Template talk:Green Bay Packers

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

Question

Is "Green Bay Packers American Football Club, Inc." the actual name of the club or is it simply "Green Bay Packers Football Club, Inc." ? Smith03 22:51, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed a similar thing on the Bears template. I think someone was thinking a bit creatively when they named these. I checked our old friend Google, and nothing comes up on either except Wikipedia mirrors. It's too bad, though, I like the formality. We could have called them GB Packers AFC. Xyzzyva 09:11, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Color

I'm changing the colors slightly to approximate the official team colors, per www.ssur.org's list. Thoughts? --Chancemichaels 19:17, 20 March 2007 (UTC)Chancemichaels[reply]

WP:BRD

I recently reverted an edit to this template that made it navbox class. Imho, although the it was done to try and form unity (see {{

« Gonzo fan2007 (talkcontribs) @ 18:13, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

Just converted to the {{Navbox}} format. Take a look. --Gwguffey (talk) 02:31, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good.
« Gonzo fan2007 (talkcontribs) @ 05:25, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

Bold entries

Does anyone know why a lot of the entries on the template are bolded as opposed to the others?--NortyNort (talk) 23:41, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Super Bowls I - IV Comment Comment

This is from the List of NFL champions (1920–1969) article, talking about the first four Super Bowls --
"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. However, they are not considered as world champions, but as the less prestigious league champions."
The Super Bowl wins from 66-69 are not counted as league championships, but rather "World Championships" This has been the standard for all the years I have been editing NFL articles. If anything, the standard has been not to count Super Bowls I - IV in total League Championships. Don't you agree that if you are going to make this the standard, then you should change all the other articles showing KC, OAK, BALT and Minn as league champs from 66-69? And we are talking about a lot of changes to get to your standard of not counting these titles. We know this is not happening, and we should revert back to showing the deserved league titles as it has been for years. Thanks. I am posting this in each talk page on each template so others can give their input. Spparky (talk) 19:35, 19 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I Oppose this change
« Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 19:43, 19 August 2018 (UTC)[reply
]
« Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 19:45, 19 August 2018 (UTC)[reply
]
Hey Gonzo, nice to hear from you. The title in the template is League Championships. You cannot leave out the titles earned those 4 years just because they lost the Super Bowl. The teams were still League champs. Also, is there anywhere on any list where the losers of these games have not been called a league champion? SB I-IV were 2 league champs playing against each other. I do not recall these league champs not being recognized as such on any Wikipedia page. Maybe we should leave the losers league wins as is, and remove the Super Bowls won pre 1970 row, just notating SB I-IV wins in ( ) for the winners after the year. I rarely get involved in stuff like this, and did not know proper way to get consensus as you suggested. ThanksSpparky (talk) 20:05, 19 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Two more Packers rivals

The Packers have two more rivals: The Seattle Seahawks and The Atlanta Falcons.

Packers-Falcons rivalry:

Packers-Seahawks rivalry:

108.246.199.105 (talk) 18:28, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, you would need to write articles on the rivalries for them to be added to this template. Templates help navigating through similar articles and are not meant to include everything, just stuff that is on Wikipedia. Cheers,
« Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 18:38, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply
]

Trivial inclusions

Is That '70s Show in this navbox because some characters are Packers fans, and one episode involves a game? There's lots of fictional Packers fans in media, it seems like too low a bar for inclusion here. That article doesn't even mention the Packers. Is Pitch Perfect 2 here because a few players had cameos? Again, there have been lots of player cameos on different shows or films over the years. The film isn't really about the Packers. It doesn't seem like a sufficiently substantial connection. Ibadibam (talk) 16:55, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I am not opposed to the removal of
« Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 17:09, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply
]