Talk:Brady–Belichick era

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


Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment[edit]

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 4 June 2019 and 31 July 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Watsherm.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 18:17, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment[edit]

talk about revisions or questions here Brycearell (talk) 22:19, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Need to add a sections for 2014- present[edit]

2014 season - present should be added. There are areas in the seasonal listings that can be expanded upon and citations need to be added. Jaconsigli (talk) 22:36, 12 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

For the controversy section, reliable sources should be added to confirm this information while keeping the context neutral.Watsherm (talk) 17:11, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

AfD Candidate?[edit]

After glancing through this article, it feels largely like a non-notable, synthetic essay from User:Brycearell. Are there any RS's that actually give direct coverage to this topic? This article feels like a candidate for AfD. NickCT (talk) 13:12, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I oppose a quick deletion for reasons listed in my removal of the quick deletion tag (not synthetic, highly notable topic, well written, good sourcing, will only ever improve as time goes on). Go through the proper process if you want this removed. As per WP:CONTESTED, do not replace the proposed deletion tag. Macktheknifeau (talk) 10:27, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Please don't WP:HOUND bud. If some other editor feels it's appropriate to remove the PROD we can AfD at that point. NickCT (talk) 19:14, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I was the one who showed you that article in the first place, so if anyone was "hounding" anyone, it's you following my link to this article and attempting to delete it in order to defend your attack on my non-delete vote in the Bernie AFD. Please note that could easily be seen as a violation of WP:POINTY, as you're disrupting wikipedia by trying to delete a non-controversial article in a speedy AFD because you think it might strength your argument on a completely non-relevant AFD, then ignoring WP:CONTESTED is clear that a quick AFD tag cannot be reinstated once an objection has been rasied. I also don't appreciate your accusations of bad faith considering this obviously POINTY behaviour. Macktheknifeau (talk) 03:38, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You had never edited this article before. You followed me from a separate talk page to revert my edits. You are hounding me.
Just b/c you've lost an argument doesn't mean you need to track people around and start reverting all their edits.
If this article is worth keeping, some other editor will remove the tag. The owner was notified appropriately. Hound me again and I'll take you ANI. NickCT (talk) 15:25, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

NickCT and Macktheknifeau, I have deprodded the article. Short of outright harassment or a detailed history of WP:HOUNDing, any user can deprod an article for any reason, even if they discovered the article by reviewing other editors edits. Macktheknifeau, the next step is WP:AFD. If you follow that route, I recommend that you both maintain civility in that future deletion discussion and avoid each other's edits to the best of your ability after that. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 17:24, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Gonzo fan2007: - Thanks. We know what the next step is.
So your position is that the topic may be notable enough for inclusion. No thoughts on the fact that the topic is synthetic?
The problem with this article, like so many similar articles, is that for pretty much every historical person/people, some source, somewhere has attached the word "era" to the name (see Clinton era, Babe Ruth era, Mr. Rogers era). There's a really obvious question which no one is addressing. Clearly we're not going to write "Person X Era" articles for every single person with whom the word "era" has been associated. That would just be stupid. So what's the rule? Where do we stop?
I'm happily going to be avoiding Macktheknifeau. I doubt he'll offer the same. NickCT (talk) 18:34, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I saw a poor attempt at a speedy deletion done in what is now obviously bad faith and opposed it. End of story. If there's a full AFD on this article I will show up there and post pretty much word for word what I said when I opposed your speedy deletion. Apart from that, I double plusgood pretty please cherry on top promise not to "hound" you. Macktheknifeau (talk) 03:26, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
My reason for removing the prod doesn't matter. The prod process allows any deletion to be protested. My reminder that the next step is AFD was more focused on ending the complaining about who deprods what and pushing it to the proper venue for a larger discussion. And just because other things exist, doesn't mean we have to apply it to everyone. It is a case-by-case basis based on our WP:GNG.
In my opinion, the Brady-Belichick era has a good chance of being notable enough for inclusion, so I removed the prod. If it goes to AFD, I will happily expand upon my reasoning in that discussion. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 20:24, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Gonzo fan2007: - re "The prod process allows any deletion to be protested." - Nobody's contesting that. I'm not saying you have to provide a reason to deprod, I'm just asking you what your reason is. There's a difference.
You know, the argument here isn't that other stuff exists, but that other stuff doesn't exist. As I said, I could come up with dozens of articles that use the term "Mr. Roger's era"; and yet, arguing that "Mr. Roger's era" is a notable thing that deserves a WP article is self-evidently silly. NickCT (talk) 20:54, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
My reason was very clearly stated in the edit summary: I think it is a notable subject. Macktheknifeau also provided a good explanation: I oppose quick deletion. It is a well written, highly sourced page regarding a notable era of a major sports team. There are multiple direct and detailed sources listed. As I stated, I don't have to provide justification for my reasoning when removing a prod, and as I stated to you a few comments above If it goes to AFD, I will happily expand upon my reasoning in that discussion.
Per WP:GNG, your point is self-defeating. If you find dozens of articles that use the term "Mr. Roger's era", that would probably fall under "significant coverage" that "addresses the topic directly and in detail", thus meeting WP:GNG and justifying an article. That is literally the exact way that our notability standards work: a lot of sources about a subject? --> Create an article. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 21:15, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Gonzo fan2007: - So you see no issue with the fact that thousands and thousands of "Person X era" articles could probably be called notable under that rationale? Really....? NickCT (talk) 22:06, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nope. We are an encyclopedia of 6 million articles. But I honestly don't see there being 1000s of "Person X era" with significant coverage in reliable sources about their time being an "era". So its a moot point to me. Like I said, just because a Brady-Belichick era article exists, doesn't mean any other article has to exist. Each article should be judged on its own merits on a case-by-case basis. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 22:16, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Gonzo fan2007: - "don't see there being 1000s" - Take any moderately famous historical figure (sportsperson, politician, actor, whatever) and Google "Name of person era". See if you can't collect a couple dozen sources in 2 seconds.
re "doesn't mean any other article has to exist" - True. But the fact that very few other "Person X era" articles exist, means that this article probably shouldn't exist (i.e. the other stuff doesn't exist rationale). NickCT (talk) 04:50, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 13 December 2019[edit]

