Misplaced Pages

Surely, you can see that this was the first comment that was off-topic. My following comment was a statement of defense. Nothing wrong with that, and clearly not initiated by me. I honestly don't know how you can't see that. Any reasonable person can see that Pats1 provoked me and made the initial comment. Ksy92003(talk) 22:08, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

And no, I am not _______ blind, but thanks for making another personal attack which could probably get you blocked again if I tell somebody, which I'm considering. Ksy92003(talk) 22:13, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Find an admin. Find ONE. You won't be able to, because most admins are probably reasonable, sane people.►Chris Nelson 22:11, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

These disruptive antics must stop. Chris has been blocked, and blocked again, and the personal attacks still don't stop. I've taken the liberty of alerting User:Durova to Chris' recent posts here, because I know that he has dealt with him before. Bjewiki 02:56, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

First of all, don't act like Chris "started it" and was the only editor involved. Secondly, getting this discussion back on track is more important than perpetuating this conflict through admin reporting, PAs, etc. Just keep it on a content-level, people. Pats1 /C 03:29, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Alright, I will find an admin. Ksy92003(talk) 22:13, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

I know you're in high school, but you could at least try to grow up...►Chris Nelson 22:15, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

I am grown up. Ksy92003(talk) 22:18, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

There is a difference between having pubes and behaving like a mature adult. And in the words of Van Wilder: write that down.►Chris Nelson 22:19, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Wow, that's a unique analogy, I suppose. Not sure what to make of it. But I am a mature adult. And I'm not sure it makes one an adult to challenge if another one is. Ksy92003(talk) 22:22, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

I have only one thing to say:

"You are completely untrustworthy because you always lie" Ksy92003 Revision as of 21:37, 30 September 2007. Pats1 /C 00:24, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

What does this have to do with anything? Ksy92003(talk) 05:06, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

What did that comment have to do with anything? (Or, more specifically, whether the title a heading on this article should be "spying" or "illegal videotaping?" You failed to keep the discussion on-topic and instead decided to drag on a past grievance.) Pats1 /C 11:05, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

I honestly don't know how you don't understand this. In that comment, I was asking why Chris had changed his opinion on the topic. I don't know how that isn't on-topic. Ksy92003(talk) 13:02, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Sorry to break up the party, but this is not the place to fight. Take the issue to your talk page or better yet, request a mediation. Dabomb87 02:53, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Don Shula called it "Spygate", as did Ellis Hobbs (Patriot's Cornerback) - http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=3099870 So it's not just the media that calls it that. I think whither people are Pat's fans or not, the word is in common use - even on the Pat's team; and should be mentioned in the article Mefanch 17:26, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

I really don't see the harm in mentioning it with a reference. Something along the lines of "dubbed Spygate by the media" etc. Even though Don Shula's a bitter old man who's making himself look like a retard.►Chris Nelson 17:32, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Living updating

I really don't think it's necessary. I remember Soxrock used to do it for basketball games and it was frowned upon by some admins.►Chris Nelson 22:11, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Well basketball games are little different, but it does make sense. Pats1 /C 22:42, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

We've already been through this with Soxrock and the basketball/hockey playoffs last year. I can't remember which part of WP:NOT we said it was against, but no reason for it here. Ksy92003(talk) 04:24, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Videotaping incidient section title

There is some disagreement over the title of the section describing the signal videotaping incident during the Jets game. One option is "Illegal Videotaping Incident" while another option is "Signal Videotaping Incident". In my opinion, "signal" is a better and more descriptive term than "illegal" as it conveys more information. I think any discussion of legality belongs in the section's text, not the title. Thoughts? Chaz 17:36, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Specifics don't need to go in the section title. The important thing is the fact that rules were broken - the specifics are what should be in the article itself. I believe you have it totally backwards.►Chris Nelson 17:41, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

