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)
Should someone add that the Seahawks have clinched a first round bye in the playoffs this season? -alakazam9891
Good idea, but I was going to wait to see how the Bears faired before adding it. A Chicago loss gives the Seahawks home field throughout the playoffs. -Coz
Sad to say (for me at least), the Bears won so for now the Seahawks have clinched just a first round bye. -alakazam9891
Uhh, at the risk of raining on somebody's game, who cares? It's news, maybe, but not fit for an encyclopedia. Perspective!
Something else maybe not fit for an encyclopedia: Seahawks Stad features Ivar's chowder. Trekphiler 11:17, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
It actually does fit in the encyclopedia. An encyclopedia is supposed to keep track of events, and this happens to be an event. -alakazam9891
What do you all think about being more detailed on each years playoff run by instead of just saying who the last team they played was, have each round's opponent and whether they won or lost.-crd721
I think it should be noted that this Seahawk team not only received a first round bye, but also had the leading rusher, leading scorer and the MVP of the entire league along with having four starters on the NFC offense in the Pro Bowl-has to be a first! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.95.121.15 ( talk • contribs)
Thanks for the picture help Zzyzx11, I was appearently too retarded to figure that out. -- Insancipitory 08:17, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
Given their recent (awesome!) win, the following needs to be heavily revised if not removed entirely: "Prior to their appearance in Super Bowl XL, the Seahawks were one of seven franchises, along with New Orleans, Jacksonville, Arizona, Cleveland, Detroit and Houston, to have never played in a Super Bowl. Their 1976 expansion partners, the Tampa Bay Buccaneers, won Super Bowl XXXVII in 2003." Now that they're (finally) going I think mention of the franchise-long drought until this season is in order, but mentioning the quantity and names of the other teams w/o appearances seems out of place now that they're officially off that list, despite Super Bowl XL having yet to take place (it'd take something catastrophic to change the fact they are going.) Dannybu2001 04:15, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
Go Seahawks! Cdn92 01:51, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
Note on the "all" issue: It is correct to use the term "all" because ALL the calls that WERE made that are the subject of controversy went against the Seahawks. The example of the Stevens fumble is flawed because it does a "what if" other things had happened rather then what actually did happen and how it was supposed to be handled.
He is what DID happen: - Stevens catches ball - Stevens makes a "football move" turning up field. - Stevens fumbles ball - Official whistles play dead - Ball rolls out of bounds
Where the system failed was that there should have been a review of the play because of the question if it was a fumble or not. If there was not then the play was called correctly. If there was then you have to take the rest of what DID happen to determine how you handle spotting the ball. Since the official blew the whistle while the ball was loose (thinking it was an incomplete pass) that makes it an inadvertant whistle. This means that the team last in possesion (the Seahawks) have two options. They can take the result of the play at the point where the whistle was blown or they can replay the down. Since the ball was loose at the whistle it must be spotted at the point last in player possession before the whistle was blown. In this case it would be the point where Stevens fumbled it making it Seahawks ball and a first down since he was past the line to gain.
This error in game management went against the Seahawks. We can go on all day about what MIGHT have happened had the whistle not been blown, or if the ball had bounced differently, etc, but that isn't in the scope of controversial calls. -- Coz
Silly question, but when do you all think players aren't considered rookies anymore? Just looking at the player list and the players still listed as rookies. Maybe after the draft? First game? A very important matter indeed :) Headquarters 08:54, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
Pictures: I've loaded a fair number of pictures from the August 5th, Seahawks team scrimmage in Cheney into the commons. [1] I've done my best to sort out the categorization, but alas I suck. So if something looks like a retard did it, well that's my excuse. I've got perhaps 40 more pictures to load in, hopefully some solid shots of faces from the autograph signing chute. Then I'll begin the slow process of cropping them down, making them more specific and adding them to the appropriate player stubs and articles. Should anyone else find them useful, for anything, the link is above. -- Insancipitory 07:21, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
While there is debate regarding the number of bad calls there is little disagreement they greatly impacted the outcome of the game. Is someone really going to try to claim that this meets neutrality standards? -- Northenglish 01:41, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
"While there is debate regarding the number of bad calls there is little disagreement they greatly impacted the outcome of the game." -- This is pure conjecture. The level of disagreement can not be discrenably attained without scientific polling. In addition, during a football game, there are many variables that can affect the outcome of the game. While one could argue that calls may or may not have had an impact on the outcome of the game, one can not certainly know if for instance the Steelers score a touchdown on an ensuing kickoff. The quoted statement clearly is not neutral, or can at the least, be interpretted as lacking neutrality. This should be arbitrated by an admin. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 192.223.207.84 ( talk • contribs) .
