Talk:2007 New England Patriots season

message: I think the patriots cheating needs to be discussed, its pretty important to not only their season, but the Whole NFL.--TheNation 22:36, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Nothing is preventing anyone from adding that information, provided it's fully sourced and is written from a NPOV. But it's difficult to source anything at this point, since everything is speculation -- the NFL hasn't said anything officially. Pats1 22:38, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There is nothing wrong with posting what the media has said. That is the story.►Chris Nelson 23:00, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Do you have source for this material? Gopal81ChatMe!ReadMe!! 01:43, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: First of all, you're responding to a 18-month old post. Secondly, the source is the rule itself that was cited. It only prohibits taping signals from a sideline location; there's nothing preventing a team from shooting signals from the normal video location. See the first few sections of Spygate. Pats1 T/C 03:34, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cheating 

message: 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 NelsonHolla! 22:11, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well basketball games are little different, but it does make sense. Pats1 T/C 22:42, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Living updating

message: 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 Beckett 17:36, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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 NelsonHolla! 17:41, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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 Beckett 17:47, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

text: 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 Beckett 18:07, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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 NelsonHolla! 18:11, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: From the verifiability policy: "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia 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 Beckett 18:17, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

text: 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 Beckett 18:25, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: And you might want to look at Webster.com. Some of that shit will blow ya mind.►Chris NelsonHolla! 18:26, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Videotaping incidient section title 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Um, only championship games have their own article. RC-0722 (talk) 02:26, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  NFL Network Simulcast 

message: 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 [Brady - 50 passes], single-season touchdown receptions [Moss - 23], most points scored in a season [589] 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)
replies: text: 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 T/C 05:15, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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 Beckett 19:55, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Records Broken 

message: 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)
replies: text: How is an interception by Randall Gay not up to WP standards? Pats1 T/C 13:48, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  First Miami Dolphins game 

message: 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)
replies: text: Do you mean Week 17? Yeah, it will be updated sometime in the near future. Pats1 T/C 23:30, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. Pats1 T/C 01:09, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Um, usually only super bowl games have their own article.RC-0722 (talk) 05:05, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Fair enough.The freddinator (talk) 14:02, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Week 16 

message: See Wikipedia: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)
replies: text: 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 Wikipedia 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 T/C 21:13, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: 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 Wikipedia 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)
replies: text: 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 Wikipedia guideline to change them. Pats1 T/C 21:57, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Avoid wikilinking bold title words

message: New section - the last one was too long
I tried to make what I felt was a fair edit based upon the items discussed in the prior discussion topic (Week 17 rewrite). Because it was a very significant game, one in which many records were tied and broken, it is still pretty lengthy. I tried to keep all major plays (those breaking or tying records) in tact while eliminating those detailing specific drives culminating in points gained. My reason for this is, as has been brought up several times on this discussion page, this page should not serve as a play-by-play. The previous incarnation, while not a play-by-play by definition, incorporated a lot of irrelevant details (please do not cite other sections on this page as an argument because, as far as I can see, they have predominantly been written by Pats1, who was also responsible, and still is responsible, for the bulk of this section) detailing how teams got to their touchdown/field goal play. While this would fit well on a page detailing this game, this article is about the season with a summary of each game. The net character loss is approx -500, making the entire section viewable on my monitor (1280*1024 19" screen). Also, it is now more comprobable in size to the other sections on this page. Please feel free to edit it, but if you want to revert it, please discuss here first. If you feel contentious sections are missing, please bring your argument here before you post, as well. The freddinator (talk) 01:25, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Looks good! There are a few thing that might need rewording, but I can do that if anybody wants. RC-0722 (talk) 02:12, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you! :-) Burner0718 (talk) 02:55, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Week 17 Edit 

message: Tully Banta-Cain was not a starter.  He only started if one of the other linebackers was injured. 65.174.54.231 (talk) 02:35, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: "Starter" meaning he started in a game or two - which he did. Many in fact. Pats1 T/C 03:06, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Off-Season Moves 