It's not a more specific title, it's a more descriptive title. The reason the videotaping was prohibited was because it was the signals that were being videotaped. Mentioning the legality of the videotaping before even mentioning what was videotaped is backwards. I also think it's generally a bad idea to use words with negative connotations such as "illegal" in section titles. I also wouldn't mind seeing a link to a reliable source describing the videotaping as illegal, instead of prohibited. Making that interpretation based on a dictionary definition is skating a little close to original research. Thanks, Chaz 17:47, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Knowing the definition of a word is original research? You just lost all credibility with that one. I'm dropping out of this conversation - there's no point discussing something with someone that isn't going to make sense.►Chris Nelson 17:53, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Oh, please. It's not knowing a definition of a word that's OR, it's the using that definition to classify a specific incident. I'd just like to see a reliable source that classifies the incident as "illegal" instead of prohibited. Chaz 18:07, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

A source isn't needed to define a word. Illegal and prohibited mean the same thing - against the rules. Therefore a source proving something is prohibited is a source proving something is illegal, because they are mutually exclusive. This isn't rocket science.►Chris Nelson 18:11, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

From the verifiability policy: "The threshold for inclusion in Misplaced Pages is verifiability, not truth." The two words have different connotations and usages. "Illegal" usually refers to breaking a law, while "prohibited" is more general, referring to a rule. How about this, just provide a source and let's see what others have to say? Chaz 18:17, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Look, it's not my fault you don't know the full definition of "illegal." But one is no more valid than the other. It doesn't matter what you usually think of when you here the word. Illegal and prohibited are synonyms by the very fact they mean the same thing. I'm not doing this anymore, it's like trying to teach calculus to a monkey.►Chris Nelson 18:21, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

I've reverted until such time you choose to provide a source. The wording was not in compliance with WP:V or WP:OR. You might also want to take a look at WP:CIVIL. Chaz 18:25, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

And you might want to look at Webster.com. Some of that shit will blow ya mind.►Chris Nelson 18:26, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't give a darn about the title, but here's the justification for using the word illegal, straight from the NFL Rulebook: Where the word “illegal” appears in this rule book, it is an institutional term of art pertaining strictly to actions that violate NFL playing rules. It is not meant to connote illegality under any public law or the rules or regulations of any other organization. Samer (talk) 15:54, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

NFL Network Simulcast

I changed the wording slightly regarding "the first simulcast of any NFL game since Super Bowl I." I'm fairly certain the NFL Network simulcasts their games to LOCAL markets (i.e. I know for a fact that the first evening Thanksgiving game last year on the NFL network - Broncos at Chiefs - was simulcast to our local Kansas City station as many folks did not have the NFL network were still able to watch the game), so I changed the wording to the "first NATIONALLY simulcast NFL game..." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.192.213.5 (talk) 20:51, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm beginning to think the game might be worth an article in and of itself. --Hemlock Martinis (talk) 01:11, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

I guess that depends on who wins, but there's certainly tons of material on it. I heard tickets were going for $2,500 on eBay (which I'd add if I cared to find a source right now) WallyCuddeford (talk) 01:27, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Um, only championship games have their own article. RC-0722 (talk) 02:26, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Plenty of college football games have individual articles if they're notable enough. I don't see why pro football should be any different. --Hemlock Martinis (talk) 02:30, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Could you please cite a reference of one regular season NFL game that has it's own article? And also, I don't need to be rude but I wish people would stop posting scores before the game is over. Thank you. RC-0722 (talk) 03:44, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Records Broken

Should there be a section on what records were set/tied/broken by the 2007 Pats? I know in the last game alone, there was the single-season touchdown passes , single-season touchdown receptions , most points scored in a season and first 16-0 perfect season. There were more records broken during the season, I just don't remember them. I think that's pretty significant and should be added. Or atleast mentioned. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.147.91.190 (talk) 05:08, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

They're all mentioned in the game summaries (or, in the case of this week's game, will be soon). But I guess a chart could be made. I have made a list over the course of the seasons, and there's a lot of them. Pats1 /C 05:15, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

I'd hold off until the playoffs are over (for the pats at least) to do a "records broken" section--just collate it all at the end. I do think it should be in the article--even though most of the country is bitter and loathing. Lwnf360 (talk) 19:51, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Virtually all the records apply only to the regular season, so there's not much need to wait until after the playoffs. The only exception I can think of is wins in a season, which the Pats would break if they go 19-0. Chaz 19:55, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

First Miami Dolphins game

Im pretty sure the line about "gay" interception isnt exactly up to wikipedia standards. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.205.70.254 (talk) 06:45, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

How is an interception by Randall Gay not up to WP standards? Pats1 /C 13:48, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Week 16

