Template talk:New England Patriots

Perfect Regular Season

I edited the template to reflect that thus far it has only been a perfect regular season. Wouldn't want to be a jinx.... 24.60.255.119 (talk) 22:25, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Pats1

This guy thinks he owns the the New England Patriots template. The Spygate incident should be included in the template, as well as the Super Bowl XLII upset. But he has to make it look like the Pats are perfect so he deletes the Spygate incident and the upset from the template every time someone tries to add it on. I'm an Oakland Raiders fan and I'm pissed about the Immaculate Reception but you don't see me deleting it from the template. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.34.217.222 (talk) 15:13, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm a Pats fan and I can tell you that the Prefect Regular Season is part of Patriots lore, while Spygate is not. --Tocino 15:30, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Considering that Senator Specter has said that Goodell admitted that Bill Belichick has taped since 2000, it should be considered as Patriots' lore. Just because it is negative, and fans may not approve of it, does not mean that it isn't lore. It was a big controversy and may be so in the future. Belichick being fined the maximum of $500K is a little more than nothing. Socby19 (talk) 06:46, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Okay, sure, put Spygate on the template. But not on the "Championships" section. If it has any place, at all, it would be "lore", not "championships". Moved. Redsox7897 (talk) 05:18, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Lore is defined by Merriam-Webster as being "a particular body of knowledge or tradition; traditional knowledge or belief; knowledge gained through study or experience." Spygate is not a "tradition" of the Patriots, and not something that will be passed down through the ages. Pats1 ^T/C 12:25, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

It is, however, a body of knowledge, and knowledge gained through experience. The more appropriate definition is the American Heritage dictionary: "1. Accumulated facts, traditions, or beliefs about a particular subject." It's going back in. Please do not change it again. —Torc. ^(Talk.) 20:11, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

We can go without the last two sentences there. That borders on incivility (or WP:OWN, whichever you choose), and is 100% counter-productive. Pats1 ^T/C 01:14, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

I've readded it once; you've deleted it five times. I don't think I'm the one who should be accused of "owning" the template. Given that the last removal was after 3 of 5 editors supported keeping it (make that 4 of 6 now), I think the request was appropriate. And I did say "please". —Torc. ^(Talk.) 01:47, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Is there a compelling reason not to mention the Spygate article? It appears to be relevant to the Patriots and notable enough to have its own article. Navigational templates should help readers find articles they'd like to read -- it's not about highlighting "best" moments, but significant ones. – Luna Santin (talk) 09:12, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

I think "spygate" as well as "16-0" should go under "Lore." Maybe bold the superbowl numbers where the Patriots won, like in the Template:Miami Dolphins. Sure, spygate was embarrassing, but the Buffalo Bills tempate Template:Buffalo Bills includes lots of embarrassing things, like Norwood's miss and being on the losing end of the Music City Miracle. This is an encyclopedia, not a fanclub.--RedShiftPA (talk) 20:56, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

"Lore" and "Culture" are so POV that it opens the door for such. Pats1 ^T/C 21:26, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

RfC - Spygate

I think Luna Santin's got the right idea. The navigation template is for articles relating to the New England Traitors, plain and simple. It's not Wikipedia's job to be a PR mouthpiece for the organization. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 20:23, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Saw the RfC, and I'd have to agree - Spygate seems to be a reasonable inclusion in this template. Mlaffs (talk) 17:30, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Came here from RfC. Seems clear that a Patriots template would contain articles of all kinds about topics primarily involving the Patriots. Selectively choosing which ones to include is POV pushing, yes. Spygate should stay in. - Chardish (talk) 15:19, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Manning to Tyree

As it is one of the most noteworthy catches in NFL history (like the Immaculate Reception), it belongs in the Pats' lore section. Also, as noted above embarassing plays are in other NFL teams' templates (such as the Music City Miracle in the Bills template and The Miracle at the Meadowlands in the Giants template). Richiekim (talk) 20:51, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

If that catch fits the definition of Patriots lore, I'm Santa Claus. (Maybe I am anyway...) Pats1 ^T/C 20:00, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Then by your logic The Drive had nothing to do with the Browns because it was John Elway and the Broncos offensive play. Or that the Immaculate Reception has nothing to do with the Raiders because it was a catch made by the Steelers. But that is not the case. It DOES have to do with the Patriots, because this team had a chance to go 19-0 and this play is what prevented that from happening. MethMan47 (talk) 16:39, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

