# Talk:Vegas Golden Knights

Why can't the Vegas Golden Knights Practice Facility be listed on the Wikipedia page? 2600:8801:2D01:64D0:4C52:6E66:FD09:97C3 (talk) 02:57, 1 August 2017 (UTC)NetWitz

@Contributions/2600:8801:2D01:64D0:4C52:6E66:FD09:97C3: Because more editors feel it is not relevant, notable or important to the team history (WP:CONSENSUS). No more so than say their locker rooms. Yosemiter (talk) 02:58, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
I don't get why it isn't relevant, the official website has a page for the practice facility. NetWitz (talk) 03:12, 1 August 2017 (UTC)NetWitz

Lots of irrelevant things are listed on their official website, directions to parking at the arena for example. The usual criterion for determining notability is significant third party coverage, which I don't see here. GiovanniSidwell (talk) 12:19, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
But the team's practice facility is not irrelavent  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:8801:2D01:64D0:1497:AE25:24D9:779F (talk) 23:20, 3 August 2017 (UTC) 

It is for an encyclopedia. Think of it this way, in 30 years is someone going to care what the teams practice facility was in their first season? Or the better way to think of it, would someone have a gaping hole in their knowledge of the team if it were not included. I don't think the answer is yes in either case. -DJSasso (talk) 23:24, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
I restored Djsasso's comments, which the IP editor deleted when commenting. I second the comment that a practice facility is no more notable than a locker room, and in teh grand scheme of things is not worthy of addition - regardless of whether WP:Other stuff exists such as in an NBA article. Echoedmyron (talk) 23:41, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
I complete disagree with both of you, the la clippers have their practice facility mentioned on their page and I think the golden knights should have theirs listed in some way as well 2600:8801:2D01:64D0:1497:AE25:24D9:779F (talk) 23:46, 3 August 2017 (UTC)NetWitz
How do I get City National Arena unblocked from creation? NetWitz (talk) 17:44, 16 August 2017 (UTC)NetWitz
While I highly disagree with the edit as the IP (likely NetWitz?) is inserting it, it could plausibly be added to the "Team information" section. That section is usually reserved for info regarding name, logo, jersey, etc. but could be cleaned up and expanded upon if the facility is actually notable. However, my research into City National Arena shows only routine coverage (VGK's own posts and Las Vegas region's newspapers) and none so far from national coverage (although it is new so maybe just WP:TOOSOON). At this time, it does not appear to be notable and certainly not notable to the team history section. Yosemiter (talk) 01:04, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
The practice facility is where the team is headquartered and would actually be spending most of its time, so it seems to me that it's important enough to mention in the article. Several NHL practice facilities even have their own articles, see Category:National Hockey League practice facilities. Toohool (talk) 02:08, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

Right, but that's less than a third of the league's teams. If the Vegas practice facility becomes notable enough to require its own article, then sure it would be notable enough for inclusion here. I think there's two things happening here: 1) WP:TOOSOON - it was just announced, so there's little to say about it other than that at this point. 2) This article as the main one for the team, has had a lot of blow-by-blow stuff added with every little bit of minutiae as things develop. Some of these details might be more appropriate when a History of the Vegas Golden Knights article is eventually created, no? Echoedmyron (talk) 14:12, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
@Echoedmyron: The editor in question already did create a page for City National Arena. Looking into it, I was thinking about taking it to AfD but decided to give it a week. (Prodding it would be useless because the editor will just de-prod). Yosemiter (talk) 14:30, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
City National Arena page has been updated and is listed on Category:National Hockey League practice facilities 2600:8801:2D01:64D0:CDFD:8073:4D5A:15F (talk) 21:15, 5 August 2017 (UTC)NetWitz
I agree it's TOOSOON to consider the arena notable, but notability is not the standard for what information to include  in an article. The question is whether it's important to a comprehensive understanding of the article topic. A major real estate asset that the team owns and where it's headquartered, seems to me to be important to understanding the team as a business organization. Not that we need a blow-by-blow of its history, like what the anon was trying to add, but a description like: "The team's headquarters and practice facility, scheduled to open in ___ 2017, is City National Arena, located next to Downtown Summerlin. It will also serve as the home rink of the UNLV hockey team and as a venue for junior hockey games." Toohool (talk) 21:17, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

