Talk:Super Bowl LVI

Date

Some people seem to have assumed the game will be Feb 6. But if there is a 17-game schedule, it will be pushed off one week. I think we need to keep it TBD until the NFL makes a decision, or until schedules are released in April. Jdavi333 (talk) 15:59, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

Jdavi333, Thank you for the decision. I reverted several edits and will place a TBD on the infobox(es) until said date is confirmed. –Piranha249 (Discuss with me) 02:38, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

Pre-game ceremonies

What I'm hoping is at this year's Super Bowl pre-game ceremonies, Olivia Rodrigo sings "America the Beautiful" and Brendon Urie sings "The Star-Spangled Banner". By the way, when are the pre-game singers usually announced?72.92.40.56 (talk) 20:48, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

Super Bowl LVI Halftime show page

Is anyone gonna make a page on this Super Bowl's halftime show? I'm curious because the past 11 have had one, and I am definitely not qualified to make it. ObeseFriedChicken (talk) 22:15, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

Analysts

Tony Romo not Collinsworth 74.140.250.255 (talk) 02:36, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

The game's on NBC and not CBS, so I find that doubtful. --Kinu ^t/_c 07:33, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

Is this the first Super Bowl where a starting player is older than both head coaches?

I realized that Rams tackle Andrew Whitworth (who ironically also played for the Bengals) is older than both Sean McVay and Zac Taylor. Is this the first time a starting player is older than both head coaches in a Super Bowl? I haven't seen any articles to confirm this. Bluerules (talk) 22:19, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

Relevance of 2028 Olympic Games

He plans to anchor the Games from Beijing through February 10, after which he will fly back to Los Angeles for the Super Bowl, and anchor the Games' primetime coverage remotely from a studio outside SoFi Stadium (which will be one of the main venues of the 2028 Summer Olympics in Los Angeles) from February 11.

Is this relevant to note? I don't think it's noteworthy to note that SoFi Stadium is to be used for a future Olympic game for an article pertaining to the Super Bowl. -- PanchamBro (talk • contributions) 20:00, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

I agree, this content adds no value to the article about Super Bowl LVI, which is why I removed it on 2 February. However, later that day a veteran editor restored that content, despite admitting it was "trivial." Pinging @ViperSnake151: for further comment. Frank Anchor 20:27, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

I said it may seem trivial, but I feel it's notable, given that this will be only the second venue in the entire country (besides Los Angeles Memorial Coliseum) to have hosted both the Super Bowl and the Olympics. ViperSnake151  Talk  20:32, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

IMO, this content (SoFi scheduled to become just the second U.S. venue to host both the Super Bowl and Olympics) would be more relevant in the "Host selection process" section, not the TV section. Zzyzx11 (talk) 12:52, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

Hmmm. For now, I moved this to Super Bowl LVI#Host selection process. SoFi Stadium would be the logical place for this, but it may be useful here as well. More thoughts? Facts707 (talk) 06:58, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

I admit that I was about to remove this myself, but coincidentally saw the discussion pop up on my watchlist. As written, it seems like a trivial factoid (I mean, it wouldn't even be the first in its city... well, metropolitan area, if we're being pedantic... to host both), and if it belongs anywhere it would at the article about the stadium. Here, though, it just seems like a non sequitur factoid. --Kinu ^t/_c 07:31, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 February 2022

This is the second super bowl where the nfc team has hosted and won the super bowl. The nfc buccaneers did it last year in their stadium 107.127.39.1 (talk) 03:09, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

 Already done—Bagumba (talk) 05:25, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

Rams aren't first NFC team to play Super Bowl in their home stadium. Bucs are NFC too.

