Jump to content

Talk:Minnesota Vikings

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

Second Trade to get Tarkenton back

[edit]

Article currently states that we traded "first-round draft picks in 1972 and 1973" to the Giants to reacquire Tarkenton but then says we drafted Foreman with our first pick in the 1973 Draft (and it was a first rounder based on the linked article). Did we somehow have two first round picks in 1973 before the trade or is there something mistated here? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cglenn3932 (talk • contribs) 14:44, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]


Joe Webb

[edit]

the vikings chose joe webb to act as a wide reviever primarally, and on a lesser role as qauterback according to live interviews by Vikings personal.

I heard that he was drafted as a WR but on the last day of Rookie camp (or maybe it was the last day of training camp, i cant remember) former coach Brad Childress had him throw some passes and was so impressed he changed him back to QB. (Toughguy223 (talk) 01:52, 2 January 2011 (UTC))[reply]

League Championships

[edit]

I keep changing the championship totals because if you look at the Green Bay Packers, Kansas City Chiefs, and New York Jets they don't include the AFL or NFL championships won to add to their championship total. Don't you think the Minnesota Vikings should join the rest. If not then so be it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sullivan9211 (talk • contribs) 20:20, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Please see WT:NFL for a more in depth reason. This isn't a slight to the Vikings. Thought the games leading up to the first four super bowls were league championship games, they are essentially conference games. Put it this way, you want credit for the '69 league championship but by that reasoning the Packers can list 14 league championships. Zoro 1234 17:08, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Could have sworn this issue is resolved, yet it is brought back as 1. KyuuA4 (Talk:キュウ) 03:03, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don’t know who keeps changing the number of league championships to the inaccurate number of one. Looking in to protecting the page to stop it. Yungcarmine (talk) 04:06, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Someone did it again. Now the Vikings page is the only page for an NFL team that counts as a league championship a year in which that team lost the AFL-NFL Super Bowl Championship prior to the 1970 AFL-NFL merger. Every other relevant team's pages say this: "Does not include the AFL or NFL Championships won during the same seasons as the AFL–NFL Super Bowl Championships prior to the 1970 AFL–NFL merger."
I'm going to revert this back to the way it was. Can someone please contact an administrator, as suggested by Yungcarmine, to protect the page? Ambient182 (talk) 03:15, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

or...

[edit]