The 2005 season is taking up a lot of space, and it's time to start writing about 2006. Odd nuggets like the "poison pill", Chris Berman throwing a flag when the Seahawks made their first pick of the draft, and the games to be played deserve their room too. Folding a lot of the detail into a Greatest Seasons (1983 & 1984 too) page, or just into a 2005 page, with perhaps even more detail, makes sense at this point. -- Insancipitory 21:00, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
It is claimed on the Osprey page that the logo represents that species of bird. I know that logos are highly stylised, but to me it looks like a Bald Eagle or a large hawk. Anyone know? jimfbleak 05:17, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
Seahawk is another word for Osprey. Seahawk at Seattle Audubon. -- Insancipitory 21:30, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
The neon green jersey was an alternate Shaun Alexander jersey for fans (which I think might have been from 2004). There was also a Trufant Shadow jersey with colorshift numbers (I've seen them for other teams too). And in '99 the Seahawks had a silver "heavy metal" alternate jersey, again for fans, that I myself have. Incidentally, it's about the coolest thing I own, better than my HD tv. Never fails to draw comments and compliments.-- Insancipitory 22:11, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
Should the fact that the Hawks are playing in the China Bowl be added to the page? An for that matter the Patriots... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.235.35.207 ( talk) 04:43, 8 March 2007 (UTC).
Image:Royal blue script.png is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot ( talk) 21:10, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
Why are fansite links deleted? We are the only team that does that. Shouldn't the biggest fansites be listed so people uh.....I dunno....Can find them? Some seem to use this to find info (some people, meaning MOST) shouldn't they at least see some of the best fansites so they can follow links there? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.22.19.239 ( talk) 08:49, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
Wow, Franco is listed as one of the 4 HOF'ers. He didn't even play a full season as a Seahawk... That's kinda sad, really. User:lawrence142002 —Preceding comment was added at 22:17, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
Don't forget Carl Eller (1 washed up season at the end of a HOF career with the Vikings) and Warren Moon (2 seasons, 1 productive and the other injury riddled, at the tail end of a HOF career) either. Now that makes this even sadder! I heard that Joe Montana once took a dump at halftime during a game he played at the Kingdome, maybe you should put him on the Seahawks HOF list also. —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
96.235.45.40 (
talk)
21:01, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
No one goes into the HOF as a "fill in team name here" they get a bust of their head and a plaque. If you want to be that way I suggest you read media guides of every NFL team. The Chargers have Johnny Unitas listed in the "former Chargers in the HOF", the Lambs list Joe Namath as well. This isn't baseball where you wear a hat on your plaque. You go into the HOF as a football player, not a memeber of a certain team. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Seattlehawk94 ( talk • contribs) 05:16, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
I propose changing the primary color from navy blue to Seahawks blue, as I have matched the appropriate shade. I went ahead to change the other boxes. Here's the code: #335487. I originally matched the color for the Seattle Seahawks user box:
SEA | This user is a fan of the Seattle Seahawks. |
I agree that the primary color should be the lighter blue instead of navy. Here's the change I made to the template that got reverted:
The problem is, there seems to be no way of changing the color on the infobox at the very top of the page. Does anyone know how to change it? Richiekim ( talk) 22:44, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
I was hoping to read something about it on this page, does anybody have information on this as to why it didn't go through? Thank you. -- Reezy ( talk) 02:11, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
The name of the sportsteams in Seattle have always related to either the native american history (seahawks, thunderbirds) or the relationship with Boeing (supersonics).
Although I may be wrong but I seem to remember that the name Seattle Seahawks was first used by one of the local Ice Hockey teams. It was not until later that it was used bij the football team.