Like above, the Buccaneers played Super Bowl LV in their home stadium, and they're also NFC. Maybe it's referring to the Rams being the first team play the Super Bowl as the visiting team at their own stadium? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:14E:4180:2250:0:0:0:CA24 (talk) 03:11, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

Someone added that about the consecutive "home Super Bowls"but another edit removed it. It should appear somewhere in the article. Dfoofnik (talk) 03:24, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

Defensive player column

I've looked at different super bowl pages and have noticed that the defensive player positions included vary from page to page (Super Bowl 50 has a WCB position but Super Bowl XLV does not). I feel like the positions aren't specific enough but I don't know what I should base them off of. Ram P. (talk) 04:10, 14 February 2022 (UTC)VirusesSuck44

Edit conflict

I attempted to submit changes for the offense, yet it appears that I am in an edit conflict. If I am appearing to be using unsourced material, I am letting you know that I am using the same source initially used for this starting lineup, which is the NFL Gamebook. If I have messed up here, please let me know. I'm not familiar with all of Wikipedia's rules. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PoliticallyPassionateGamer (talk • contribs) 04:00, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

That's my bad. My edit is biased because I went off game stats rather than who actually started. Your source is more reliable, so I wouldn't hesitate to change it. Sorry if I confused you, I'm pretty unfamiliar with Wikipedia as well. (talk) 04:08, 14 February 2022 (UTC)VirusesSuck44

Since when are people (editors) removing info (stats, plays in a game) from an article? Is this a trend? Also when people complain about sources is it really that much work to go find some themselves and post them?Justanother2 (talk) 18:45, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

Controversy

Let's hope this heads off difficulties. Blurules, you CAN not have an event lead anything. Your talk page is full of people complaining to you about this type of thing. Stop please.Justanother2 (talk) 17:13, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

Do you not understand proper grammar? The sentence says the Rams' fifth Super Bowl appearance was "LED BY" Stafford. It does not say the event is leading anything; it says Stafford led the Rams to the event. Your edits have poor grammar and typos. If you continue to make personal attacks and unconstructive edits, you will be reported. Bluerules (talk) 17:53, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

Do you understand how talk pages work? You are able to start polls on them.Justanother2 (talk) 17:59, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

Do you understand how Wikipedia works? It's not about polls. It's about correct information and formatting. Your sentences are poorly-written and based on a misunderstanding of English grammar. We don't poll edits based on bad grammar. Bluerules (talk) 18:03, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

Yes, Blue is right. And see Wikipedia:Polling is not a substitute for discussion. Back Bay Barry (talk) 18:04, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

You're using bad grammar; try to find one place where it says an appearance is lead by an individual or group. Events are, appearances are not.Justanother2 (talk) 18:06, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

Led, not lead.Justanother2 (talk) 18:07, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

This site tries to get to what is called consensus. It seems the two of you do not understand that or that polls help to get to consensus. Further you would be in error if we did have a poll.Justanother2 (talk) 18:13, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

Boomer Esiason: "led the team to a Super Bowl appearance". Drew Bledsoe: "was an integral part in leading the Patriots to a Super Bowl appearance". You're changing your argument and unfounded accusations. Please stop with the unconstructive edits.

No, the consensus is reached by discussion. And the discussion is against your edits. Bluerules (talk) 18:17, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

Agreed. Back Bay Barry (talk) 18:31, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

You never used the word to as in led to an appearance.Justanother2 (talk) 18:42, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

Again, you change your argument and cherry-pick words. These demonstrate that individuals can lead others to events, as was the case with this Super Bowl. Bluerules (talk) 19:36, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

@Justanother2: You may want to take a break from editing these Super Bowl articles. Back Bay Barry (talk) 19:51, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

Have not changed in any way how I think, no cherry-picking. I showed you that your wording is in error. Could you admit it though, no.Justanother2 (talk) 19:57, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

You went from claiming the article said an "appearance" was leading the Rams, to asking where else an individual leads an appearance, to being critical because the wording wasn't exactly the same. This is how a consensus really works. Bluerules (talk) 21:07, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

I don't think you've shown anyone that they are "in error". You're simply insisting you're right and everyone else is wrong. That's probably not going to work out for you, is my guess. Back Bay Barry (talk) 19:59, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

Also why are they talking about polls when Wikipedia does not have such functions? Like yeah, talk pages are where opinions are collected, but polls need that extra step and structure--CreecregofLife (talk) 20:03, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

