This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Ghgfhfhfdh (talk | contribs) at 00:25, 28 January 2006 (→History section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 00:25, 28 January 2006 by Ghgfhfhfdh (talk | contribs) (→History section)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff) | Template:FACfailed is deprecated, and is preserved only for historical reasons. Please see Template:Article history instead. |
 | This article (or a previous version) is a former featured article candidate. Please view its sub-page to see why the nomination did not succeed. For older candidates, please check the Misplaced Pages:Featured article candidates/Archived nominations. |
 | National Football League Unassessed | |||||||||
| ||||||||||
 | Please use the archive parameter to specify the number of the next free peer review page, or replace {{Peer review}} on this page with {{subst:PR}} to find the next free page automatically. |
Is it legal for us to include these logos? They are copyrighted, is it acceptable for us to put them here? -- Zoe
I think as long as its not generating any profit, its ok.
Current Event Tag
I'm a huge fan of the Pats and I love to see them get coverage, but the current events tag doesn't belong on this article. As described on Template talk:Current:
- The tag was created for two reasons:
- So that users would know that the article was undergoing major revisions as events were happening.
- So that editors would know the same so that they could keep that in mind if/when they decided to add to or edit the article.
- It was originally designed for short-term use as a warning for editors and readers if an event was occurring right that very second (or very, very recently).
The information on this article isn't changing rapidly and there doesn't seem to be a problem with edit conflicts. However, if someone wanted to put the tag back up for Super Bowl Sunday only, I don't think that would be a problem. Carrp 14:03, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
My favorite NFL team! Patricknoddy 17:28 February 7, 2005 (EST)
Improvement drive
National Football League is currently a candidate on WP:IDRIVE. Vote for it if you are interested!--Fenice 20:39, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
Tedy Bruschi's status
FWIW, it is correct that Tedy Bruschi has stated that he plans to sit out the 2005 season. That said, his current status--PUP, or Physically Unable to Perform--allows him to come back midway through the season. stismail
Which he did. See jfg284
Putting the history section into a separate article
Since the history section of this article is getting long, I might split this into a separate article. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 02:06, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
Game by game
The history section of this article is getting ridiculous. We do not need a summary of each game for the 2005 season. --Cholmes75 17:50, 11 September 2005 (UTC)
Pat Patriot a symbol of ineptitude?
I'm not sure if "many saw Pat as a symbol of ineptitude" is an accurate statement. On the day the Flying Elvis was unveiled at the stadium, the fans cheered for Pat and booed Elvis. --MrBawn 13:07, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
I was the one that put that in there. I stand by that, by 1992 when it was retired in game use, "Pat Patriot" to many had become a symbol of ineptitude - just like Tampa Bay's pre-97 "pirate" logo had long been a symbol of embarassment. Of course, that is not to say that people loved the Flying Elvis when it was rolled out - indeed, a lot of people didn't like it and I even read one wag refer to them as "USFL uniforms."--Seadog1611 01:33, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
Greatest lineman of all time?
John Hannah was a guard, right? This might be reaching, but has anyone ever hear of this obscure LEFT TACKLE named Anthony Munoz???????
Not To Be Forgotten
I personally like this section and have added to it myself, but in doing so a question occured to me: how do we determine who is "not to be forgotten?" Isn't that a little bit POV by definition?jfg284
- sort of POV, i guess, but i guess we just do it by consensus. If someone makes an unreasonable addition, then we take it off. i think it should stay "not to be forgotten" and not changed to Alumni.--Alhutch 19:47, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
- I'll agree...the change to "alumni" makes it more POV, in my mind. The teams in its 46th season (right? well, roughly, in any case), so there have been a lot of players who've moved through the system. Will anyone remember Matt Bahr, placekicker of the mid to late 90s? Probably not. Yet it's liklely he'll never be added to a section entitled "alumni." at least "not to be forgotten" makes it clear at the outset that these really were exceptional members of the team. And also, although its a touch POV, you bring up a good point that if someone WERE to add matt bahr with the claim that he was an influential member of the squad that lost to the packers in the super bowl, the consensus would be to take him off. and it's a good section, so i agree it should stay; i was really just wondering how it was that it was justified. jfg284 20:50, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
How is alumni more POV than "not to be forgotten?" Alumni is a "one who is a former member, employee, contributor" according to Merriam Webster's dictionary . The definition and use of "forgotten" in this situation is very subjective. The list is really notable former players, so reffering to them as alumni, or even "former players" would be more in keeping with WP policy than using "not to be forgotten." Just because most sports pages have "not to be forgotten" doesn't make it right. I will propose a across the board change to those pages which use the terminology. Granted the section itself is POV, as with your point about Matt Bahr, but using subjective words in the heading shouldn't be the answer. For now can we at least agree to "Notable alumni?" That wouldn't change the intent of the list and would better describe it with less opinionated language. In the end its all POV, but at least we will be calling it for what it is. Assawyer 21:12, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
- "In the end its all POV, but at least we will be calling it for what it is."