message: I just wanted to separate more clearly the issue upon which we disagree, Pats1.  You say that it is POV to elevate one fact above others, that chronology trumps the perception of significance, is that correct? So then you would be happy with this opening but would think that this one and this one and this one and this one and this one are marred by POV?
But what is the purpose of the NPOV policy?  NPOV is very correctly seen as one of the cornerstones of Wikipedia; this project would never have grown into the important site that it is without NPOV.  But NPOV does not equal nor require flavorlessness.  What it requires is that we be sensitive to all points of view and to not try to impose one point of view over others.  NPOV does not require that writing be sterilized of all that makes it interesting.
What we should do is to write well.  Pretty much any writing instructor would look at the seven articles on the Patriots' 21st century seasons and tell you that they fail flat-out because of their openings.  An expository article on the 2001 season should not begin with the same verbiage as the article on the 2000 season, because they were very, very different in their totality.  To argue that an article on a 19-0 season should not identify that fact in its opening sentence is to not understand the difference between sterility and NPOV.  A 19-0 season would be unique, and that acknowledging that uniqueness is not POV, it is the obligation of a good writer.
Well, I'm just repeating myself now.   Unschool (talk) 01:31, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Qui tacet consentit? Unschool (talk) 23:07, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Busy day, I'll get to responding ASAP. Most likely tomorrow sometime. Sorry. Pats1 T/C 02:04, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: No hurry. No time limits on getting this right, right?  And I may be taking a week off myself. Unschool (talk) 19:17, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree. First of all, I feel the election comparison is flawed. First off, a US presidential election is general knowledge. A specific season of an American football team isn't. Almost all readers can go directly to a US presidential election article and immediately know what it's referring to. I'm not willing to jump to that conclusion for these season-specific articles. There is no "New England Patriots season" (besides New England Patriots seasons, which is a list) article like there is a United States presidential election article. I feel that you do need to both identify the subject of the article and set it in context in the initial line(s). Then, and only then, can you assert why it is significant. Chronology is important here. I believe that the intro flows very smoothly, and gives the season its due. It begins with a line identifying (via links) the team involved (the Patriots), the league involved (the NFL), the season involved (2007), and where that season falls within Patriots history. It then progresses to a summary of the background for the season - what occurred in 2006 to set-up 2007. From there we go to the records set as the Patriots went through the season - AFC East division title, 16-0 record, playoff wins, and ultimately That Dark Day. In between are records attached to assert significance and establish the season's notability. You can't tell me this is a worse-off option than going straight to "The 2007 New England Patriots season was arguably their most dramatic" or "...set numerous NFL records," or, more dramatically, "took off then crashed and burned, giving all passengers a slow and bloody death on a dismal February night." Those are blanket statements. Why not just say what actually happened? A novel idea? Give tangible facts on what the team accomplished. But there's no reason to expound on them by way of blanket statements and opinion. Let the reader form their own opinions on how great the accomplishments were. Pats1 T/C 01:07, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: POV vs. Sterility

message: Another thought just occurred to me.  So you say you think that Wikipedia should be completely NPOV, and not display any hint that one fact regarding a group be more important than any other.  Remember how you corrected my error, pointing out that the game I was referring to was the Week 17 game, not the AFC championship?  (Thank you for correcting me on that, btw)  Well, isn't it POV to have an article on the Week 17 Giants-Pats game but not on every other game of the season?  Is there an article on every game from Week 17?  I'm guessing not.  And why not?  Because some things are simply recognized as being more significant than others.  Such as the 2001 Pats season, which is significant for the fact that it was the Pats' first ever SuperBowl win.  That is simply more important to recognize than the fact that it was the team's 32nd season. Unschool (talk) 02:44, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: That's in the realm of WP:NOTABLE. I'd love to create an article for every game. But, quite simply, there's a great fluctuation of the amount of content between notable and non-notable games. That is what should establish significance for an article - not what blanket statement can be conjured up to describe an entire article in one sentence. Most of the times one doesn't exist, and oftentimes finding one constitutes original research. So if one subject or article is more significant than another, make it known the amount of well-sourced material and other content in it. Pats1 T/C 01:07, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pure POV? 

message: The Week 17 and Super Bowl sections are WAY too long - they're virtually a copy of the actual article sections. Summarize it, it doesn't need to be that long. JAF1970 (talk) 02:26, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Week 17, yes. But all the playoff game summaries and the Super Bowl summary are direct copies, and should stay that way. The Super Bowl article has a lot more than just the summary. A reader going to the Super Bowl article from this article won't find a duplicate. Pats1 T/C 12:13, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The Super Bowl article is too long for this article. Honestly, you don't need a blow-by-blow account in this article. Perhaps content not in the SB42 article should be moved there, but this is just a season summary of the Pats. I'm not saying "Giants 17, Patriots 14, end of section", but it should be a 3-4 paragraph section, not article-sized. See the SB42 summary at 2007 New York Giants season. JAF1970 (talk) 23:30, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Summarize Week 17 & Super Bowl

message: The image :Image:Burress sb42 td.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here.  In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page.  Please check
:* That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
:* That this article is linked to from the image description page.
This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --00:55, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Image copyright problem with Image:Burress sb42 td.jpg