@Justanother2:, your edits are unconstructive and poorly worded, and as you can see in this section, nobody else is backing your opinion, while at least 4 other editors have criticised your edits. It would be wise to keep that in mindFynsta (talk) 11:07, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

Wise? Taking hints or what have you from someone not using talk pages much.Justanother2 (talk) 11:11, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

The talk page is for listening to other editors. Please listen to what others tell you. Bluerules (talk) 13:11, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

Not much listening is going on here. Goff's qbr went up in 2018, not down. Same for passing yardage. As unusual as it may be to you throwing for substantially more interceptions for more than 3 seasons including 2018 was key.Justanother2 (talk) 08:38, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

The person not listening is you. The "decline in production" for Goff refers to after 2018. It very clearly says "After the Rams lost 2018's Super Bowl LIII". Goff's passer rating, yardage, and touchdowns all went down in 2019. To simply focus on Goff throwing more interceptions doesn't accurately represent why the relationship between him and McVay became strained. It's not just about interceptions, it's about overall production - Stafford threw more interceptions this season than Goff, but outperformed him in the other categories. Bluerules (talk) 11:16, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

It's laborious however even if I show you something you don't pay attention. This has nothing to do with Stafford.Justanother2 (talk) 11:21, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

It has everything to do with Stafford. The Rams gave up as much as they did for him because Goff was declining in basically every category, not just his turnover differential. Bluerules (talk) 14:10, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

I honestly do not know if you are trolling or if you just don't WANT to understand what everyone else is saying. We are talking about Goff's production after the Super Bowl of 2018. Well let's see what Goff's PFR page says (let's also include DYAR for advanced measurements):

2018: 4688 yards, 32 TDs, 12 Ints, 8.4 Y/A, 1114 DYAR, 63.6 QBR, 101.1 rating

2019: 4638 yards, 22 TDs, 16 Ints, 7.4 Y/A, 552 DYAR, 50.6 QBR, 86.5 rating

2020: 3952 yards, 20 TDs, 13 Ints, 7.2 Y/A, 385 DYAR, 50.8 QBR, 90.0 rating

How is this not a decline in basically EVERY category? It obviously isn't only about interceptions. Actually it isn't interceptions at all, they did not really change all that much (always Int% between 2.0 and 2.6). So can you please stop making unconstructive edits? Fynsta (talk) 12:34, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

Don't mind expounding on this and showing errors. You left out the 2017 season which is the one being referenced.Justanother2 (talk) 12:53, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

Where do you get that information? Let's explain it nice and slowly one last time. As Bluerules already pointed out, the text says "After the Rams lost 2018's Super Bowl LIII". Note that this the SuperBowl for the 2018 season, taking place in February of 2019. This means that we are now considering the seasons AFTER 2018 (which are, incidentally, 2019 and 2020) and compare them to his 2018 season. That is exactly what I did. The 2017 season has no bearing whatsoever on this, because it was the season BEFORE the 2018 season (the SuperBowl season). I hope you will understand your error and gain some introspective concerning your behaviour, but something tells me you won't. Fynsta (talk) 13:28, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

You're incorrect. Here are the stats for 2017. Goff went to the Pro Bowl in 2018 and the next year. Played in 15 games, 296 out of 477 for a completion rate of 62.1 percent and 3804 yards 28 TD, 7 interceptions, APR of 100.5 and a QBR of 55.7 Those stats bear out what I have said and yet users or editors on here aren't hearing. Interceptions make a substantial difference and Goff threw for many. Those put pressure on the team's defense because they had to play substantially longer than their opponent's defense not to mention when the interceptions led to easy scores. I think there's a fundamental misunderstanding of which stats matter the most and how they correlate, not just you. Others too.Justanother2 (talk) 18:47, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

Please read my last message again. 2017 does not matter in this context. Fynsta (talk) 19:16, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

You are not listening. Go back to the original phrasing. The Super Bowl was in February of 2018. Why are you not getting the pictured. 2017 is important. It is the season being talked about; 2018 and 2019 are being compared to it. That is the point of the paragraph. You are stubborn, you aren't listening. You do not understand stats. You don't see that his rating and yardage went up not down. He went to the Pro Bowl twice; you don't go there if you aren't a good player.Justanother2 (talk) 19:36, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