83.160.198.125 JHvW ( talk) 10:08, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
I'm just trying to find out what the Seahawks did during the season when Qwest Field was being built and the Kingdome was gone. Did they go on a longer road trip or was Qwest built that fast? I haven't seen this info in the history article, or the kingdome or qwest articles. Redwolf24 ( talk) 12:59, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
Since I'm getting conflicting reports that the 'Hawks may not reveal these uniforms until the 2010 season, I think it is better that the 3rd lime green uniform is removed until the Seahawks release an official statement. Thank you. Johnny "Seoul" Factor 16:34, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
SEAHAWKS FIRST APPEARANCE IN NFC NOT LISTED IN League/conference affiliations RIGHT HAND BOX
I DON'T KNOW HOW THIS COULD HAVE BEEN LEFT OUT. IT IS DISCUSSED IN THE ARTICLE ITSELF:
The Seahawks are the only NFL team to switch conferences twice in the post-merger era. The franchise began play in 1976 in the NFC West division but switched conferences with the Buccaneers after one season and joined the AFC West. This realignment was dictated by the league as part of the 1976 expansion plan, so that both expansion teams could play each other twice and every other NFL franchise once during their first two seasons.
WILL GO AHEAD AND FIX IT NOW. PLEASE DISCUSS WHY THIS WAS NOT CORRECT IN THE FIRST PLACE! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.134.222.227 ( talk) 06:00, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
NEVER MIND GUYS. MY BAD. LOOKS LIKE IT WAS THERE, BUT WAS NOT IN CHRONOLOGICAL ORDER BUT BY CONFERENCE INSTEAD, WHICH MAKES IT TOUGH TO FOLLOW AND DETERMINE THE HISTORY OF THE TEAM. I WENT AHEAD AND LEFT MY CHANGES IN PLACE AND THE OPERATORS CAN GO AHEAD AND CHANGE THEM BACK IF NEED BE, BUT I RECOMMEND CHORNOLOGICAL ORDER, PLEASE! THANK YOU AND SORRY FOR MY ERROR. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.134.222.227 ( talk) 06:06, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
OK, so I spent almost the last half hour working on changing background colors on a couple of Seahawks templates after they got new uniforms today. I don't know if I did it right or not, I just hope I did. If not could I get a little help because this Template:NFLPrimaryColor thing has been a pain for me. — Michael ( talk) 02:53, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
There is an "according to whom?" on the section about loudest fans.
On the century link wiki, citation #71 has a link to an article where the dB was measured. Between Century link and arrowhead, one of these stadiums is the loudest in the NFL. That may not translate to loudest fans of necessity, but perhaps it could be reworded "home to arguably the loudest stadium in the NFL" ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CenturyLink_Field) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.185.77.234 ( talk) 21:51, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
I propose deleting the comment that the Seahawks network is the largest by area in the NFL. No citation has been provided to support such a claim, and it appears extremely dubious considering that the Dallas Cowboys radio network covers 37 states and multiple cities in Mexico. -- Macae ( talk) 01:04, 09 October 2013 (UTC)
-- Macae ( talk) 13:24, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
Someone should add superfans to the lore section on the link box. (i.e SeaHulk, Mama Blue, etc.) SeanTheSwan ( talk) 18:31, 1 February 2014 (UTC)SeanTheSwan
Need to add Walter Jones to HOF list!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mstoelinga ( talk • contribs) 18:16, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Seattle Seahawks Superbowl Champions is 2014 not 2013 65.184.130.34 ( talk) 03:18, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please change the 2005 opponent under "Super Bowl Appearences". The 2005 Super Bowl opponent was not the Chicago Bears but the Pittsburgh Steelers DJ Bocca ( talk) 13:59, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Stop talking about the cowboys Realkite ( talk) 05:58, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
This page should not be speedily deleted because... (your reason here) -- 2601:0:A680:28F:5D0A:E2A9:843E:134D ( talk) 23:58, 3 February 2014 (UTC)we learn about football from these pages. Needed knowledge.
I have twice added information that the Seahawks fans are also referred to as the "12th Fan". Both times they have been deleted by the same editor even though multiple sources have been provided corroborating the "12th Fan" usage. The majority of those sources are both verifiable and reliable also. The reality is that, because of the "12th Man" licensing agreement, Seattle fans cannot be referred to as the "12th Man" for commercial purposes and therefore have instead been referred to as "12th Fan" instead. I welcome any suggestions as to different ways to word the section but please do not delete the addition without first discussing and attempting to generate some consensus decision on this talk page. Macae ( talk) 21:19, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
Seahawks fans are known collectively as the "12th Fan",[2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11]
- Seahawks fans are known collectively as the "12th Fan",
This is in regards to the ~fifth round of editing to push the following statement (or similar variants):
Seahawks fans are known collectively as the ... "12th Fan"
Each occurance has engaged the submitting editor via Talk pages.
