This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

United States: Louisiana / New Orleans Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject Louisiana (assessed as Mid-importance). This article is supported by WikiProject Louisiana - New Orleans (assessed as High-importance). National Football League Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject National Football League, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the NFL on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.National Football LeagueWikipedia:WikiProject National Football LeagueTemplate:WikiProject National Football LeagueNational Football League articles Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

This article is written in American English, which has its own spelling conventions (color, defense, traveled) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.

In my opinion as a lifelong saints fan, the song "Halftime" by the Ying Yang Twins needs to be added under fight songs. It was played after every single Saints touchdown of the 2009 season and was acknowledged for it's ubiquity by several news outlets. See here: —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jstern1 (talk • contribs) 03:03, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

You may want to mention Randy Mueller's reason for being fired: "After winning the 2000 NFL Executive of the Year Award, General Manager Randy Mueller was fired between the 2001 and 2002 seasons without explanation by Benson. Benson claimed it was Mueller's poor communication, but rumors tied Mueller's firing to his paying $50,000 out of the Saints funds to a Saintsation cheerleader having an affair with Jim Haslett to keep quiet without Benson's approval." That might be a little wordy, but I couldn't shorten it any more. Kenny Wilkerson, WWL radio reporter, reported that both Mueller and Haslett had affairs with Saintsations, and after Haslett's girlfriend became pregnant, Mueller paid her $50,000 to be quiet. When Benson found out about it, he got mad and fired Mueller, claiming "poor communication." Wilkerson was soon after denied access to the Saints. Jbalfantz (talk) 09:51, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Quick, someone change it to say that the Saints won and that they're going to their first Superbowl! 96.228.203.55 (talk) 03:25, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Someone should edit it to suggest that they were the beneficiaries of several blown calls by the referees in the game. ESPN's NFL Live has documented four plays in overtime alone that were blown by the officials, including the crucial pass interference penalty and the spot of the ball on fourth down. The NFC title game was tainted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.215.196.246 (talk) 09:15, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

More should be added on Bum Phillips reign as coach. Mascots such as 'Gumbo' the dog, Sir Saint, Moses and the Saintsations cheerleaders are quite notable. This team is full of color because of these characters and the teams losing posture.

"Many believe the success of the 2000 season was the result of first year General Manager Randy Meuller's leadership, as" removed from franchise history, as it's POV and uncited. Mueller was misspelled anyway. 207.191.23.54 02:32, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

National Football League is currently a candidate on WP:IDRIVE. Vote for it if you are interested in contributing.--Fenice 20:03, 16 August 2005 (UTC)reply

In my opinion, one-use sites should be regarded as "misc. use" and not officially home fields. That's what is listed on one of my primary references: Total Football: The Official Encyclopedia of the National Football League (ISBN 0062701746). Thus, I have not entered one-use sites in the "Home fields" list on the infobox and rather listed them seperately in their relevant articles. For example:

• We already have a seperate 1932 NFL Championship Game article, where the Spartans-Bears game was moved indoors to Chicago Stadium.
• The 1970 Eagles-Bears game that was moved to Dyche Stadium as part of an experiment is primarily only mentioned on 1970 NFL season
• The Dolphins-Chargers game that was moved to Sun Devil Stadium because of the Cedar Fire is primarily only mentioned on 2003 NFL season.
• The Patriots-49ers game that was moved to Stanford Stadium because of the Loma Prieta earthquake is primarily only mentioned on 1989 NFL season.