@Justanother2: multiple editors, at multiple articles, have asked you to stop vandalizing and making disruptive edits. Attempts to talk to you on your talk page have all been deleted, by you. Warnings for your vandalism and disruption have been deleted, by you. There is an open report on your behavior that I alerted you to; you ignored it and deleted it from your talk page. What are you trying to accomplish? Back Bay Barry (talk) 19:41, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

"2017 is important. It is the season being talked about"... no, it isn't. Super Bowl LIII was to determine the champion of the 2018 season. It was played in February 2019. This entire thread is ridiculous. WP:DROPTHESTICK. --Kinu ^t/_c 19:55, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

Oh, wrong Super Bowl, yes. It's 2019, not 2018. Do you see what years he went to the Pro Bowl. Again, you don't go to the Pro Bowl if you aren't qualified. For the Yahoo article I am able to show you word for word what it says. Maybe you would put it back then.Justanother2 (talk) 19:54, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

That seems unlikely. Back Bay Barry (talk) 19:56, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

If I had a publication none of you would be writing for it. I think some of the most amateur writing is on this page and other articles about sports, in particular football. You fail to see that no outlets or papers would use the style or words you use.Justanother2 (talk) 16:58, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

Citations needed

Multiple citations are needed for the international media coverage section, and adding the appropriate template for that is neither disruptive nor unhelpful. I would suggest finding the sources, and then we can remove it. BilledMammal (talk) 18:01, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

BilledMammal, three different editors have reverted you now. WP:DROPTHESTICK. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:05, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

Perhaps explain what the issue is? We don't have sources, noting that should be uncontroversial. BilledMammal (talk) 18:06, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

Primary sources

This is a primary source; it is basic description of what happened. For it to be a secondary source, it would require the authors own thoughts on what happened. As such, the tag needs to be restored. BilledMammal (talk) 18:05, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

Again, WP:DROPTHESTICK. A primary source is fine. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:05, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

A primary source is fine. Basing 1300 words of prose on a primary source is not. BilledMammal (talk) 18:07, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

Disagree. ESPN is a reliable source for sports news. If they publish an account of a game, we can rely on their fact checking and reputation for accuracy. This is not a primary source. It's not some random blogger posting what they saw on TV. Jehochman ^Talk 18:09, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

A transcript, not an account. And a reliable primary source is still a primary source - and if this is not a primary source, then what is it? It is not a secondary source, because it doesn't contain an author's analysis, evaluation, interpretation, or synthesis of the facts, evidence, concepts, and ideas, and it is clearly not a tertiary source. BilledMammal (talk) 18:14, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

It's good enough for its current use. The ESPN site is loaded with analysis, etc. The fact that they put this transcript on a separate web page is not determinative. Slapping maintenance tags all over the article does not improve it. Please consider what's best for the reader. Jehochman ^Talk 18:19, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

Then the text should be rewritten to incorporate that analysis, and the maintenance tag should be placed there until it is done. And if you believe that maintenance tags are bad for the user, I believe the correct location to discuss that is TFD, not here. BilledMammal (talk) 18:21, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

Incorrect. A primary source would be an involved party, wouldn’t it? The actions tell the story to the reporters, making them secondary. ESPN is especially not the NFL, the participating teams, or NBC Sports--CreecregofLife (talk) 18:26, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

Per WP:PRIMARY, Primary sources may or may not be independent sources. And merely stating the actions doesn't make them secondary; for that, they need to contain an author's analysis, evaluation, interpretation, or synthesis of the actions. BilledMammal (talk) 18:33, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

Isn’t it interpreted as a box score? Every ESPN game page has at least some sort of prose article attached, whether right under the score or in the recap tab on the same page. It’s silly to ignore that--CreecregofLife (talk) 18:44, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

It is silly to ignore that and instead base the article on the primary source. That is the issue that needs to be corrected. BilledMammal (talk) 19:07, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