Somebody want to update Week 16's blurb? I would if I had watched the game.The freddinator (talk) 23:02, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Do you mean Week 17? Yeah, it will be updated sometime in the near future. Pats1 /C 23:30, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Done. Pats1 /C 01:09, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, week 17. As is, I think it's too in-depth, too much like a play-by-play (I don't know if there is any precedent for this, but are there any WP articles on significant games? perhaps this would warrant one?). I think I will tone it down some tomorrow afternoon. The freddinator (talk) 01:29, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Um, usually only super bowl games have their own article.RC-0722 (talk) 05:05, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough.The freddinator (talk) 14:02, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Week 17 rewrite

It is apparent that Week 17 is too long right now, but I think we should keep it long and shorten it, rather that have a paragraph of speculations the week prior, followed by the aftermath. I am not usually involved in major edits, so if someone else could head a collaborative rewrite of this section, that would be great. Until then, I think we should postpone any drastic changes to Week 17.The freddinator (talk) 00:25, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

I disagree that it's too long. For starters, one of its paragraphs is about the record TV coverage; another is on the season records the game itself set. There were at least 5 or 6 individual and team records set during the game, sometimes on otherwise insignificant plays that are mentioned (and the previous record holders mentioned, which takes up room too). The game was the subject of national attention and is a WikiNews item. In fact, the actual game summary isn't much longer than some of the other "popular" games from the season, such as the Ravens or Colts games. Pats1 /C 00:31, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Both the Colts and Ravens games are more than 2000 characters shorter. I'm talking about getting rid of sections like this:

After a 6-yard Faulk catch ended the third quarter, Maroney was tackled for a loss of 5 yards to begin the fourth quarter. The Patriots converted on third down with a 10-yard Faulk catch, but a Watson catch for a loss of 1 yard and two incompletions forced a Hanson punt. Manning recovered his own fumbled snap to begin the Giants' next drive, and two plays later, the Giants punted back to the Patriots with less than 12 minutes remaining in the game. After a first down incompletion to Welker, Brady attempted a deep pass to Moss, which was underthrown and dropped.

This sections simply play-by-play leading up to the point, Randy Moss caught the record-setting pass. Aside from that play, the rest of the text is insignificant and irrelevant.The freddinator (talk) 00:45, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Not exactly play-by-play though. In there is the fact that the fourth quarter began, and the Patriots, trailing in the game, were forced to punt. Then there's the fact that Manning fumbled his own snap, which is significant in the sense of the momentum of the game starting to turn. The other things ("two plays later" and "two incompletions later") is just to fill in the holes. The Moss dropped pass is definitely notable, and the Welker incompletion sets the stage for the touchdown pass as being on third down. In other words, once you have a few notable plays, you need something to fill in the holes for it can still make sense. Pats1 /C 00:56, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Argue about momentum all you want, the fact is that none of the other sections in this article follow suit. They make a generalization about a set of downs that resulted in an interception or fumble giving key field position, resulting in a score, but they do not outline two consecutive non-scoring drives. If these are momentum, then you might as well do a complete play-by-play, arguing that every change of possession is a shift of momentum. An inconsequential fumble (losing yards, fine, but no change of possession), 4 yard run (that does not result in a touchdown), pass for negative yards, and a series of incompletions are not, in my opinion, significant to the rest of the game. My point is furthered evidenced with this passage:

The Giants' next drive began with a 17-yard Kevin Boss reception, but three plays later, the Giants punted back to the Patriots with 7:40 remaining the first half.

Just because it is a significant game does not mean it warrants a 7000+ character section within an article giving an overview of the season. If this were a page dedicated to this one game, I would be fine with it, but that is not the case. The freddinator (talk) 01:09, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

And it's never going to be the case. The game simply doesn't feature any historical moment like the Snowplow Game or is universally known by a specific name like the Epic in Miami. And it's not a Super Bowl. The game obviously comes much, much closer to it than any of the other games in the article. The game is much more notable than the others, and thus is should be treated differently than the others. Which is, of course, just what you're saying, so I don't see how we disagree. Pats1 /C 02:04, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