message: Seeing as this article is about the Patriots' season, not the Giants', it seems more than a little odd that the only plays illustrated are the ones from the Giants' final drive in SB42. While I understand their notability, it seems bizarre. Couldn't it at least be balanced out with, say, a photo (I assume one exists) of the record-setting Brady-to-Moss pass? Samer (talk) 20:42, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Those are from the Super Bowl article, and they were just copied in since I copied the game summary. Pats1 T/C 00:06, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Season pictures 

message: The 2007 Pats are the only team to win 18 games in a row in a full season. JAF1970 (talk) 15:23, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Another record

message: During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!
* http://www.patriots.com/games/index.cfm?ac=gamereportdetail&pid=29937&pcid=47
** In 2007 New England Patriots season on 2011-05-26 02:56:30, 404 Not Found
** In 2007 New England Patriots season on 2011-05-27 15:14:16, 404 Not Found
** In 2007 New England Patriots season on 2011-06-15 16:23:46, 404 Not Found
--JeffGBot (talk) 16:24, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dead link 

message: During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!
* http://news.bostonherald.com/localRegional/view.bg?articleid=1004553
** In 2007 NFL season on 2011-05-26 02:56:07, 404 Not Found
** In 2007 NFL season on 2011-05-27 15:13:46, 404 Not Found
** In 2007 NFL season on 2011-06-15 16:18:35, 404 Not Found
--JeffGBot (talk) 16:24, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dead link 2 

message: During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!
* http://jarvisgreen.com/commerce/inthenews/inthenews.asp?reqdate=11/10/2007&id_passed=62
** In 2007 New England Patriots season on 2011-05-26 02:56:30, 404 Not Found
** In 2007 New England Patriots season on 2011-05-27 15:14:16, 404 Not Found
** In 2007 New England Patriots season on 2011-06-15 16:24:02, 404 Not Found
--JeffGBot (talk) 16:24, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dead link 3 

message: During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!
* http://www.gocrimson.com/ViewArticle.dbml?SPSID=41068&SPID=3659&DB_OEM_ID=9000&ATCLID=920368&Q_SEASON=2007
** In 2007 New England Patriots season on 2011-05-26 02:56:30, 404 Not Found
** In 2007 New England Patriots season on 2011-05-27 15:14:16, 404 Not Found
** In 2007 New England Patriots season on 2011-06-15 16:24:10, 404 Not Found
--JeffGBot (talk) 16:24, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dead link 4 

message: During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!
* http://www.patriots.com/search/index.cfm?ac=searchdetail&pid=27686&pcid=47&rss=1
** In 2007 National Football League videotaping controversy on 2011-05-26 02:56:15, 404 Not Found
** In 2007 National Football League videotaping controversy on 2011-05-27 15:13:46, 404 Not Found
** In 2007 National Football League videotaping controversy on 2011-06-15 16:20:41, 404 Not Found
--JeffGBot (talk) 16:24, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dead link 5 

message: During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!
* http://www.nwanews.com/adg/Sports/212510/
** In 2007 New England Patriots season on 2011-05-26 02:56:30, 404 NOT FOUND
** In 2007 New England Patriots season on 2011-05-27 15:14:16, 404 NOT FOUND
** In 2007 New England Patriots season on 2011-06-15 16:24:31, 404 NOT FOUND
--JeffGBot (talk) 16:24, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dead link 6 

message: During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!
* http://www.patriots.com/search/index.cfm?ac=searchdetail&pid=29946&pcid=43&rss=1
** In 2007 New England Patriots season on 2011-05-26 02:56:30, 404 Not Found
** In 2007 New England Patriots season on 2011-05-27 15:14:16, 404 Not Found
** In 2007 New England Patriots season on 2011-06-15 16:24:41, 404 Not Found
--JeffGBot (talk) 16:25, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dead link 7 

message: During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!
* http://www.boston.com/sports/football/patriots/articles/2008/01/05/record_setting_brady_wins_mvp/
** In 2007 New England Patriots season on 2011-05-26 02:56:30, 404 Not Found
** In 2007 New England Patriots season on 2011-05-27 15:14:16, 404 Not Found
** In 2007 New England Patriots season on 2011-06-15 16:24:51, 404 Not Found
--JeffGBot (talk) 16:25, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dead link 8 

message: During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!
* http://wbztv.com/local/Tom.Brady.Patriots.2.613570.html
** In 2007 New England Patriots season on 2011-05-26 02:56:30, 404 Not Found
** In 2007 New England Patriots season on 2011-05-27 15:14:16, 404 Not Found
** In 2007 New England Patriots season on 2011-06-15 16:25:02, 404 Not Found
--JeffGBot (talk) 16:25, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dead link 9 