It's not a primary source. It's compiled by an organization unrelated to the NFL and therefore doesn't satisfy the "They offer an insider's view of an event, a period of history, a work of art, a political decision, and so on" definition at WP:PRIMARY. Also, this is ultimately just semantics because even if we decided it was a primary source, that's not a problem for this sort of section - it's effectively like a "plot summary" of the game, as you would also find at FAs like Bad Times at the El Royale... the plot summary there has no sources because it's assumed that the film itself (very much a primary source) is sufficient.  — Amakuru (talk) 19:33, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

Per WP:PRIMARY, an independent source can be a primary source. As for Bad Times at the El Royale, MOS:PLOT, the consensus that allows that exception, doesn't apply here. BilledMammal (talk) 20:38, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

How so?--CreecregofLife (talk) 21:10, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

Super Bowl LVI was not fictional. BilledMammal (talk) 21:20, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

So? You’re calling ESPN a primary source--CreecregofLife (talk) 21:21, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

This specific reference, not ESPN in general, is a primary source. BilledMammal (talk) 21:24, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

No, it isn't. Merely stating that it's primary 50,000 times doesn't make it so. The ESPN source is not "an insider's view of an event" as required by WP:PRIMARY, but a instead a report on the game made from a distance by an operative working for an outside company. It also contains interpretive elements such as "M.Stafford scrambles up the middle to CIN 44 for 7 yards" which represents the analysis and interpretation you crave. The "scrambling" part is not just a computer-generated stat about the game.  — Amakuru (talk) 22:04, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

Primary sources can be fine, they just shouldn't be the basis of the bulk of a game summary. The relevant policies are WP:PRIMARY (emphasis added):

Primary sources may or may not be independent sources. An account of a traffic incident written by a witness is a primary source of information about the event...be cautious about basing large passages on them.

Play-by-play transcripts, boxscores, stats databases, etc. are primary sources.

Per the WP:SECONDARY policy:

A secondary source provides an author's own thinking based on primary sources, generally at least one step removed from an event. It contains an author's analysis, evaluation, interpretation, or synthesis of the facts, evidence, concepts, and ideas taken from primary sources.

Per the policy WP:PSTS:

Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published secondary sources and, to a lesser extent, on tertiary sources and primary sources.

I never understood how the community let fictional works get away with unsourced plot summaries based on Wikipedia editors' own readings. At least to this point, it hasn't been acceptable to have sports summaries just be unsourced and say, "It's in the video, there's your proof." It's also not good to let fandom creep in and allow us writers to choose the bulk of specific "key" plays from play-by-play transcripts.—Bagumba (talk) 00:30, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

Maintenance tags

I just fixed a problem[1] and removed two maintenance tags. One was accurate [2] and one was spurious [3]. Before simply slapping maintenance tags on this (or any) article, please go to the talk page and explain with some level of detail why you think the maintenance tag is needed. Thank you! Jehochman ^Talk 18:06, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

See discussion above. BilledMammal (talk) 18:08, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

Nah, you haven't explained why maintenance tags are needed. I agree with Muboshgu, drop the stick, because you're poking several bears--CreecregofLife (talk) 19:32, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

Adding additional articles under "see also" sections

Hi! First post here. As I was reading through this page, I did notice that there could be some "see also" articles added underneath two subtopics specifically. Under the "Impact of the COVID-19 pandemic", perhaps adding a connection to the article "COVID-19 pandemic in the United States" would prove to be beneficial. It covers all bases in regards to the pandemic, and not just limiting it to the impact COVID has had on sports and how it's affected California. Another article that could be added as a "see also" page would be found under "pre-game ceremonies", where other pages including pre-game ceremonies for other Super Bowls could be added. I am not as informed on the pre-game ceremonies for the Super Bowl, but I feel it could be beneficial to add in there if readers would like to read about other ceremonies.

Ashtnoiz (talk) 22:56, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

Expanding upon Post-Game

The current post-game section includes little mention of the cultural and local impact of the outcome of the Super Bowl. Perhaps looking into the reactions of locals within the hometowns of each team may be beneficial to the entire article? CakeKanri (talk) 02:37, 28 February 2022 (UTC)CakeKanri