I was planning to start a separate page (at some point this week) just for collecting significant statistics and records set by the Patriots this season, since this page is long enough as it is. (And, I might add, the game description as it stands now is still missing some of the records set by the Patriots!) Perhaps the solution is a "stub" article here and a (significantly?) longer treatment on a separate page (that could talk about the controversy over coverage, the significant plays, etc.)? Samer (talk) 01:14, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

What did I miss!? Pats1 /C 01:42, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree that the game warrants its own article. Perhaps take the content as it is now, expand upon it as you see fit, and use the summary I wrote or an even more compressed summary per Misplaced Pages:Summary style. --Edward Morgan Blake (talk) 01:18, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree that the current summary is unnecessarily long, especially compared with the other summaries in this article and in other articles. My edit, though still a bit long, keeps all the important beats (scoring, major turns, and records). Its a summary, not a play-by-play, and even whole articles on individual games don't have this kind of detail. Summarizing is better, because that is what it is, a summary. --Edward Morgan Blake (talk) 01:18, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't think a separate article for the game would pass notability guidelines. Articles on single games do have this much detail, and usually much more in the case of Super Bowls (see Super Bowl XLI for an example). I can't see how it's a play-by-play -- what is needed to set the context for each "major" play is provided, and the rest consolidated into number of plays or something like that. How long the other summaries are really doesn't matter -- a game like Week 3 vs. Buffalo doesn't have neither the action nor the importance and notability as this one does. This is the end of the line as far as this game is concerned, as it has more detail than any other mention of it in articles such as New England Patriots, History of the New England Patriots, etc. It is a summary, it's really no different than the other 16, just with more meat because of its importance and the audience that is directed to it. Pats1 /C 01:41, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

For an example, check out the second to last paragraph of the Ravens' summary. That's a single drive, and easily the most dramatic of the season. That is blow-by-blow, and deservedly so. Pats1 /C 01:44, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

I disagree about whether it would pass notability guidelines. While it might not have a name (à la "Super Bowl 41.5"), it does have special significance, if not from a game aspect, then certainly from a cultural aspect (e.g., the debate over whether Coughlin and/or Belichick should rest starters, who would be able to see the game, all the records set, etc.). FWIW, I don't have a dog in this fight: as long as the information is preserved somewhere on an active Misplaced Pages page, I don't care if it's this one or a separate one. I was just throwing an idea out there. Samer (talk) 02:33, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, that's about how I feel. I just know that, if it came down to it, there wouldn't be a strong case for "keep" in an AfD. It would almost certainly be merged back here. The length of this article is of no real consequence - nothing on here (except the playoffs, and *maybe* Super Bowl sections) is really worthy of a separate article. But that in now way gives license to limit the content of the Week 17 game summary just because there are other games that are shorter. What's provided in the summary is probably the most neutral material you'll find in any of the 2007 season articles. Most of the other articles feature a lot more "Luckily, team X was able to storm right back" stuff that violates WP:POV. RC-0722 mentioned that this looks like an "ESPN play-by-play." It isn't. This is in prose, and it's about as colorful as it can get while still staying encyclopedic and conforming to NPOV. If it reads like a boring play-by-play type of recap, that's how it should be -- just the facts. And there certainly were a lot more notable facts for this game, hence the length. The game itself was particularly notable as well, hence the depth. Pats1 /C 02:53, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

As it stands now, three games are just too long. I have fixed this several times but my edits were reverted and I was threatened with bannishment. Please leave your thoughts/comments before I fix this again and probably get banned. RC-0722 (talk) 02:31, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

You're not "fixing" anything; you're blanking out content that at the very most would be reduced, not deleted. Pats1 /C 02:53, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

I have to agree with Pats1 on this one: I have no problem with a summary of the game, but the "edits" by RC, IMO, simply cannot be seen as an "improvement." WP is not ESPN, I will freely admit, but the sheer amount of attention paid to the game makes a compelling argument for more coverage. Let me ask this, though: before any of us go to the trouble of creating a new article, is there a way to see if it would survive an AfD? Samer (talk) 04:50, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Certainly it can survive AfD. There are a ton of articles on individual games, see National Football League lore. It is certainly notable: unprecedented historic three network simulcast, ratings in excess of 35 million, international media coverage, multiple records broken, undefeated season, and on and on... by the standards of the other individual non-Super Bowl games, an article on week 17 would have a lot going for it in its favor. (And I'm a deletionist!) --Edward Morgan Blake (talk) 06:32, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