just add the championships to the list, the super bowls during that time period were NOT league championships because the AFL and NFL were not one league. more like an extra credit kind of thing —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.179.9.71 (talk) 13:22, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In Super Bowls I, II, III, and IV, four teams lost the game: Chiefs, Raiders, Colts, and Vikings. The Wikipedia pages for the Kansas City Chiefs, Oakland Raiders, and Indianapolis Colts do not list the year they lost the Super Bowl as a year in which they won a "League Championship." The only team that does that is the Vikings. It's a mistake. The AFL and NFL legally merged on June 8, 1966 (see AFL–NFL merger), before Super Bowl I in January 1967 -- that's why there was a common draft starting in March 1967 NFL/AFL Draft. Also, when the merger was announced in June 1966, the joint announcement stated: that there would be "a World Championship game this season" (i.e., in January 1967 -- Super Bowl I) [1][2][3] . I propose that the Vikings page be made consistent with the pages for the Chiefs, Raiders, and Colts. The Vikings page should say: League Championships (0). The Wikipedia pages for the Kansas City Chiefs, Oakland Raiders, and Indianapolis Colts do list the year they lost the Super Bowl as a year in which they won an AFL or NFL Championship, but the entries for their "League Championships" clarify that the number of "League Championships" "Does not include the AFL or NFL Championships won during the same seasons as the AFL–NFL Super Bowl Championships prior to the 1970 AFL–NFL merger." To be consistent, the Vikings' page also should say that the Vikings won an NFL Championship in 1969. Ebw343 (talk) 04:30, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Sabbatino reverted my good faith edits, which were made after I made the post above on 27 April 2019. So I did "take it to the talk page" before I made any edits. As the above paragraph makes clear, it is not correct that the AFL–NFL merger was merely "announced" on June 8, 1996, and it is not correct that the merger "happened" in 1970. The merger was legally binding on June 8, 1966. That's why there was a common draft starting in March 1967 NFL/AFL Draft. Also, when the merger was consummated in June 1966, the joint announcement stated that there would be "a World Championship game this season" (i.e., in January 1967 -- Super Bowl I) [1] The joint announcement also makes clear that the only substantive change to occur in 1970 was that there would be a "single league schedule." This happened because the two leagues had prior TV contracts that prevented the "single league schedule" prior to the 1970 season. For all these reasons, the Wikipedia pages for the Kansas City Chiefs, Oakland Raiders, and Indianapolis Colts do not list the year they lost the Super Bowls I, II, and III, respectively, as a year in which they won a "League Championship." (That makes sense, because the leagues legally merged in June 1966 and the Super Bowls I, II, III, and IV were the "World Championship games," as stated in the joint announcement made in June 1966.) The only team page that claims a "league championship" for a season in which they lost a Super Bowl is the Vikings. It's a mistake. I will wait for responses.Ebw343 (talk) 19:04, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Ebw343: First of all, it is usually a good idea (like in this case) to start a completely new section on the talk page since it is easier for people interested in the discussion to find it. Secondly, it is best to start a discussion at WT:NFL since even more people will see it there. Thirdly, you should have started a discussion the first time you were reverted. Moving on to the subject – the only problem that I see in this case is that there is no note like in other pages. This might be a limitation of the template and users with better knowledge should answer it. And regarding the merger – as I already wrote "announced"≠"took effect". There was a transitional period for a reason and you cannot just decide how it happened based on your own interpretation. – Sabbatino (talk) 07:24, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It's not my "interpretation." The merger was legally finalized on June 8, 1966. As the merger relates to the "World Championship game," as described in the joint announcement on June 8, 1966, there was no "transition." As stated in the joint announcement: "The main points of the joint announcement include a world championship game this season [i.e., Super Bowl I, played on January 15, 1967]."[1] (Note: this article is cited in AFL-NFL Merger.) The joint announcement on June 8, 1966 further clarified that "the plan will mean a true world champion of professional football." [1] The only "transition" related to the practical fact that there could not be "regular season competition between clubs of the two leagues until after close of the 1969 season because of individual league [television] contract commitments." [1] These facts explain why the Wikipedia pages for the Kansas City Chiefs, Oakland Raiders, and Indianapolis Colts do not list the year they lost the Super Bowls I, II, and III, respectively, as a year in which they won a "League Championship." The only team page that claims a "league championship" for a season in which they lost a Super Bowl is the Vikings. It's a mistake. Given that you have no substantive disagreements, I will wait a while and then make the edits required to correct the page.Ebw343 (talk) 14:14, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The key word in the title of the dispute is "league" not "world" champions. Green Bay's infobox has "NFL-AFL" and "Super Bowl" separate even though it has the same continuity. Even if they may have been the same "legal entity" doesn't mean it is the same league. Heck using that logic baseball didn't become one league then until 2000.-UCO2009bluejay (talk) 18:20, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Green Bay's entry is entirely consistent with those for Kansas City Chiefs, Oakland Raiders, and Indianapolis Colts. Minnesota's entry is not consistent with those of Kansas City Chiefs, Oakland Raiders, and Indianapolis Colts. Indeed, Minnesota's entry is not consistent with any other NFL team's page as it pertains to the number of "league championships." The only team page that claims a "league championship" for a season in which they lost a Super Bowl is the Vikings. It's a mistake.Ebw343 (talk) 18:49, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Then I contend that only Minnesota's is correct, and concur with Sabbatino's analyisis. The Raiders, Chiefs/Dallas Texans, and Colts should add their Super Bowl loss seasons as league championships because wait-for-it they won the (AFL or NFL) league championships.-UCO2009bluejay (talk) 16:32, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You're wrong, but I won't now make the edits required to fix the page. (I may in the future if more rational editors comment here.) The Vikings' page will remain in conflict with 31 other teams' pages as the only page that treats a season with a Super Bowl loss as a season in which that team won a league championship. At some point in the future, the Vikings' page will be fixed, and editors will wonder how people could have been so misinformed about the facts of the AFL/NFL merger in 1966 that they could contend that the Vikings won a league championship in 1969, given that merger was legally finalized on June 8, 1966. As the merger relates to the "World Championship game," as described in the joint announcement on June 8, 1966, there was no "transition." As stated in the joint announcement: "The main points of the joint announcement include a world championship game this season [i.e., Super Bowl I, played on January 15, 1967]."[1] (Note: this article is cited in AFL-NFL Merger.) The joint announcement on June 8, 1966 further clarified that "the plan will mean a true world champion of professional football." [1] The only "transition" related to the practical fact that there could not be "regular season competition between clubs of the two leagues until after close of the 1969 season because of individual league [television] contract commitments." [1] These facts explain why the Wikipedia pages for the Kansas City Chiefs, Oakland Raiders, and Indianapolis Colts do not list the year they lost the Super Bowls I, II, and III, respectively, as a year in which they won a "League Championship." The only team page that claims a "league championship" for a season in which they lost a Super Bowl is the Vikings. It's a mistake.Ebw343 (talk) 19:15, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relevant sources

[edit]

"Other Wikipedia pages say X" is not a basis for saying X in the present article. Arguments about what counted as a league and when are also irrelevant; see WP:SYNTH and WP:STICKTOSOURCE. Articles may even contradict each other if the sources about those articles' topics contradict each other. For the Minnesota Vikings article, whether the Vikings won a league championship for the 1969 season needs to be settled by authoritative sources specifically about the Vikings. If none address the matter, then neither should the article; see WP:BALASP. —Ben Kovitz (talk) 12:20, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