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Moved (non-admin closure) Iffy★Chat -- 20:35, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]


Tom Brady and Bill Belichick era → Brady-Belichick era – Per WP:COMMONNAME, Brady-Belichick era would make the most sense. The current title is definitely a descriptive name, but it is long and rarely used in sources. See here, here, and here for a few examples. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 20:41, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Move - Forgetting the fact that this article shouldn't exist momentarily; clearly Brady-Belichick era is more common and more concise. NickCT (talk) 20:57, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move It makes more sense grammatically and is more conscise. Thenorthgoingzax (talk) 22:25, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support regardless of whether or not it should exist this is more concise and there is no other era the shorter name could possibly be confused with.--69.157.252.96 (talk) 05:04, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per Thenorthgoingzax. Hyperbolick (talk) 19:42, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Should be an en-dash per the MOS. That is, the proposal should be for Brady–Belichick era with a redirect from the currently proposed title. Dekimasuよ! 14:53, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Post-AfD cleanup[edit]

This was kept at AfD for a number of different reasons, and it should have been as to not lose any of the content, but I think this still needs to be seriously cleaned up. We typically include this sort of information in articles like History of the New England Patriots, so this article is duplicative which is actually contains much more specific information about this time period of the franchise than this article. The History of the Arizona Cardinals section is split into three different articles based on location, and then eras by coach. Other sports team history articles such as History of Liverpool F.C. or Manchester United break their history articles into different segments. I think the best thing to do here would be to rename this article History of the New England Patriots (2000–present), plan to turn "present" into the past as soon as Belichick or Brady leaves, and merge the content from History of the New England Patriots from the 2000 time period into this article. This way we still detail this important era, but it's not duplicative, which will help us avoid content fork/POV/maintenance issues. Thoughts? SportingFlyer T·C 02:11, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I would suggest using a redirect for History of the New England Patriots (2000–present) that points here. There is nothing wrong with using descriptive names for historical periods. Eg: Template:Periods_in_US_history, which includes several very short timeframes of less than a decade. This would ensure that each version in whatever page would come to the same place and not duplicate effort. Macktheknifeau (talk) 12:56, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@SportingFlyer: - I'd support a move to History of the New England Patriots (2000–present) or a move to New England Patriots dynasty. The current title is ridiculously verbose. NickCT (talk) 14:08, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 18 February 2020[edit]