If it can be reduced, then why haven't you or someone else done it? The "sheer amount of attention paid to the game" does not make a good argument for a play-by-play summary. Look at the packers/cowboys game in week 13, it's summary is small, quick to the point. And yet, the game recieved the same amount of attention as the patriots/giants game. We need for the summary to be more encyclopedic. If anybody wants I can contact an admin for a third opinion. RC-0722 (talk) 05:56, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

"And yet, the game received the same amount of attention." Umm, did the NFL Network have a countdown clock for that game? Did they basically re-air the entire Cowboys or Packers seasons to date? Yes, there were complaints about coverage, but reports of Senators essentially threatening the NFL? That, combined with the historical significance of the game (and the number of records set during the game), IMO, warrants expanded coverage somewhere in WP, if not necessarily this article. Samer (talk) 07:24, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Re: RC, I have personally reduced week 17. Twice. And I was reverted each time by Pats1. It seems clear that there is a consensus for reducing the entries, and only one person seems to be objecting to the reduction. So I have re-instated my edit. --Edward Morgan Blake (talk) 06:22, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm not actually in favor of a shorter entry per se. I'm actually in favor of significantly more coverage, which I think would "unbalance" the page, for lack of a better term (ditto for the page I mentioned before collecting statistics and records). I'm not going to revert the edits now, since I hope to start the "2007 Patriots v. Giants game" article in the next 24-48 hours. Samer (talk) 07:16, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. I don't see at all where the "clear consensus" is. Pats1 /C 16:50, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Wow, I went to a New Year's Eve Party at 9 EST and come back to find this thread has tripled in size. First of all, Happy New Year, everyone. Second of all, I still stand by my prior assertions. When I say I want to cut down the size of the section, I simply mean cut out inconsequential drive summaries. Pats1 referenced the game against the Ravens, saying the entire last drive was detailed. I am all for that kind of information, however when you have details about non-scoring drives, such as those I referenced eariler, you need to cut some of that out. The size of the sections would not bother me if it were completely filled with significant material. I don't want to turn this into an edit war, however, and I propose again that someone with more experience than I take charge of a major, collaborative edit for week 17. I don't think the game warrants its own page - we have more than enough room here, as long as the section is cleaned up.The freddinator (talk) 14:52, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

I disagree, I think the article is fine the way it is. It gives good detail on every aspect of the season. If you try to shorten it you may end up taking away some important stuff. I say just leave it alone or make a few minor changes. Happy New Year!! KingsOfHearts (talk) 15:00, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I suppose I should've looked at the status of the article before going straight to the talk page (I assumed with all the talk activity, edits were gridlocked). I just read the section and like where it is now. Sorry about that, I'm running on two hours of sleep :D The freddinator (talk) 17:01, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

I hope noone objects to me changing the three drives prior to the drive resulting in the Brady-Moss record-breaking pass. The only item of any potential significance in those sentences was Manning recovering his own fumble, which really isn't that significant at all. The drives are mentioned, but do not go into detail.The freddinator (talk) 17:37, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

I think the sack was a bit noteworthy (14 yards, knocked the Giants back), but in the grand scheme of things it didn't mean much. Pats1 /C 20:02, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Look, do what you want with this article. And, unless called upon, I shall not edit this page any further. Thank You. RC-0722 (talk) 19:48, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Is anything wrong...? Pats1 /C 20:02, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

No, I'm new here and you guys know how you like stuff written and I don't so I'm leaving it alone. RC-0722 (talk) 21:41, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

I share RC's frustration. Certain editors (one really) has ownership issues and seems content on reverting other people's edits and not allowing others to contribute. It's very frustrating. --Edward Morgan Blake (talk) 03:17, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Feel free to name me. I won't be offended and have no reason to be. RC-0722 blanked certain portions of the article, which is considered vandalism and was therefore reverted. I assumed good faith until RC-0722 ignored a warning. I think your perception is way off base, and would appreciate you providing examples for what I see as an unfounded accusation. Pats1 /C 03:49, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes it is very frustrating. The most frustrating part is that you have to add things to articles for the edits to be constructive. I blanked the portions that were not encyclopedic. I mean, Misplaced Pages is an online encyclopedia. You wouldn't see a play-by-play call in the Britannica now would you. Misplaced Pages is an online encyclopedia and the articles need to be encyclopedic! And, for those of you who are wondering, yes I did say that I would not edit this page any further. But by "this page", I meant the main article. You will be hearing a lot more from me in the future. RC-0722 (talk) 04:11, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