Zzyzx11 (Talk) 23:24, 30 December 2005 (UTC)reply

• This is all well and good, but it doesn't make it correct to say that the Alamodome was the home stadium for half of the season. 3/8 is not half! I am pretty sure there is no wikipedia policy that advocates incorrect math to conform to a loose precedant about listing home stadiums. Besides, there's nothing wrong with correctly stating the number of games they played there and the number of games they played in Tiger stadium, even if they don't add up to 8, because the truth is they only had 7 "home" games.Wbbigtymer 05:51, 13 September 2006 (UTC)reply
  • Along those same lines, I think it's a lot better to say that Tiger stadium was their home stadium for 4 games, instead of half of the season. Half of the season may be technically correct, but I think 4 games would be a lot more clear. Also, it's consistant with the 3 game listing for the Alamo Dome above. Jean15paul 19:34, 8 October 2006 (UTC)reply

Just letting you Saints fans know that I created an article for Gary Gibbs. Its a stub now so feel free to expand it.--NMajdan•talk 13:52, 20 June 2006 (UTC)reply

'Houston Oilers' redirects to the New Orleans Saints for some reason. If anything, shouldn't it go to the Tennessee Titans?

You're right. It should. I've never heard of any association between the Houston Oilers and the Saints. Must be a mistake. Ziggy55 (talk) 04:33, 30 January 2008 (UTC)reply

Drew Brees is the best ever... the BEST!!! CzarNick~~

No, that would be Joe Montana —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.118.213.53 (talk) 14:34, 19 January 2010 (UTC)reply

There is only one word to describe how awesome the Saints are. . . and that is the word WOW! I mean, how surprising was it that a team wiped by Hurricane Katrina and ended up with a 3-13 record, to this year, coming from a VERY sad NFC, to becoming a first round bye in the playoffs as a second seat with a 10-6 record. WOW! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.156.96.53 (talk) 19:37, 9 January 2007 (UTC).reply

He is the reason behind all the change. He brought together a "team" for the first time in Saints history and will improve year after year in bringing together the most capable, intelligent, conditioned, prepared players in the NFL. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.183.116.27 (talk) 09:38, 26 January 2007 (UTC).reply

First time the Saints had a team put together? I suggest reading Jim E. Mora. Carface 19:52, 28 January 2007 (UTC)reply

I'm confused. Was the Saints/Bears game a championship game or not? Why does the entry still say that the Saints have never played in a championship? Ean 15:41, 14 February 2007 (UTC)reply

The Saints/Bears game was a conference championship game. The article is referring to an NFL championship game, meaning a championship over the entire league, not just a conference. --Boznia 17:12, 16 February 2007 (UTC)reply

Yes, but technically the NFC Championship of today is the equivolent of the NFL Championship before the NFL/AFL merger. Just as the AFC Championship is the same as the old AFL Championship game. The only difference being that the winners of those two games now go on to play in the Super Bowl. If the Saints and Jaguars are listed as never playing in a championship game despite making it to their respective conference championship games, then the Cardinals, Browns, and Lions should be listed as well because their championship games came prior to the NFL/AFL merger. - Mike 8:18, 05 March 2007 (UTC)

The sentence in question includes this link (NFL Championship) to explain what is meant by an NFL Championship. Also, the NFC Championship does not equal the NFL Championship prior to the merger. Starting with Super Bowl V, the Super Bowl has been the NFL Championship. Check out the Kansas City Chiefs, the Oakland Raiders, or any other team with an AFL championship. The AFL titles are listed as league titles alongside Super Bowl titles, just like pre-merger NFL Titles are listed as league titles alongside Super Bowl titles with teams such as the Washington Redskins or the New York Giants. Boznia 08:35, 6 March 2007 (UTC)reply

This page switches tenses often, especially around the area surrounding the 2006 season. Speaking of which, that section could use a major overhaul. There needs to be more talk of the season itself. Tom Agnew 03:57, 26 February 2007 (UTC)reply

It is currently a FLC but at the moment doesn't have enough supports votes to pass. Buc (talk) 21:24, 15 January 2008 (UTC)reply

In the Records vs. Opponents section, should it be noted the the last Chicago game went to overtime by adding an OT to the score box, or just leave it as a simple loss? Fred8615 (talk) 18:26, 12 December 2008 (UTC)reply