ESPN says "The 1969 Vikings won the last NFL Championship in history. The NFL and AFL merged the year afterward, creating conference championships that fed into the Super Bowl." here, "The 1969 Vikings won the last NFL Championship in history. The NFL and AFL merged the year afterward, creating conference championships that fed into the Super Bowl." @Sabbatino: and I have indicated that the merger officially occurred in 1970. The NFL and AFL had a common draft but they were still separate leagues. The winning franchise the Chiefs even agree with this [1] , "After winning the AFL’s last championship in Oakland in 1969, head coach Hank Stram ordered new red jerseys to be worn for what would be the final Super Bowl between the two leagues – the merger would come into play the next year." I resent the notion that we are not "rational editors" because we disagree with content. IMO Minnesota was the only one of the four that had it correct. It wasn't like even like baseball with a common administration. [2] -UCO2009bluejay (talk) 16:50, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I concur. The sources indicate that the Vikings article is correct, the others should be edited to match. Some additional sources:
  • Our 1969 NFL season article which lists the Vikings as the 1969 NFL Champions, and says: As was the case the previous season, the NFL Champion was not crowned as the world champion because of the Vikings' 23-7 loss to the Chiefs in the Super Bowl. This occurrence can no longer happen, as the AFL and the NFL merged with each other the following season (1970), with 2 separate conferences (the AFC and the NFC) both playing together in the same league (the NFL), with the 2 conference champions playing each other every year in the Super Bowl.
  • Our List of NFL champions article which has the Vikings as the 1969 NFL Champions, and says: Teams winning the NFL Championship during these years move onward to compete in the first four Super Bowls. The Green Bay Packers continued on to win the first two Super Bowls. The latter two teams, the Baltimore Colts and Minnesota Vikings, lost in their respective Super Bowls. These two losing teams are still credited with the NFL Championship in their official record.
  • Watch Vikings win 1969 NFL Championship Game in TV classic: "You don’t have to be a diehard football fan to know the Vikings have never won a Super Bowl. They’re a very big 0 for four. Zip. Nada. But they do, in fact, have a National Football League championship to their credit, and thanks to the miracle of YouTube, you can watch some of it today in living color."
  • 1969 Minnesota Vikings Statistics & Players, which lists the Vikings as "1969 NFL Champions".
  • Fred Cox's NFL Championship ring and Earsell Mackbee's NFL Championship ring
That's just a cursory search. I'm sure there are more. Mojoworker (talk) 00:55, 19 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@UCO2009bluejay: @Mojoworker: That's some fine work! I believe the matter is settled: the Vikings won a league championship in 1969, and the current infobox and text about it stand. If anyone raises this topic again, we can direct them to the sources you've provided here. —Ben Kovitz (talk) 21:33, 22 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ a b c d e f g h "How merger will operate". Milwaukee Sentinel. Associated Press. June 9, 1966. p. 4, part 2.
  2. ^ "How NFL, AFL will run from single wing". Miami News. Associated Press. June 9, 1966. p. 16A.
  3. ^ Schramm, Tex (June 20, 1966). "Here's how it happened". Sports Illustrated: 14. Retrieved May 21, 2016.

In fact

[edit]

I think the packers, cheifs and jets should have them counted as they were champions of their respected leagues while winning the super bowl (at the time not being a league championship) and is beyond me why they are not included as such —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.179.9.71 (talk) 13:27, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Don't forget the Colts and the Raiders ;-) .Zoro 1234 17:13, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Helmet

[edit]

What kind of helmet is that on the article? it doesn't look like an NFL distributed one. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.179.34.36 (talk) 22:55, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The new helmet designs on all the team pages look like those of fantasy knights and space marines. Even if they're modern and widespread throughout the league, people don't associate the new styles with the term "football helmet." I'm voting for reverting back to the more traditional graphic -- even if the League has officially distributed the images (which I am unsure of). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Twentysixpurple (talk • contribs) 20:17, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

They were not distributed by the NFL, nor are they from "fantasy knights and space marines". It appears that a user took a generic photo of a new Riddell Revolution Speed Helmet and photoshopped it accordingly. Zzyzx11 (talk) 05:01, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, they're photoshopped; yes, those types of helmets of used by ESPN's NFL Primetime; but the picture, in my opinion, is distracting, and the angle of the graphic makes it appear hideous rather than futuristic. I don't understand what was wrong with the older helmet pictures, or why someone (or a group of someones) decided to change them, or why that notion has been approved. Twentysixpurple (talk) 15:40, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just a little observation I made

[edit]

Been studying the Vikings' early years at Metropolitan Stadium. I've heard that it was the coldest venue in the NFL and a big part of the reason they went indoors. If you look at the team's seasons during the Met years (1961-81), you'll notice that the league always seemed to give them a lot of road games in November-December, typically three of the last four. I can see why. 208.101.166.37 (talk) 08:04, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template

[edit]

The template is screwed up - either that or something is wrong with the first sentence. Don't know enough to fix it. Ckruschke (talk) 02:56, 18 January 2011 (UTC)Ckruschke[reply]

Article

[edit]

What was wrong with how the introduction to the article was originally written? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.126.102.232 (talk) 04:33, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. Most recent revisions to opening paragraphs have basically been chop jobs or insertions of info that is dealt with in much greater detail in the body of the page. "Overview" section is just that and shouldn't be bogged down with discussion of individual games or other minutiae. Know I am guilty of this myself, but theoretically textural revisions of several sentences in an established, well-traveled page should be "discussed" first. Ckruschke (talk) 19:42, 21 January 2011 (UTC)Ckruschke[reply]

Page Protection?