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: no consensus to move. There are redirects from several plausible search terms – feel free to create more – but the current title dominates page views. – wbm1058 (talk) 22:06, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]


Brady–Belichick era → ? – Over the last few months, this article has seen a lot of back-and-forth regarding proper page naming and notability issues. A a requested move two months ago determined the WP:COMMONNAME of the article should be Brady–Belichick era. However, at a subsequent deletion discussion—which resulted in consensus to keep the article—some editors expressed a desire for a new title. Hopefully this discussion can finalize that name and we can move on. Here are a few options based on previously discussed titles:

Please provide your preference on which title is best, or provide a new option, if necessary. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 17:16, 18 February 2020 (UTC) —Relisting. BegbertBiggs (talk) 18:40, 25 February 2020 (UTC) —Relisting. Steel1943 (talk) 03:46, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging past participants in these discussions: Cbl62, NickCT, Thenorthgoingzax, Hyperbolick, Dekimasu, Lepricavark, Beemer69, Wm335td, Pi.1415926535, Dwscomet, Paulmcdonald, SnowFire, Trillfendi, SportingFlyer, Ejgreen77, CatcherStorm, and Smartyllama. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 17:22, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • New England Patriots dynasty - Per the opinions I expressed during the deletion discussion; the possibly notable topic here is the Patriots dynasty (i.e. their long period of American football dominance) and not some fancruft, synthetic topic called the "Brady–Belichick era". NickCT (talk) 15:42, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • New England Patriots dynasty in the Brady–Belichick era. WP:COMMONNAME asks that we look at common usage. A search of Newspapers.com turns up 822 hits for "Brady-Belichick era", 664 for "Belichick Brady era", 237 hits for "New England Patriots dynasty", 67 for "Brady Belichick dynasty", and 23 hits for "Belichick Brady dynasty". These results, and the close association of the topic with Brady and Belichick suggests that we ought to choose a title that incorporates the names of Brady and Belichick. Cbl62 (talk) 16:49, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose "dynasty" as subjective and likely to cause disputes. Dekimasuよ! 18:04, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • As opposed to "era", which is way more subjective and has caused a dispute? Way, way more sources refer to the dynasty than mention the "era". NickCT (talk) 14:09, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Depends on what kinds of sources you are referring to. As noted above, a search of Newspapers.com shows that "Brady-Belichick era" is more common. The sources collected in Newspapers.com are reliable sources. A google search, on the other hand, encompasses both reliable and unreliable sources. Cbl62 (talk) 16:44, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
1) You didn't provide links, so who knows how you're doing your search. 2) Google can easily be filtered to RS and I seriously doubt doing so will the affect the 30-fold greater abundance of sources for "dynasty". 3) Pretty sure Google.com beats Newspapers.com. After all.... It's more common.... NickCT (talk) 19:04, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose all moves. The current title is WP:CONCISE, WP:PRECISE, and sums up the subject neatly. It's also the WP:COMMONNAME, as was determined in the previous discussion and by Cbl62 above. Per Dekimasu, I would oppose use of the word "dynasty" because (a) it's slang, and (b) it's not even accurate - the definition of a dynasty is a succession of rulers, not just one. (And yeah, maybe Stephen Belichick is now involved in the coaching staff, but I don't think that really counts unless he goes on to coach super-bowl wins like his dad and Brady's son gets in on the act as well). Keep as is.  — Amakuru (talk) 10:58, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose: In the discussion so far, no one has clearly expressed a reason why the article should be moved; "some editors expressed a desire for a new title" is not a good enough reason to rename the article. The closest anyone has come to providing a reason for a renaming is the synthetic fancruft commentary by NickCT, but the current title term is commonly used in reasonably reliable sources, so it's not really synthetic, and "fancruft" seems like vague name-calling without identifying a specific problem, and the alternative suggestion to use "dynasty" is not better (e.g., to me, "dynasty" seems even more like fancruft subjective commentary). After nearly a month of this RM being open, the whole question remains murky. —BarrelProof (talk) 15:54, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Wiki Education assignment: Project Team Management[edit]

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 6 September 2023 and 11 December 2023. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Jyaitanes, Apark1, Rickytex (article contribs).

— Assignment last updated by JonKush (talk) 17:08, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Brady–Belichick_era&oldid=1206411773"