OT is precise. Robin.kuylen (talk) 20:59, 21 April 2009 (UTC)reply

Morten Anderson will be the 2009 inductee. Should he be added now, or wait until it's official on Nov. 6th? Fred8615 (talk) 13:52, 21 September 2009 (UTC)reply

I believe the Aints should be a part of the teams nicknames because of the history of that term, wether if it's negative or not, has been apart of this team since the 80's and has been discussed in NFL specials ect. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Balooza (talk • contribs) 01:39, 16 January 2010 (UTC)reply

I disagree. It is not a name used by the fans, it's ONLY used by those seeking to disparage or insult the team and/or their fans. I doubt any of the other teams have, nor would the editors allow insulting nicknames in their articles. Fred8615 (talk) 17:29, 18 January 2010 (UTC)reply

Editors allow insulting names in their articles all the time. If there's legitimate coverage of it, bring the references and put it in the article. If there aren't, don't. — Bdb484 (talk) 17:48, 18 January 2010 (UTC)reply

As an "offical" nickname I don't think it belongs. Mentioning it in the article itself is okay. But it keeps getting put in the nicknames list in the info box, and I don't think it belongs there. Fred8615 (talk) 21:08, 18 January 2010 (UTC)reply

the "Who dat" slogan is unexplained in this website and a larger part of the Saints lore and so should be covered...I guess it is a part of Cajun slang but dont know - sammy bowe 69.121.221.97 (talk) 11:16, 25 January 2010 (UTC)reply

On an interview today 11-18-17 Ingram and Kamara are looking for a nickname,... "The dynamic duo" could work for them Valor Titanium (talk) 18:12, 19 November 2017 (UTC)reply

Really most of the last three paragraphs should be moved/merged to history. A bit about the founding and a bit about the 2009 championship are probably OK in the lead, but at present there's a ton of detail that belongs farther down in the article. I don't want to make a major edit in a heavily trafficked article without some consensus though. - Regards, PhilipR (talk) 03:21, 8 February 2010 (UTC)reply

See WP:LEAD#Length for such guidelines about length. I currently see no problem with the first 2 1/2 paragraphs, but the last paragraph is too much recentism, IMO, and could be trimmed to one or two sentences. Zzyzx11 (talk) 03:25, 8 February 2010 (UTC)reply

Are you sure 'When the Saints Come Marching In' is the fight song? When the team was introduced before the game, the p.a. played 'Sirius' by the Alan Parsons Project. Elwin Blaine Coldiron (talk) 00:54, 9 February 2010 (UTC)reply

Seriously, by not including this nickname you are ignoring an enormous part of the team's history. Just because they have won ONE Super Bowl title doesn't erase all those miserable years of losing, not to mention all the NFL Films footage of fans wearing "Aints" bags or shirts and signs in the crowd. If Wikipedia wants to chronicle history or information, it should include this nickname. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.27.37.186 (talk) 21:38, 19 February 2010 (UTC)reply

It's in there, check out the "Early history" section with the paragraph that begins with "In 1980, the Saints lost their first 14 games". Eagles 24/7 (C) 22:02, 19 February 2010 (UTC)reply

When I click on "current season" I am directed to the 2009 season instead of the 2010 season. This needs to be fixed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.179.70.119 (talk) 23:53, 2 March 2010 (UTC)reply

 Done Eagles 24/7 (C) 23:58, 2 March 2010 (UTC)reply

"To seal the merger, Rozelle arrived in New Orleans within a week, and announced on November 1, 1966 that the NFL officially had awarded the city of New Orleans an NFL franchise."