[edit]

Is it time to put at least some semi-protection from edits on this page? Since I've been monitoring it the past month, I've seen alot of malicious edits. Ckruschke (talk) 22:22, 27 January 2011 (UTC)Ckruschke[reply]

AGAIN - Can we put at least some protection on this page? Malicious edits are an almost daily occurance. Ckruschke (talk) 21:54, 6 February 2011 (UTC)Ckruschke[reply]
Requests for page protection should be posted on Wikipedia:Requests for page protection. However, looking at the page history, now you'll most likely get the "not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection" answer. I only count 4 vandalism reverts since February 1. Zzyzx11 (talk) 06:21, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"Only?" Wow - I guess I should be quiet if 4 reverts in 9 days is not considered a lot. Thanks anyway.Ckruschke (talk) 18:00, 9 February 2011 (UTC)Ckruschke[reply]

A Question of Ethics

[edit]

Does it not seem odd to anyone that the vikings have been using internet sites like this as a way of spreading their tired and droll propaganda to get their precious little stadium? I'm not trying to "Sling Mud" but I wonder just how much do the Viking players donate to you guys on a weekly basis? I read this article last week and it reaked — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.8.165.157 (talk) 19:44, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Listing emergency venues in the infobox

[edit]

I've noticed that the emergency venues used due to the 2010 roof collapse at the Dome are listed in the infobox. Not only does this look messy, but it's inconsistent with other articles-- the San Francisco 49ers article does not list in the infobox that Stanford Stadium was used as an emergency venue because of an earthquake. As I see it, temporary stadiums used as a "place to crash" for a season or two should be counted, but emergency one-game venues should not. That leaves me to wonder what the official rules should be. What should it say? Is the 49ers article wrong? --67.180.161.183(talk)07:32, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you. I think someone was trying to be "complete" and I haven't had the time or interest to correct this. Ckruschke (talk) 17:45, 2 July 2012 (UTC)Ckruschke[reply]

Vikings InfoBox Colors

[edit]

Does anyone know why the InfoBox Colors for the Vikings and all of their players changed from purple (primary) and gold (secondary) to purple and white (secondary)? Dabullzrule (talk) 01:20, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I would imagine that it's because the new home jersey features white more primarily than gold. However, I disagree with this change and I think we should change it back. – PeeJay 12:41, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. The uniforms may not have much gold but the Norse Viking is still primarily gold and they are still "the purple and gold". Dabullzrule (talk) 17:20, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I also agree. There's been no suggestion that the team colors have changed. And, what would Prince say?[3] --Arxiloxos (talk) 17:30, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think I've fixed it now. – PeeJay 12:22, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use candidate from Commons: File:MNL.jpg

[edit]

The file File:MNL.jpg, used on this page, has been deleted from Wikimedia Commons and re-uploaded at File:MNL.jpg. It should be reviewed to determine if it is compliant with this project's non-free content policy, or else should be deleted and removed from this page. If no action is taken, it will be deleted after 7 days. Commons fair use upload bot (talk) 09:44, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

peacock wording...

[edit]

since you insist that I need to post on the talk page about peacock wording..l. i should say that the history section is full of them, but the rest of the article seems decent. i do see that it says it on the top of the talk page, but i find that I, at least, don't usually look at the talk page to find issues, ibut tags are a more obvious way of drawing attention to the issues. hence why the exist. -- Aunva6talk - contribs 02:35, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for posting your concerns here. I find that simply adding a tag doesn't usually help the situation as there is no particular indication of where the problem lies. Furthermore, most of the people who would see that tag are those who edit this page regularly and therefore might not be able to see issues in their own work. So again, thank you for pointing out the specific problems you identified in the article. – PeeJay 10:15, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 8 external links on Minnesota Vikings. 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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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 05:44, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Vikings Championship Drought

[edit]

IT should be noted that the Vikings are the oldest NFL franchise without a championship; their 1969 NFL Championship doesn't count.50.136.139.204 (talk) 03:15, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Correct Gabrael Swalheim (talk) 04:07, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Uniform

[edit]

I think the vikings "current uniform" is incorrect. The team hasn't worn purple pants with purple jerseys since 2014, when they only did it for one game. Does anybody have an image with the correct uniform? (purple jersey with white pants, and white jersey with purple pants) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.128.147.184 (talk) 23:39, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Minnesota Vikings. 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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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) 22:27, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Add Kevin Warren to current Front office staff

[edit]

Hi, I do not know how to edit the section called "Current Staff: Front Office" which is where the name Kevin Warren should be, as he is the COO of the franchise. Can someone kindly either add his name, or explain here how to do that edit, and I will take care of it. Thanks. 172.97.90.36 (talk) 11:32, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

done Ckruschke (talk) 15:32, 14 February 2017 (UTC)Ckruschke[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Minnesota Vikings. 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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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) 19:36, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Minnesota Vikings. 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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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) 20:04, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Minnesota Vikings. 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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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) 14:04, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Images could be improved

[edit]

There photos for the 1970's are very weak. That's all commons has for the Purple People Eaters? I'd rather see Fran in game action and a better photo than the postage stamp from a super bowl. And only a ticket stub and a nose-bleed photo for two whole decades?

Then there are too many photos from around 2010. Some balance and better selection is needed. I would insert and change photos on my own, but wanted to at least give a heads up here first. - Mnnlaxer | talk | stalk 07:12, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Mnnlaxer - feel free to Be Bold and work to implement your suggestions. Posts on Talk about how the page sucks and "someone should fix it" don't go very far... Ckruschke (talk) 19:32, 29 November 2017 (UTC)Ckruschke[reply]
I've got no problem with bold and I never said someone else should do it. I just had never edited here before, so thought I'd dip the toe in - or poke the hornets nest - before going to town. I've looked at Commons for the Vikes and it is beyond pathetic. The tiny super bowl image should stay, but I'll try to improve over an old Tarkenton. - Mnnlaxer | talk | stalk 02:46, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I'm done. Not much to work with, but I think it looks good. Any opinions? I will "someone should fix it" and leave about the 1990s section. One paragraph for 1990 to 1997? Ragnar is continually shedding a tear over that travesty. - Mnnlaxer | talk | stalk 04:25, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Rivalries:

[edit]

From what I understand, the Vikings and the Cowboys, the Vikings and Buccaneers, and the Vikings and the Giants and the Vikings and the Rams are conference rivals. The Cowboys, Giants, and Rams date back to when both teams used to play each other perennially in the NFC playoffs and the Bucs date back to the old NFC Central rivalry.