WP:SPS says in part:
Anyone can create a personal web page or publish their own book, and also claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason, self-published media, such as books, patents, newsletters, personal websites, open wikis, personal or group blogs (as distinguished from newsblogs, above), Internet forum postings, and tweets, are largely not acceptable as sources.
WP:NOR says in part:
Wikipedia articles must not contain original research. The phrase "original research" (OR) is used on Wikipedia to refer to material—such as facts, allegations, and ideas—for which no reliable, published sources exist. This includes any analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position not advanced by the sources. To demonstrate that you are not adding OR, you must be able to cite reliable, published sources that are directly related to the topic of the article, and directly support the material being presented.
WP:BURDEN says in part:
Attribute all quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged to a reliable, published source using an inline citation. Cite the source clearly and precisely (specifying page, section, or such divisions as may be appropriate). The citation must clearly support the material as presented in the article. Any material lacking a reliable source directly supporting it may be removed and should not be replaced without an inline citation to a reliable source. The burden of identifying a reliable source lies with the editor who adds or restores material, and is satisfied by providing any reliable source that directly supports the material.
The three citations are:
1.
http://www.mediotiempo.com/mas-deportes/nfl/noticias/2014/02/02/seres-alados-hacen-retumbar-el-metlife-stadium
Needs to establish
Wikipedia:V and quote per
WP:BURDEN, as this document is in Spanish.
2.
http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/alaska-airlines-and-seattle-seahawks-quarterback-russell-wilson-launch-12th-fan-rescue-contest-239116121.html
Per
About, PRNewswire.com is a clearing house of press releases. Press releases are inherently
WP:NOTRELIABLE ("Questionable sources are those that have a poor reputation for checking the facts, lack meaningful editorial oversight, or have an apparent conflict of interest. Questionable sources should only be used as sources of material on themselves, especially in articles about themselves; see below. They are not suitable sources for contentious claims about others.").
Additionally, the two instances of "12th fan" therein, state precisely and only:
"Alaska Airlines and Seattle Seahawks Quarterback Russell Wilson Launch '12th Fan Rescue' Contest"
"In "Russell's 12th Fan Rescue" contest, Seahawk fans are asked to submit video links, pictures or stories showing their Seahawk pride wherever they live."
both require prohibited
WP:OR ("To demonstrate that you are not adding OR, you must be able to cite reliable, published sources that are directly related to the topic of the article, and directly support the material being presented."). This is a press releases from a third-party business which cites ONLY the name of their contest. It does not directly support the associated statement, as is required. Regardless, this point is moot as this
WP:SPS source is inherently prohibited.
UW Dawgs (
talk)
22:35, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
3. http://myeverettnews.com/2014/01/30/several-seahawks-12th-fan-events-around-everett-friday/
Per the blog's About ("Since I’m not on the radio anymore I’m no longer using my radio name but decided I wanted to keep my reporting skills up by writing this blog.") this source is prohibited WP:SPS ("For that reason, self-published media, such as books, patents, newsletters, personal websites, open wikis, personal or group blogs (as distinguished from newsblogs, above), Internet forum postings, and tweets, are largely not acceptable as sources.") UW Dawgs ( talk) 22:35, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
I am seeing lots of references to Seahawks fans being referred to as the "12s". What are your thoughts on including some citations supporting that label also? Macae ( talk) 14:42, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
Seahawks fans are known collectively as the ... "12th Fan"
I know that Luke Willson is wearing the sweater with his jersey number 82, Russell Okung is in the brown sweater and using the earphones, but who's the bearded man waving in this photo? Can't be Max Unger since he was on the offensive line float of the Super Bowl parade. Arbor to SJ ( talk) 07:49, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
The bearded man in the photo is Caylin Hauptmann. He is from Florida International University. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.149.74.114 ( talk) 15:37, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
A recent page move, which invokes WP:COMMONNAME and WP:PRIMARYTOPIC concerns, may be of possible interest to readers of this article. Please discuss at Talk:Peter R. Gross#Page move. Thank you. RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 18:11, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