Within a week of what? GeneCallahan (talk) 01:28, 1 November 2010 (UTC)reply

The section on "the Bears rivalry" is pretty biased and does not meet the standards for an objective encyclopedia. It needs to be edited or removed entirely since the Bears-Saints rivalry doesn't really exist. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.206.109.221 (talk) 23:49, 19 January 2012 (UTC)reply

The rivalry between the 2 teams is starting to heat up. They have play a lot of games and it is varied enough that I think there should be a seperate page on the rivalvy — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.197.23.199 (talk) 00:42, 24 February 2012 (UTC)reply

Minor curiosity here: is the use of the word 'actually' necessary or helpful in the first sentence of the 'Early history' section? It seems to me it could provide contrast with the first clause, "First the brainchild of local sports entrepreneur Dave Dixon," but I'm not sure it's clear enough that this is a clarification and not just a continuation of the first thought. Runnermonkey (talk) 19:38, 21 January 2015 (UTC)reply

I'll try to do some rewriting of the history to make it less slanted toward the most recent seasons. Having a section for each season since 2006 and having four total sections for the first ~40 seasons just looks silly. I'll try to cut some minor details out and combine the Sean Peyton era into one or two sections. Most of it is unsourced anyway. Lizard (talk) 02:26, 8 February 2016 (UTC)reply

Can anyone find a definitive reliable source for the Saints' retired numbers, along with an explanation of which numbers are actually retired? I find a wide range of different numbers everywhere I look. I'm tempted to just remove the "retired numbers" table. Lizard (talk) 03:41, 23 February 2016 (UTC)reply

Not sure if these list the exact type of, or all of, information you are looking for, but they seem official:

• http://www.nfl.com/history/retirednumbers
• http://www.profootballhof.com/teams/new-orleans-saints/team-facts/

IMO based on those two links, only Taylor and Atkins should remain listed here. Unless there is something reliable cited that verifies that the other numbers "are not officially retired, however they are no longer issued by the team", all those other names should be removed on grounds that they are unsourced. Zzyzx11 (talk) 06:27, 23 February 2016 (UTC)reply

Thanks, I'll use these. The only one I was positive about was Taylor. Which is odd anyway, since he only played his last season with the team and if anyone should retire his number it's the Packers. But I digress. Lizard (talk) 07:10, 23 February 2016 (UTC)reply

Is there anyone who wants to make a Saints WikiProject as there doesn't seem to be one. My goal is to make all Saints players pages look their best and be up to date, and I was wondering if any other editors would like to help. Leggomygreggo8 (talk) 19:06, 4 March 2016 (UTC)reply

I think you should go for it. I'm not sure what it takes to start one up but I'd be happy to join a Saints WikiProject if one was created. Lizard (talk) 21:28, 4 March 2016 (UTC)reply

I don't see anything wrong with listing the Aints nickname. For one thing, it's a nickname that originated with the team's own fan base. As written in the article:

In 1980, the Saints lost their first 14 games, prompting local sportscaster Bernard "Buddy D" Diliberto to advise Saints supporters to wear paper bags over their heads at the team's home games; many bags rendered the club's name as the "'Aints" rather than the "Saints."¹

So it is indeed referenced, just not in the infobox, because the infobox is (supposed to be) a summary of the contents of an article. And you can't find a much higher-quality source than the NYT. Secondly, a nickname doesn't have to be endearing. The Lovable Losers is a widely recognized name for the Chicago Cubs. Most importantly, Wikipedia articles should have a neutral point of view. Deleting the nickname on the basis that it's offensive violates this. We put what the sources tell us. On that note, none of those other nicknames are sourced anywhere in the article, so one could argue the only nickname that even belongs in the infobox is the Aints. Lizard (talk) 00:51, 19 June 2016 (UTC) reply

Alright, I agree. The other nicknames are fine. Wait for other people though. My only complaint is that the nickname is not used today. The other nicknames have been used at the present time however this one hasn't. What do we do with nicknames that are no longer in use? Leggomygreggo8 (talk) 01:03, 19 June 2016 (UTC)reply