Why aren't these rivalries listed here? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:447:C201:39CD:29A3:D337:4F72:F1E0 (talk) 20:50, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I added rivalry pages for the Dallas Cowboys, Philadelphia Eagles, and New Orleans Saints. I think the Rams/Seahawks/49ers are other ones that could be contemplated but I dont think those three would survive deletion. They are too stale. I'd appreciate any building out the 3 pages I just mentioned more. Jackmar1 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jackmar1 (talk • contribs) 23:31, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on Minnesota Vikings. 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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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) 13:59, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]


All-Mall of America Field Team (2013)

[edit]

The team calls it "All-Mall of America Field Team" not all metrdome team, just because you don't like the name doesn't mean you can re write history — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.127.71.183 (talk) 02:57, 11 April 2018 (UTC) Your source even calls it All MOA Field team[reply]

Let's get this straight. You found an element of the article that is inaccurate and the source material whence it comes supports you. Sounds good so far. Then, rather than simply correct the inaccuracy you head to the talk page seemingly to start some sassy argument. Huh? The name doesn't bother me, but if it bothers you and you have evidence to back you up; go ahead and change it. --Ohgoshhi (talk) 08:19, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Let's get this straight...it is a lock article so I could not have changed it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.127.71.183 (talk) 18:34, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe so, but you really should assume good faith on the part of other editors. Why would you assume people are trying to rewrite history? – PeeJay 19:47, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Also, while the team refers to it as the "All-Mall of America Field Team", there are third-party sources that refer to it as the All-Metrodome team (see here and here). – PeeJay 19:49, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
your second point answers your first. It is not good enough to use what the team officially calls it instead look for a source that calls it something else, so you can justify not having to call it MOA Field team. well this local newspaper went with MOA Field team

see here St Paul paper called it Mall of America field team — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.127.71.183 (talk) 03:03, 12 April 2018 (UTC) also if you read the fox sport story past the headlines they use Mall of America Field team same with startribune the article use MOA Field team[reply]

Ha, man you're sassy. The page is semi-protected, so it can still be edited by autoconfirmed users. As long as your account is 4 days old (it is) and you have more than 10 edits (you do), you can edit semi-protected pages to your little heart's content. Now, as for the which source is correct debate you guys are having. Associated Press style can be complicated. The terminology used in the headline of an article is irrelevant because it has to be formatted to fit the page, which determines the number of characters used. The first mention of something is what matters. In AP style you're taught to use the full and correct name of something the first time you mention it, and then you may abbreviate or use nicknames in following instances. I believe every article linked so far first refers to the list as the "All-Mall of America Field Team" and therefore that is the correct title. So, you've got a pile of sources to support you, you've got the ability to edit, you've got the sass, and you know what to do. Go do it. Oh, and try to smile or something while you do it. --Ohgoshhi (talk) 04:37, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have an account and I am not making one. unlock the page and I will gladly change it myself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.127.71.183 (talk) 13:49, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If you don't want to make an account, I guess it's not changing. I don't see any reason to change it. – PeeJay 20:25, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Same, it was the dome for almost 30 years and MoA field for 3. Not enough reason for me personally to want to change it, or have a bizarrely cynical argument about it any further. Looks like it stays for now.--Ohgoshhi (talk) 03:54, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That is my point about editorialize it. You agree that it was actually called "All Mall of America Field Team", yet base on your feeling of 30 years to 3 years you don't think it is worth changing, yet you wrote earlier "I believe every article linked so far first refers to the list as the "All-Mall of America Field Team" and therefore that is the correct title." 97.127.71.183 (talk) 14:10, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Don't worry if is not changed by July 1 I will correct it....just don't change it back because of 30 years vs 3 years or "I don't like corporate names on stadiums97.127.71.183 (talk) 14:13, 13 April 2018 (UTC) You prove my point again. Even if I or someone else did change you probably change it back. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.127.71.183 (talk) 23:41, 12 April 2018 (UTC) I can wait until July 1st to make the change 97.127.71.183 (talk) 23:56, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I very much doubt that the admins will allow the semi-protection of the article to lapse, so you'll have to wait a bit longer than that. – PeeJay 14:17, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Who is the admin , you?...surely you or he/her are not going to protect the page because of this ......I will cross that bridge when/if it happens 97.127.71.183 (talk) 14:20, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Do you work for Mall of America or something? We have a source that calls it the All-Metrodome team, which is undoubtedly a better name since the Mall of America Field name was only in effect right at the end of the stadium's life. Maybe if you'd come into this with a better attitude people would be more inclined to agree with you. – PeeJay 15:01, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
No I do not work for them, I am not even crazy about the name itself...but "it is what it is" or "it was what it was"..I am sorry if my "attitude" came off wrong, but past experience with this page and with you to be honest is, if you don't like a change made regardless if it is correct or not you change it back. Writing this the way I did caused a discussion about it vs (well I can't changed it because it was locked) but in theory me changing it to MOA Field and you changing it back. "a source that calls it the All-Metrodome team, which is undoubtedly a better name" in the title but not article see this what I mean by you editorialize it..you want it to be what you want it to be not what it was actually known by 97.127.71.183 (talk) 15:15, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
To be honest, it's not even that. We don't refer to the stadium as "Mall of America Field", so why would we do that for one award? – PeeJay 15:36, 13 April 2018 (UTC) because that is what it was called for that award like it or not. 97.127.71.183 (talk) 16:12, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Uniform manufacturers