There seems to be some debate if Russell Wilson should be included in the list of Seahawks "notable stars". He's been added and removed a couple of time. On one hand he has only completed one season. On the other he is nationally known as one of the top three QBs from the 2012 draft, set some "notable" NFL and team records, and went to the Pro Bowl. At this point I would guess he is probably more well known than Joe Nash or Brian Blades who are both on the list. I think my vote would be to add/keep him on the list. HappyMonkeyPaul ( talk) 19:44, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
I think the bigger debate is why Warren Moon is listed... he played two partial seasons for the hawks, he made his hall of fame career in Houston and Canada. Period. It needs to get cleaned up. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.129.66.30 ( talk) 04:03, 6 February 2014 (UTC) We also have (unlinked) Brandon Browner, who has been overshadowed by Marcus Trufant and Richard Sherman for almost his entire career. Specific criteria? SeanTheSwan ( talk) 15:48, 28 April 2014 (UTC)SeanTheSwan
A year ago, June 2013:
The Seahawks have had some notable stars on the team, such as
Steve Largent,
Jim Zorn,
Dave Krieg,
Kenny Easley,
Curt Warner,
Joe Nash,
Brian Blades,
Cortez Kennedy,
Joey Galloway,
Warren Moon,
Walter Jones,
Shaun Alexander,
Matt Hasselbeck,
Russell Wilson and
Marshawn Lynch.
Present, June 2014: (changes in bold)
Over the years the Seahawks have had some notable players on the team, such as
Steve Largent,
Dave Brown,
Jim Zorn,
Dave Krieg,
John Randle,
Kenny Easley,
Curt Warner,
Joe Nash,
Brian Blades,
Cortez Kennedy,
Joey Galloway,
Warren Moon,
Walter Jones,
Steve Hutchinson,
Jerry Rice,
Shaun Alexander,
Matt Hasselbeck,
Marcus Trufant,
Marshawn Lynch,
Percy Harvin,
Earl Thomas,
Richard Sherman,
Kam Chancellor,
Brandon Browner and
Russell Wilson.
Aside from the sentence being...weak, I'd propose a minimum of two Pro Bowl selections as a Seahawk, which removes Zorn, Nash, Blades, Galloway, Moon, AND Randle, Rice, Trufant, Harvin, Sherman, Chancellor, and Browner. UW Dawgs ( talk) 21:03, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
My God the notable players list is filled with Hall of Famers that made their names ON OTHER TEAMS. Jerry Rice never played a single down for the Seahawks in the regular season. John Randle? Warren Moon? They are notable, but they didn't make significant contributions to the Seahawks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.94.220.17 ( talk) 15:03, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
An editor continues to remove any reference to the use of "12s" to label Seahawks fans. I believe that this is inappropriate to do without first discussing on this Talk page. Furthermore, his attempt at justifying this removal is a claim that original research is required in order to suggest that such a label is used for the fans. I believe this to absolutely not be the case. Not only does this Seahawks.com refer to the fans in the title as "12s", but within the article, it makes it clear that the label is being applied to the fans in the stands. Stating that the fans are being referred to as "12s" requires no original research. In the interest of consensus, I will be happy to provide, if needed, multiple additional citations that also refer to the fans as "12s" without requiring any original research. Macae ( talk) 16:13, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
Seahawks fans are known collectively as the "12th Man"[4][5][6], "12th Fan"[7][disputed – discuss], or "12s".[8][9][10]
UW Dawgs ( talk) 22:22, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
I'm trying to identify the player in this photo walking to the left of Alvin Bailey. It is possibly Anthony McCoy, since the player is dressed as an inactive (no pads/helmet, just warmups). Arbor to SJ ( talk) 08:58, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
Please add a section that says, "In the 2014 season, the Seahawks went 12-4 during the regular season, winning the NFC West division and the #1 seed in the NFC playoffs. After a first-round bye, they beat the Carolina Panthers 31-17 to advance to the NFC Championship Game, where they beat the Green Bay Packers 28-22 in overtime after being down 16-0 at halftime. This earned them a trip to the Super Bowl for the second consecutive year, giving them the chance to become the first team to win back-to-back league championships since their opponent, the New England Patriots, did it during the 2003 and 2004 seasons. However, they came up short when, trailing 28-24 with 20 seconds remaining, quarterback Russell Wilson threw an interception from the one-yard line. Seattle's final play has already been regarded as one of the worst mistakes in the history of the Super Bowl." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.28.129.216 ( talk) 01:02, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