It's arguably used about as much as Dome Patrol is today. Each of those names are a part of the team's history. Like Murderers' Row for the Yankees or Monsters of the Midway for the Bears. Lizard (talk) 02:24, 19 June 2016 (UTC)reply

Ref for that?? Leggomygreggo8 (talk) 05:35, 19 June 2016 (UTC)reply

I'm just going off of what I've observed, which is why I said "arguably." I live around New Orleans and really "The Black and Gold" and "The Bless You Boys" are the only ones I usually hear. Lizard (talk) 17:25, 19 June 2016 (UTC)reply

Era specific nicknames still belong in the infobox, although I don't know if they need years attached to them or not. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 03:10, 24 June 2016 (UTC)reply

Team win/loss record section needs to be updated. We have played and won 2 games since the last update. I had been updating the section each week after every game until the page was locked recently. Thanks-

It's not possible to unprotect only a section of a page. Someone will get to it eventually, there's no rush. Lizard (talk) 16:34, 29 December 2017 (UTC)reply

Alternately, if you compile 10 constructive edits over the next 4 days you can become a confirmed user and be able to edit protected pages. Lizard (talk) 16:39, 29 December 2017 (UTC)reply

Hello. I made a section regarding the Saints-Vikings rivalry. Vikings fans consider New Orleans to be their #1 rivalry outside of their division. Here are my sources.

https://thevikingage.com/2019/03/24/minnesota-vikings-2019-free-agency-good-bad-surprising/ https://www.sbnation.com/2018/1/14/16885810/vikings-fans-hate-saints-nfl-playoffs-2018 https://vikingswire.usatoday.com/2019/03/22/the-saints-are-looking-a-lot-like-the-vikings/

User:Sabbatino is removing my contribution without reading my sources. I need someone else to "confirm" this rivalry. My sources make it pretty clear that there is bad blood between the Vikings and the Saints. Thank you. StephenCezar15 (talk) 01:47, 29 March 2019 (UTC)reply

@StephenCezar15: Just to make it clear on why it was removed. Fansided and SB Nation are questionable sources. You need sources from more established and more reliable websites like NFL, ESPN, CBS Sports, etc. And nobody has to "confirm" this rivalry, because there are no moderators for pages in Wikipedia. In addition, do not reintroduce your alleged rivalry until the discussion is over. – Sabbatino (talk) 07:47, 29 March 2019 (UTC)reply

I agree. It shouldn't be a problem finding coverage in general sources, not just team dedicated fan sites, if this is a significant rivalry.—Bagumba (talk) 11:28, 29 March 2019 (UTC)reply

That makes 0 sense. But if you want, I found sources that meet your standards. 1. https://www.theadvocate.com/new_orleans/sports/saints/article_cb40b6d0-f844-11e7-9886-2f4422dcdd9e.html 2. https://www.dailycomet.com/sports/20180110/saints-vikings-have-real-bitter-rivalry 3. https://www.foxsports.com/nfl/story/nfl-2018-vikings-packers-rivalry-as-fierce-as-ever-082818 4. https://bleacherreport.com/articles/945112-5-most-hated-oppononents-in-new-orleans-saints-history#slide5

1- The article (Not the headline) only uses the word rivalry once. 2- Bleacher report fails WP:RS. I didn't look at the other ones....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 18:26, 29 March 2019 (UTC)reply

1- That's honestly the stupidest thing I have ever heard. 2- Bleacher Report was used for the Dallas Cowboys "rivalry". Should that be deleted too?

You do realize that your WP:RUDE attitude does not help in this discussion? I searched it myself and there is no rivalry between these teams. If an article pops up, it usually has a mention (sentence at best) about it. – Sabbatino (talk) 07:12, 30 March 2019 (UTC)reply

Sure you did.

The all time franchise record versus the Falcons is still at 53-51. It is now 53-53. 2600:8807:5466:1C00:545:F1AD:104F:62D1 (talk) 03:42, 22 September 2022 (UTC)reply