[edit]

I've deleted the section that was just added about the company that manufactures the team's uniforms as it's pretty irrelevant in the grand scheme of things. Players on all teams have at least four uniforms: sure, that's a given and not specific to the Vikings; the name of the company that does the stitching on the Vikings uniform: probably just an advertisement for that company added by someone with a conflict of interest. I'm not buying it. – PeeJay 08:24, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The name of the company is relevant because it shows that the Vikings franchise chooses to contract locally. I have no ties to Lee's Pro Shop. Penny Bryce sewed the names and numbers on each and every uniform (at least four for each player) since 1969. The fact that she was the LONE seamstress is incredible, but beyond that the fact that she did it for nearly 50 years is not merely trivia, it is significant. The Vikings are the only team in the NFL to have had an arrangement like this, and for this length of time. Encyclopedias are to provide essential information, of importance, and with due weight. This meets those criterion.--John2690-john2690 (talk) 16:00, 12 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I fail to see how this is "essential information". As one of the sources you provided notes, it is an NFL regulation for every player to have at least four jerseys available at all times, so I don't see how that's particularly worth noting in an article about the Vikings. Yes, the feat of working for the team for 49 years is incredible, but is it really worth noting in an encyclopaedia? I'm keen to get a third party's input on this before the info is re-added. – PeeJay 16:04, 12 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, I'd like to see someone else weigh in. I won't be adding the information back until we see what others say. I'd be inclined to remove the portion of written content that mentions how many uniforms are required; it was to give context about just how many uniforms Penny was sewing for every player, every year. The rest of it is essential to the essence of what the Vikings franchise is all about, a true Minnesota team, not just the "Minneapolis" Vikings. It chose to do business in Greater Minnesota as well. That's important. It's a big and longterm contract, too.--John2690-john2690 (talk) 16:33, 12 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Referencing the name of the company that does the stitching on the Vikings uniform: When Nike is called out as a the supplier, as is the case for many of the uniform sections on Wikipedia, that is not an advertisement for the company. They became the apparel licensee in 2012, taking over after a license with Reebok. Also, when there are unique uniform details, such as is the case with the Cowboys, where they use Dymo tape, the details are described on Wikipedia. The Seahawks and other teams describe their unique production details. What I've referenced here is a very unique detail about the production of the Vikings' uniforms that other teams cannot replicate.--John2690-john2690 (talk) 17:24, 12 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
No, you're right, no one would ever call out Nike or Reebok or any major corporation for advertising in this manner, it's simply part of a multi-million dollar deal they have/had with the NFL, and I apologise for not assuming good faith and accusing you of having a conflict of interest here. However, I find it difficult to accept the encyclopaedic value of namedropping this one minor individual in spite of the years of service she gave the franchise. By the way, can you point out where in the Seattle Seahawks article the "unique production details" of their uniforms are described. I see a wall of text in that section and I'm finding it hard to pick out any particular info that doesn't belong there. I also don't see why you're bringing up the detail on the Cowboys' uniforms; that's a unique design detail, not info about a seamstress. – PeeJay 19:29, 12 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I was hoping someone else would have weighed in by now. The Seahawks production details were about the company mentions, Nike and Reebok, and the various influences in uniform design by not only those two companies, but also people within the Seahawks franchise. Would a compromise be to eliminate mention of Penny's name, so as not to "name drop", and just say a "lone seamstress", since that's the relevant part of the uniqueness?--John2690-john2690 (talk) 16:07, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

NFL Championship Listing

[edit]

I have noticed some recent back-and-forth edits concerning whether or not the 1969 Vikings NFL championship should be counted in the league championships total. This has been an issue going back over a decade on this page, so I think it's time to set a consensus and decide it once and for all.

I am a Vikings fan, but in my personal opinion the 1969 NFL championship should not be counted in the total. This is consistent with the wiki pages of other NFL teams that won NFL/AFL Championships but lost the Super Bowl in the four years leading up to the merger. These include the Indianapolis Colts, Kansas City Chiefs, and Oakland Raiders. None of those pages count the league championships in the total, while they do list them. It makes no sense for this page to be any different, unless there is a source that says the Vikings' championship was somehow on a higher level than the championships of the Colts, Chiefs, and Raiders. So, we are left with two options: edit this page so that the Vikings have zero championships in the total (while still listing the 1969 title in that section), or edit the other three articles to be consistent with this one. I've stated my personal opinion on the matter, but my main goal is to end the edit wars and create consistency between all the NFL team pages, in whatever way is deemed appropriate. Vavent (talk) 00:01, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure how it DOESN'T count as an NFL championship. The whole point was that the NFL and AFL CHAMPIONS played in the inaugural Super Bowls. I would be interested in seeing how the page minders for the Raiders, Chiefs, and Colts come to their thinking. Ckruschke (talk) 14:46, 1 October 2019 (UTC)Ckruchke[reply]

