dig up a citation for this if you want, the people in St. Pete were upset enough as it was that the team was named "Tampa Bay" with no mention of St. Pete, it would have hurt fan support to call the team the "Tampa Bucs".GuySperanza (talk) 14:00, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I was referencing specifically the fact that the name mentioned a body of water. New England and New York are not examples of such. ZZyzx's answer was helpful. Thanks! 173.105.223.128 (talk) 20:39, 17 April 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.82.119.103 (talk) [reply]
It is not named for the body of water, particularly since Tampa Bay itself actually comprises four bodies of water: Old Tampa Bay, McKay Bay, Hillsborough Bay, and New Tampa Bay. It is named for the metropolitan area covering Tampa, St. Petersburg, Clearwater, Sarasota, and Bradenton, as mentioned above. The metro area is named for the body of water. As for other examples, there are the Bowie (Maryland) BaySox and the Mobile (Alabama) BayBears, both in minor league baseball--not to say that the Bucs are a minor league team. So yes, the fact that the word "Bay" appears in the names of Tampa Bay sports teams is unusual, but they're not named for bodies of water any more than the New England Patriots are named for England. Boomshadow 6:06 am, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Facts & Records - Kickoffs returned for touchdowns[edit]

I do believe that until very recently (2008 season?) the Bucs were the only NFL team to have NEVER returned a kickoff for a touchdown? 25+ years or something crazy like that. One of the oddest "records" in NFL lore and should be in this article. 218.25.32.210 (talk) 05:56, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I thought it already was in there, but I guess someone snuck it out because now I can't find it. Tampabay721 (talk) 12:36, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A nice inclusion for a "records" page, but not the kind of fact that shapes the history of an organization. It belongs on _a_ page, but not _this_ page. Dementia13 (talk) 17:28, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sam Wyche[edit]

Am I wrong for thinking that Coach Wyche was pivotal to the turn around of this organization? He was the the head coach when the team drafted Warren Sapp, Derrick Brooks and John Lynch. When he left Tampa, he had a higher winning percentage than any of his predecessors. Yet, the only mention of him in this article is to call him a lame duck who wanted the team to wear a silly uniform. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.209.234.140 (talk) 00:03, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

He did well with what he had, but "pivotal" is probably too strong. Anyway, it can't be your opinion or mine, it needs to be verifiable from respected, published sources. I promise you that you will not find any such articles. The team began to improve when Rich McKay took over as general manager. Wyche deserves some credit, as he had control over personnel when they were drafted, but its doubtful that the choices were entirely his. Besides, didn't he also pick Curry and McRae? Dementia13 (talk) 15:15, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

New uniforms[edit]

Can somebody please find a thumbnail of the new uniforms? The one who's numbers look like alarm clock numbers? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 164.116.236.48 (talk) 15:44, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on Tampa Bay Buccaneers. 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, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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) 01:48, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 07:24, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion[edit]

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) 12:40, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

New color codes[edit]

I would like to suggest changing the color code for pewter. While I acknowledge that the shade of pewter is darker than what has been used in the past, the current shade is very dark and can be mistaken for black. I hope this suggestion is constructive and helpful, thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jimania16 (talk • contribs) 22:40, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Tampa_Bay_Buccaneers&oldid=1208148965"