Why is this bird the mascot? it's from Africa (and its article is entitled buzzard, not hawk). Seahawk is an alternate name for an Osprey, which is local to the Seattle area. The mascot should be the osprey. HalfGig talk 02:25, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
The header indicates that the Seahawks are the only modern era expansion team to reach multiple Super Bowls, but this is incorrect. The Baltimore Ravens are considered an expansion team, as the Expansion Team article that is linked confirms, and they have won two Super Bowls. This needs to be corrected. 174.73.5.74 ( talk) 00:52, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
The St. Louis Rams subsection within Seattle Seahawks#Rivalries was tagged as unreferenced since Feb 2014. Newly added citations now support individual statements, but they still do not directly support the broad assertion of a notable rivalry. The Rams section has been removed for now, barring citations which support a notable rivalry. UW Dawgs ( talk) 00:45, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Seattle Seahawks has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
The fourth word in the article should be "is" not "are" to read "The Seattle Seahawks is a ..." While Seahawks is plural, the franchise is singular, thus this is a grammatical correction. 73.140.17.83 ( talk) 05:42, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
@ JTCEPB: A series of recent edits has changed the "Established" date to the year of the inaugural season. This is change is errorneous and conflicts with broad consensus:
Therefore, the characterization of the team being found in 1976, two calendar years after coming into existence with an ownership group, defies both NFL infobox convention and the existing citations. UW Dawgs ( talk) 00:36, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
NFL.com says "founded:1976". Maybe i am wrong, but if my englisch Knowledge is correct, established is the same like founded, so the Seattle Seahawks are founded 1976 and "founded" is not the same as "franchise awarded" .-- JTCEPB ( talk) 10:27, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
I propose we add the New Orleans Saints as a Seahawks Rival. Particularly as a result of the 2010 Season playoff game, Drew Brees being a hero to Russell Wilson, the 2013 season divisional playoff game. It seems to me that there's more than enough reason to include the Saints as a rival. The other I suggest we add are the Green Bay Packers. 2601:8:9E80:578:225:FF:FE44:8B9F ( talk) 06:41, 26 January 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Elmorus91 ( talk • contribs) 00:42, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
As a Saints fan, I would agree. CondorLead ( talk) 23:23, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
If you're serious about the rivalry, you need to create a page that links to all the games (playoff appearances, division wins, championship games, & Super Bowl appearances & victories). The Seahawks did win their first Super Bowl against the Broncos. It's not at the Cowboys-Steelers rivalry, since the Seahawks only have 1. -- JLAmidei ( talk) 04:24, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
An IP editor User talk:184.103.207.215 has reinserted weakly-sourced rivalries for the Cardinals and Rams. These require more sourcing than one-off articles and lone throwaway lines ala "division rivals." UW Dawgs ( talk) 18:40, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
I don't understand why the Rams entry in the "Rivalries" section keeps getting removed as "unsourced". What specific sources do you need to substantiate this?
The Rams were definitely worthy of rival status in the early 2000s, considering the 2004 season. You also have Josh Brown's departure from the Seahawks to play for the Rams, the Week 8 game from 2013 (in which Tate famously taunted the Rams defense en route to scoring a touchdown), and at least two occasions where players on either team were ejected for throwing punches. There's also a lot of ire from Seahawks fans towards Jeff Fisher, Aaron Donald, Sean McVay and the Rams special teams for their tendency to use fake punts and other deceptions to gain advantages over the Seahawks in the past decade. Don't know how to encapsulate all of that without bogging down the entry, but at the very least the outcomes of pivotal games (which were cited in the last attempt) should be enough to indicate the nature of the rivalry. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.196.22.244 ( talk) 03:47, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
@ Ralphierce: It appears there has been repeated insertion of mostly-unsourced WP:Fancruft about uniform combinations for recent, specific games. [3] [4] [5] [6]
This content seems utterly routine, as the various combinations of any team's uniform exist to be worn. No support of this being non-routine has been offered, to date. Perhaps this specific content is a better match for the 2019 Seattle Seahawks season article. What do you think? Note, the deficiencies of this section have been tagged since April 2012. UW Dawgs ( talk) 20:09, 17 December 2019 (UTC)