The game summary present is worlds away from copying and pasting a play-by-play and using that instead. Deleting that would be fine, as that isn't encylcopedic (rather, something you'd fine in an almanac). Deleting neutral, encyclopedic prose is a whole other subject. It appears your only disagreement with the portions you deleted (Weeks 17 and 9) was that you felt they went too in-depth. And that would be a valid argument to bring up in a talk page discussion like this. However, just flat-out removing content like that, even after warnings were issued, before even attempting a discussion is frowned upon here. Pats1 /C 04:29, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

But what I deleted was not "neutral, encyclopedic prose" It was a play-by-play call that is not encyclopedic. And I ignored the warning because my edits were not vandalism. Why was it my job to bring this subject up. After I made my edit why couldn't you (Pats1) have posted something on the talk page instead of reverting mine and Edward Morgan Blake's edits. RC-0722 (talk) 18:10, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

First of all, what you deleted was the Colts' game summary, which wasn't being discussed at all here. On Misplaced Pages, you simply cannot make a wholesale deletion of something that does not blatantly violate any rules or guidelines. Your first course of action should have been to revise the summary as you felt fit, or better yet, start a discussion on this talk page before making your edits. But just wiping the entire thing off the page, and then ignoring two administrator warnings about it without starting a talk page discussion is not good. I'm not going to argue with you here. Pats1 /C 18:47, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Wait a second, I didn't delete the colts game summary. You've mistaken me for another user. RC-0722 (talk) 19:23, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

What game you deleted doesn't matter, but yes, you did delete the Colts summary. Pats1 /C 20:35, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

I'll give you that, but my account is shared with my brother. All I know is that I did not blank the colts summary. All I did was shorten the giants game summary to make it sound more encylopedic and less of a play-by-play. RC-0722 (talk) 21:16, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Avoid wikilinking bold title words

See Misplaced Pages:Lead section#Bold title, which recommends avoiding wikilinks in bold title words. I've tried to remove them several times here, with reversions from Pats1. The links here offer no benefit -- the 2007 NFL season is already linked in See also; Patriots could be linked there as well or from any of the other instances of "Patriots" in the article, or the second sentence in the intro could be rephrased (without redundancy) to include it. -- JHunterJ (talk) 21:07, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

By nature, wikilinks provide easy access to related pages. That guideline recommends it only as a style issue. And at that, it's a very minor style issue. WP:IGNORE says to ignore any rules that prevent Misplaced Pages from being improved. Linking the title of the article (2007 NFL season and New England Patriots) provides the reader with links to the two subjects the article is synthesized from. Pats1 /C 21:13, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

And makes the lead paragraph unappealing and somewhat confusing, since it appears to link to "2007 New England Patriots". So ignoring the guideline is itself preventing Misplaced Pages from being improved. The readers here are unlikely to find this article without first finding 2007 NFL season or New England Patriots. -- JHunterJ (talk) 21:34, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Bold or not, it appears to link to "2007 New England Patriots." Any two wikilinks next to each other will. And if they find one, they're unlikely to find the other before coming to this article, hence the two wikilinks. As far as your ref edits go, I have no idea why you said "punctuation in front of ref since there is no consistent use yet established in this article." They were all before punctuation (i.e. consistent), so there was no point or reason provided by a Misplaced Pages guideline to change them. Pats1 /C 21:57, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

I want to agree with JHunterJ, and initially did. But after looking at the other 2007 <insert team name here> season articles, and even previous seasons, they seem to either bold simply the year, which, in my opinion looks goofy, or bold year and team name, as is the case here. Both sides offer compelling arguments, but I think that for consistency's sake, it is best to keep it as is with the year and team name bolded. However, if it is a serious problem (which I don't think it is), then it would be best to bring it up in a relevant WikiProject.The freddinator (talk) 23:35, 1 January 2008 (UTC)