If you lose your last postseason game, you're not the champions. Simple as that. The Vikings were NFL Champions, but it's not considered to be a "league championship" in colloquial speak. They lost to the Chiefs in the Super Bowl, so they were the runners up that season, not the champions.The article should still make mention of their NFL Championship, but their championship is not of the same standard as an NFL Championship in other seasons where that was the ultimate prize. In 1966-1969, the NFL and AFL Championships were NOT the ultimate prize and therefore not of the same worth.2601:645:4301:C100:91F3:4736:896B:76F0 (talk) 12:39, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Vavent: It is listed explicitly as "NFL Championships (pre-1970 AFL–NFL merger)", since that is indeed what it was. Which view do the WP:RS support? That is what the Wikipedia Policies and Guidelines tell us we must follow. There are a number of sources supporting Ckruschke's view in the or... and Relevant sources sections above. Our Colts/Chiefs/Raiders articles are not reliable sources in this context without other supporting external references. Do you have sources supporting the view that the Vikings were not the 1969 NFL Champions? Mojoworker (talk) 21:22, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I am not claiming that the Vikings were not the 1969 NFL Champions. They clearly were, and that is a fact. The debate here centers around whether this Wikipedia page should list that in the league championship total. That is purely a cosmetic decision to be made on this website, as there are many conflicting sources that push differing views. Notice how the Chiefs page lists the Chiefs as having 2 total league championships, even though they have won 3 if you were to count the 1966 AFL Championship. They do not count that championship, while this page does count the 1969 NFL Championship. That is a notable difference between the pages that frankly makes no sense. Whatever the decision is, it should be consistent between all Wikipedia pages. I'm not suggesting that we remove the 1969 championship listing at all, I'm suggesting that the heading above that be changed to "League Championships (0)" rather than "League championships (1†)". If it's decided to not do that, then the other articles need to be changed since there's no reason for those titles to be counted any differently than the 1969 title. Vavent (talk) 02:01, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
So the problem isn't necessarily with whether or not this page lists it, but whether we're consistent with other articles on Wikipedia. Unfortunately, people who watch this page are less likely to also watch the Chiefs page, so it's hard to make sure they tally; for that reason, maybe this is more of a discussion for WT:NFL than for here. – PeeJay 23:38, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the suggestion. I have made a listing on WT:NFL for this issue, so anyone who wants to weigh in further should post there. Vavent (talk) 03:11, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The consensus on this site has been that an NFL or AFL Championship from 1966-1969 doesn't count as a "league championship" because the champions of those seasons were the teams that won the Super Bowl. The Vikings are not recognized as champions because they lost to the Chiefs in the Super Bowl that year. If you count the Vikings' NFL Championship that year, you must also count the Chiefs' AFL Championship on top of their Super Bowl Championship, which would mean the Chiefs won two championships in one season, which doesn't make sense. The articles on the Chiefs, Raiders, and Colts do NOT recognize their league championships in those years where they lost the Super Bowl. So in the interest of consistency, the Vikings' championship should not be counted either. I'm sorry if some people editing here are bitter Vikings fans who want their team to have one recognized championship, but facts are facts. The heading should be changed to (0†). Of course the article should still make note that the Vikings were 1969 NFL Champions, but they weren't WORLD champions that season. Only the Chiefs were.2601:645:4301:C100:91F3:4736:896B:76F0 (talk) 12:32, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

One editor keeps reverting the number of championships from zero to one. The article correctly notes that the Vikings did win the NFL title in 1969. But as others above note, there was a championship game played after the 1969 season, i.e., Super Bowl IV, and the Chiefs beat the Vikings, so the Vikings did not win the championship that year. Counting the Vikings number of league championships as one means that both the Chiefs and Vikings won the 1969 league championship, which of course is impossible. As noted above, the articles on the Chiefs, Raiders, and Colts do NOT recognize a league championships in those years where they lost the Super Bowl. Moreover, the leagues legally merged in 1966, that's why there was a common draft after the 1966 season. There is a consensus on how to count league championships on every NFL team's page with the glaring exception of the Vikings. This really should be corrected.Ebw343 (talk) 14:44, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
If this is a league-wide issue, you really should raise it at WT:NFL rather than kicking up a stink on one particular page, especially since I fail to see any evidence of a formal consensus on the issue. Furthermore, the Vikings did indeed win the league championship in 1969, and this should be reflected in the infobox. The NFL and AFL had not yet merged at the time, so the fact that there was a Super Bowl following the NFL championship game makes no difference to the fact that the Vikings were champions of the league they were a member of. – PeeJay 16:20, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Ebw343 and PeeJay2K3: A similar question was recently asked at Talk:National Football League#No, this is not the Chiefs’ first NFL Championship so both of you should consider going there. There is also a discussion tied to this (in some way) at WT:NFL#AFL-NFL Championships parameter. – Sabbatino (talk) 16:34, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Sabbatino for the notification. That discussion's ludicrous. I'll repeat what I said there: Seems like a bunch of you are engaged in WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. There are plenty of WP:RS verifying the Vikings as 1969 NFL Champions[1][2][3][4]. Do you have sources contradicting that? Are you also proposing that 1969 NFL season, 1969 NFL Championship Game, and List of NFL champions (1920–1969) should be edited to remove the Vikings as NFL Champions? Maybe next you'll want all the 1969 Vikings to turn in their NFL Championship rings? Mojoworker (talk) 08:31, 18 February 2020 (UTC) [reply]