It's not Patriots lore. It's important to Giants fans, but absolutely irrelevant to Patriots fans. Pats1 ^T/C 16:40, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

If you would please, explain to me how this is irrelevant to Patriots fans, but The Drive and The Immacualte Reception are irrelevant to Browns fans and Raiders fans? This happened at a game that the New England Patriots played, it is a notable play, and therefore it should be included. I do not see what the argument is. MethMan47 (talk) 16:49, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

It doesn't matter what those plays are. You can't apply the same rules to every play. The nature of the template itself allows for a degree of POV -- what is "lore" and what isn't is completely subjective, so the template is inherently flawed. Therefore, what is "lore" is whatever we say it is on this talk page, and as a Pats fan, I can tell you that this play is totally insignificant to us. It's nothing like the examples you described. "Lore" is defined as a body of knowledge that is passed on as a tradition. This doesn't fit it from a Patriots point of view. Pats1 ^T/C 16:59, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

But I do not see how this play is any more insignificant to the Patriots than the examples I have given. Maybe it does not exactly fit the definition of "Lore" per say, in fact Spygate isn't exactly what I would consider to be Lore, but nonetheless they should both be on the template because they both involve the New England Patriots. I am open to it being on another category on the template if anyone feels that it doesn't belong in the Lore section. Any suggestions?MethMan47 (talk) 22:03, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, for the record, I disagree with Spygate being there too (read section above). Neither really qualifies for "lore." But Spygate easily - EASILY - trumps this play in terms of significance to Patriots fans. Believe me when I say this - this play will not be remembered for anything by Patriots fans. When we think of the Super Bowl, we think of Samuel's dropped INT, an anemic offense, and tons of pressure on Brady. The Tyree catch isn't even the signature play of the game (as it is for Giants fans), nevermind the Patriots' complete history. Pats1 ^T/C 01:08, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

I completely agree that the play will most likely not be remembered by Patriots fans as being significant. The only reason why I feel like it belongs on the template is because of the precedent held by others to put significant events on the team's template if they played at the game, even if the play was not particularily significant to that team. That is why I am not to big of putting it into a "Lore" section. Along with Spygate they are a different category altogether. MethMan47 (talk) 23:06, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree. Pats1 ^T/C 23:37, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

18-1

Instead of 16-0, it should be 18-1. "Lore" does not always imply "glorious". It can also imply "humiliating". This is true for any sports fanbase. Just because Patriots fans can't seem to "take it", doesn't mean than they can deny the idea of 18-1 not being lore. KyuuA4 (Talk:キュウ) 02:43, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

The only problem is that "16-0" links to the regular season finale, which was the Patriots' 16-0 win. That happened more than a month before the Super Bowl, so titling the link "18-1" would be misleading. Pats1 ^T/C 03:05, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Super Bowl XXXVIII controversy should go on the template?

It seems that some user(s) doesn't want to put said section in the Lore section of the Patriots template. If it's on the Panthers template, then this should belong here as well, although like the Panthers, they weren't directly involved. Thoughts? Duo02 ~Please direct all praises/complaints here.~ 12:52, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

I'd actually take the opposite stance, it doesn't really belong in either location. Here's why. No one looking for information about one of the topics is going to find it in articles about the other. When reading the article on the halftime show, no one says "Darn, I wish I could find information about New England Patriots head coaches, but have no idea where to look" and likewise, no one reading an article about the 1978 New England Patriots season would say "You know what I'd like to know more about? Janet Jackson's right tit!" The purpose of the template is to be useful, and such a link isn't particularly relevent to either team. --Jayron32 14:05, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Right, that's what I am saying. Pats1 ^T/C 16:11, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

So I'm going to remove the Super Bowl thing from the Panthers template, if it's not done already. Duo02 ~Please direct all praises/complaints here.~ 16:13, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Template coloring

I thought that there was too much red in this template, since the Patriots' primary color is blue. I only edited it this way so that everyone could see it with a blue and silver focus. If anyone feels that it was a mistake, feel free to revert it. It just looked more like a template for the Red Sox. Thoughts? Khan_singh (talk) 04:29, 26 December 2010 (UTC)