message: During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!
* http://www.nfl.com/nflnetwork/story;jsessionid=6E9406305670216B30AAC39234C26079?id=09000d5d8056c7d0&template=without-video&confirm=true
** In 2007 New England Patriots season on 2011-05-26 02:56:49, Socket Error: 'A connection attempt failed because the connected party did not properly respond after a period of time, or established connection failed because connected host has failed to respond'
** In 2007 New England Patriots season on 2011-05-27 15:14:22, Socket Error: 'A connection attempt failed because the connected party did not properly respond after a period of time, or established connection failed because connected host has failed to respond'
** In 2007 New England Patriots season on 2011-06-15 16:25:22, Socket Error: 'A connection attempt failed because the connected party did not properly respond after a period of time, or established connection failed because connected host has failed to respond'
--JeffGBot (talk) 16:25, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dead link 10 

message: I don't think there is any content to merge. It's an amusing piece of trivia that someone prepared a book for the potential season, but other than that, there doesn't appear to be any content in the page worth bringing over. Tarl.Neustaedter (talk) 05:03, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Oops, I did the merge before I saw this. You're right, there's not much to merge and it feels a bit shoehorned, but there you have it. If the content is removed, then I guess the redirect should go back to Rfd. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 15:46, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: You did a reasonable job of merging. It's an amusing piece of trivia which I wouldn't have included, but since it's there, no particular need to remove it. Tarl.Neustaedter (talk) 19:35, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Deletion of ''19-0: The Historic Championship Season of New England's Unbeatable Patriots'' 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on 2007 New England Patriots season. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.monstersandcritics.com/news/usa/news/article_1371095.php/Indianapolis_NFL_battle_of_the_undefeated_today
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080207090843/http://www.sportingnews.com/yourturn/viewtopic.php?t=346770 to http://www.sportingnews.com/yourturn/viewtopic.php?t=346770
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:04, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: The article ought to mention the first sentence or at least the first paragraph why this season was notable: that the Patriots went unbeaten and then lost in the biggest upset of all time. I don't like the existence of all these 'X sports team's Y season' articles but this would remain notable even if they were all finally expunged. The reason for that notoriety should be explained as early as possible. 86.139.253.114 (talk) 11:45, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lead sentence 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on 2007 New England Patriots season. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110519104816/http://www.patriots.com/games/index.cfm?ac=gamereportdetail&pid=29937&pcid=47 to http://www.patriots.com/games/index.cfm?ac=gamereportdetail&pid=29937&pcid=47
*Added  tag to http://news.bostonherald.com/localRegional/view.bg?articleid=1004553
*Added  tag to http://www.patriots.com/news/index.cfm?ac=latestnewsdetail&pid=35042&pcid=47
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:15, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 5 external links on 2007 New England Patriots season. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.projo.com/patriots/content/sp_fbn_patsside26a_11-26-07_3480HRP_v7.2a70e35.html
*Added  tag to http://www.nydailynews.com/fdcp?1281404259669
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://jarvisgreen.com/commerce/inthenews/inthenews.asp?reqdate=11%2F10%2F2007&id_passed=62
*Added  tag to http://www.patriots.com/search/index.cfm?ac=searchdetail&pid=27686&pcid=47&rss=1
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.monstersandcritics.com/news/usa/news/article_1371095.php/Indianapolis_NFL_battle_of_the_undefeated_today
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090110085516/http://www.patriots.com/news/index.cfm?ac=latestnewsdetail&pid=29242&pcid=47 to http://www.patriots.com/news/index.cfm?ac=latestnewsdetail&pid=29242&pcid=47
*Added  tag to http://www.patriots.com/games/index.cfm?ac=completereportsdetail&pid=29821&pcid=47&special_section=na
*Added  tag to http://www.patriots.com/search/index.cfm?ac=searchdetail&pid=29946&pcid=43&rss=1
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://myespn.go.com/blogs/hashmarks/0-5-366/Belichick-has-left-the-building---a-second-early.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:29, 17 June 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on 2007 New England Patriots season. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070712150034/http://patriots.bostonherald.com/patriots/view.bg?articleid=1010548 to http://patriots.bostonherald.com/patriots/view.bg?articleid=1010548
*Added archive https://www.webcitation.org/5hlQSsaZf?url=http://www.monstersandcritics.com/news/usa/news/article_1371095.php/Indianapolis_NFL_battle_of_the_undefeated_today to http://www.monstersandcritics.com/news/usa/news/article_1371095.php/Indianapolis_NFL_battle_of_the_undefeated_today
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:07, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: A discussion is taking place to address the redirect :18–1. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 January 30#18–1 until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion.  signed, Rosguill talk 18:06, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  "18–1" listed at [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion|Redirects for discussion]]