References

  1. ^ "1969 Minnesota Vikings Statistics & Players". Pro Football Reference. Sports Reference. Retrieved 18 February 2020.
  2. ^ Kevin Seifert (July 1, 2010). "Best Vikings Team Ever: 1969". ESPN. Retrieved 18 February 2020.
  3. ^ Steve Silverman. "1969: Fearsome Vikings Won Their Only NFL Championship 50 Years Ago". Forbes. Forbes Media LLC. Retrieved 18 February 2020.
  4. ^ Mark Craig (September 22, 2019). "Vikings won the 1969 NFL Championship Game but never clutched the hardware". StarTribune. Retrieved 18 February 2020.

You completely missed the point. No one is debating what "NFL Championships" means -- all 32 NFL teams' pages define that term the same way, so the answer to all of three of three of your questions is "no." There are two issues. First, 31 NFL teams' pages define "League Championship" one way and the Vikings' page defines that term another way. Second, the AFL and NFL legally merged in 1966. If you want to comment, go here: WT:NFL#AFL-NFL Championships parameterEbw343 (talk) 22:11, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'd just like to add that nobody disputes the Vikings' 1969 NFL Championship. The article clearly mentions it. The issue is whether or not this constitutes a "league championship," which is more subjective. Simply because the NFL has "League" in its name doesn't make it a league championship. From 1966-1969 an NFL or AFL Championship was clearly not of the same value as in other years. It was really the equivalent of an NFC or AFC Championship today. The first four Super Bowls were not simply exhibition games; they meant something. The Chiefs, Raiders, and Colts articles don't count their championships as "league championships." Neither should this article about the Vikings. This is really like the St. Louis Cardinals trying to claim a 2001 NL Central Championship when everybody knows they didn't win their division that year. 2601:645:4301:C100:7802:4F10:51C4:9A16 (talk) 07:02, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No one is saying the first four Super Bowls were exhibition games, so please don't make this into a straw man argument. There is clearly a special case here, but no one seems able to point to any past discussions about how Wikipedia should account for the 1966-1969 NFL/AFL champions, nor any independent sources that would make this discussion moot. If that can be provided, I'm happy to accept Wikipedia following suit with independent sources, but until then I'm definitely not the only person who would read this article and expect to see the 1969 league championship recognised as such. – PeeJay 07:53, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Why should the Vikings article be at odds with all the other articles on NFL teams? The Colts, Chiefs, Raiders, and Vikings articles should all be consistent. 2601:645:4301:C100:7802:4F10:51C4:9A16 (talk) 07:46, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, so why don't we change the others? – PeeJay 09:14, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
If you look at the very first use of the no_league_champs parameter on the Vikings article (by the original author of the template) it's set to 1 and 1969 (NFL). As for the question (w)hy should the Vikings article be at odds with all the other articles on NFL teams? There are 29 NFL teams' pages that currently define "League Championship" exactly the same as the Vikings page – and at one time, before someone decided to mess with things, all 32 did: 1966 included for the Chiefs, 1967 included for the Raiders, 1968 included for the Colts. Clearly that was the original intent of the template's author. Mojoworker (talk) 00:53, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

2019 Ring of Honor

[edit]

Steve Jordan was added Oct 24, 2019 should be added to the table. Since it a locked article please add — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.59.95.183 (talk) 12:58, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

83 Steve Jordan (American football) TE 1982-94 Oct 24, 2019

still not added if you are going to lock it up at least take good suggestions — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.127.35.111 (talk) 18:58, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Season-by-season W-L records

[edit]

I'm not tied to a specific opinion on whether to include the season-by-season team win-loss records here, but I do like to anticipate and avoid situations that may be building up to slow edit wars. In that spirit, I’m creating this section fir anyone who wishes to discuss the matter. Larry Hockett (Talk) 16:32, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. I'm not necessarily against it, but I would like to see a good reason presented before we add a recentist table that duplicates info we already have at List of Minnesota Vikings seasons. "Other articles have this sort of table" is not a good reason in my book. – PeeJay 16:37, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ownership changes?

[edit]

The article is missing information on ownership history. When was the team or shares of the team bought and sold? Here's one good source.

Confusing sentence in lede

[edit]

The lede has this: "The Vikings have an all-time overall record of 524–451–11, the highest regular season and combined winning percentage among NFL franchises who have not won a Super Bowl, in addition the most playoff runs, division titles, and (tied with the Buffalo Bills) Super Bowl appearances." That makes it seem like no team has more Superbowl appearances than the Vikings and Bills, which isn't true. The Patriots have the most Super Bowl appearances with 6 wins and 5 losses. The Vikings and Bills have the most Superbowl Appearances without a win. The Packers have the most postseason appearances. How can this sentence be worded to be less confusing? SlowJog (talk) 04:09, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 28 November 2024

[edit]

Daniel Jones has been signed to the Vikings Practice Squad. Nick Muse has been Waived. I'm sure theres other moves, but please do better. 2603:9001:5E00:2452:8400:A4A4:C108:36DA (talk) 17:57, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The signing of Jones is something that is expected to occur. Wikipedia's focus is on things that have already occurred. Larry Hockett (Talk) 18:30, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Minnesota_Vikings&oldid=1260077321"