- Exactly why i prefered "not to be forgotten" over "alumni." However, I do like "notable alumni," as it does purport a reason to list them without the name being nearly as POV. I'll support it. jfg284 21:38, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
- Sounds good. I will change it, and hopefully people will agree that its more in line with what the subsection is all about. Assawyer 22:44, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
Unverified claims
At 03:55, 2 January 2006 (UTC), an anonymous IP user added some unverified content about when the team was being owned by James Busch Orthwein. Most of the content has no sources and does not seem to follow a Neutral point of view. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 07:07, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
- It looks like another anonymous IP removed some of the questionable, unverified content , but not all of it... Zzyzx11 (Talk) 07:22, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
- Look slike the original anonymous IP user restored the questionable content again . Zzyzx11 (Talk) 05:20, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
2005 and beyond
This seems to be getting kind of long, especially as a sub-subheader. Do we really need information about individual games (such as the game vs. the colts and the wild-card playoff game)? Perhaps there should be a separate Patriots 2005 season in review article or just remove some of the excess stuff. Gflores 18:55, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
- There has been discussion on this topic, both on this article's rejected FA nomination and a WikiProject discussion. There seems to be consensus that the history should focus more on summaries and high points of the season, but nobody is really willing to start the clean up until February when the season is over. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 19:54, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
- to add to that, i think the title should be changed. as the 2005/6 season is over, "2005 and beyond" doesnt seem as appropriate to me. i suggest a 2005 section and then perhaps a "future" section of some kind. i havent put much thought into it, it just occured to me after looking at the last few edits (mostly changes of the title to reflect the "end" of the "dynasty". (Such as "Transition and dethronation - 2005 and beyond" and "End of a Dynasty - 2005")--jfg284 21:40, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
- Altough, is the dynasty really ended yet? It is called a dynasty by most people because they won three out of four NFL Championships. That second year, they didn't even make the playoffs. This year they did (winning their division). So if they happen to win it all next year, it would mean the start of a new dynasty? No, it would be said they won 4 of 6 years. And who knows after that. To say the dynasty is over is still premature. I'd say they still have two more years to win another Championship before we can say for sure the dynasty is really over. And I never called it a dynasty to begin with. 4 years does not establish a "dynasty". Just my thoughts though. --LV 04:08, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
- "end of a dynasty" is inappropriate. I agree with Voldemort. We can't see into the future.--Alhutch 04:32, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
- Yeah, we all have different ideas on what is a dynasty. I feel that one must win the majority of the super bowls over a period of time to be considered a dynasty, with a minimum of two in three years. Right now, they are at three in five years (including this season). In my opinion, they have another shot. This logic seems to stand, so I will rename the section. Deckiller 04:34, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
- I added a few sub-sub-sub headers to help organization, and simply named the seasons "The XXXX season" until we reach an agreement. Deckiller 04:51, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
- Yeah, we all have different ideas on what is a dynasty. I feel that one must win the majority of the super bowls over a period of time to be considered a dynasty, with a minimum of two in three years. Right now, they are at three in five years (including this season). In my opinion, they have another shot. This logic seems to stand, so I will rename the section. Deckiller 04:34, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
- "end of a dynasty" is inappropriate. I agree with Voldemort. We can't see into the future.--Alhutch 04:32, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
- Altough, is the dynasty really ended yet? It is called a dynasty by most people because they won three out of four NFL Championships. That second year, they didn't even make the playoffs. This year they did (winning their division). So if they happen to win it all next year, it would mean the start of a new dynasty? No, it would be said they won 4 of 6 years. And who knows after that. To say the dynasty is over is still premature. I'd say they still have two more years to win another Championship before we can say for sure the dynasty is really over. And I never called it a dynasty to begin with. 4 years does not establish a "dynasty". Just my thoughts though. --LV 04:08, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
History section
As per featured article suggestions, I plan on trimming the history section down to about one paragraph per header, and perhaps 2 for the dynasty era. All of the info has been moved to History of the New England Patriots. Deckiller 22:40, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
- I trimmed it down somewhat; I'm thinking that this level of information looks pretty good. Once we replace it with beautiful prose (I wrote it in somewhat of a hurry) and cite, we might be ready for feature article or at least good article status. Deckiller 00:31, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
- A suggestion for FA: You should also begin a section on the logo and uniforms too, and how it evolved from the "Pat Patriot" logo to the "Elvis" logo. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 00:37, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
- Okay, sounds like an awesome idea. Deckiller 00:42, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
- I added the brief section from the history page to get the ball rollong. Deckiller 00:45, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
- I admire your dedication, Deckiller. keep up the good work!--Alhutch 03:31, 26 January 2006 (UTC)