@Toohool: I'm not saying it absolutely should not be included, I am saying it is not important to the overall team history and should not be included there. The editor in question however, appears to rather have revert wars than discussions with claims of WP:ITSIMPORTANT which makes it hard to do anything constructive (see City National Arena edit history). Yosemiter (talk) 21:43, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
Where is the correct place on Wikipedia to list City National Arena?2600:1011:B05B:BF90:C8B8:4D3C:A6DB:F364 (talk) 03:21, 16 August 2017 (UTC)NetWitz

As I said on my talk page when you posed the same question there, "nowhere." You seem to be under the impression that such things are commonly mentioned in the team articles, which they are not; I went through all the Pacific Division team pages, last night, and not a single one even received a casual namedrop.   Ravenswing   03:30, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
Your attempts to do an end run against consensus are getting tiresome. I see you have created both City National Arena (NHL Practice Facility) and additionally City Aational Arena (with a presumably deliberate spelling error), while page creation of City National Arena itself has been blocked. Please drop the stick and move on. Echoedmyron (talk) 17:37, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
First all the spelling error was not deliberate and you are rude for accusing me, second how do I get City National Arena unblocked from creation? NetWitz (talk) 17:47, 16 August 2017 (UTC)NetWitz

Quick note from someone who saw this on the Admin noticeboard.  The Arena page was deleted through the Article for Deletion process.  You should start at the deletion review page, where you can ask others to review the AFD decision.  Your next option after that is to ask the admin who deleted the page (see the AFD page for that) if they can restore the page to your user space (userfy the page) or as a Draft article.  That will let you work on the page to improve it to the point it may pass review.  Read through the comments others have left though - you'll need to address those concerns to have a chance of getting the page moved back to main article space.  Not everything warrants a Wikipedia article.  Often, something like this may just be a quick blurb in some related article.  Good luck. Ravensfire (talk) 20:59, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
Ok, thank you @Ravensfire NetWitz (talk) 07:51, 18 August 2017 (UTC)NetWitz
It says in the SBNation article mentioned above that the UNLV hockey team will use it for home games. I personally still don't think it's notable to have it's own page, but it should probably be mentioned in passing at least. The brave celery (talk) 01:07, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

Considering that hockey isn't considered an important enough sport at UNLV to receive so much as a casual mention on the UNLV Rebels page, I don't see the relevance of them using this rink as their home ice to this article.   Ravenswing   02:00, 15 December 2017 (UTC)


### City National Arena
Hello everybody.  It seems that there are two related but separate questions being discussed here.  (1) Should City National Arena, the headquarters and practice facility of the Vegas Golden Knights, have its own Wikipedia article?  (2) Should City National Arena be mentioned in this, the main article for the Vegas Golden Knights?  My answers to these questions are (1) no opinion and (2) yes.  The headquarters and practice facility are definitely non-trivial, and would be of interest to some readers, so it should be included in this article.  In fact I recently added a short paragraph about the arena, with a few nice footnotes, but that was removed by an anonymous editor, here.  I'm going to go ahead and put it back in.  I've read through this discussion section and I'm just not convinced that this is too trivial to mention, especially since it's gotten some news coverage.  — Mudwater (Talk) 15:49, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

@Mudwater: Well, #1 is answered here as clearly against. For #2, this discussion has editors clearly against its inclusion in the Franchise history section as it is not notable to the franchise history. However, it could merit comment in the Team info section as per Toohool's contribution. That is the edit that should be open to discussion. I should note, Ravenswing has done some looking into the other articles and no other Pacific Division team has their practice facilities and headquarters mentioned, but just because WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS or doesn't exist shouldn't matter. (on a side note, I saw you mentioned the Las Vegas Sun as being "a slightly better reference", but it doesn't really matter here as both could be considered routine or run-of-the-mill regional-only coverage.) Yosemiter (talk) 16:38, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
@Yosemiter: Another thing to keep in mind here is that, as it says at WP:NNC, "The notability guidelines do not apply to contents of articles..."  In order to have its own Wikipedia article, a subject -- City National Arena, or whatever -- should meet the guidelines for notability.  But to be mentioned or discussed within an article, a subject does not have to meet the notability guidelines.  It only has to be non-trivial, and otherwise suitable for the article.  In my view the arena is non-trivial, and the article is better if it's mentioned.  The fact that it's received coverage from multiple news sources is just more evidence that it's non-trivial.  As to where in the article this should go, I don't have a strong opinion about that.  — Mudwater (Talk) 17:54, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
@Mudwater: I am well aware of the guideline. But it should be apparent from the above discussion that some do consider it trivial to the extent that for the Golden Knights, it is no more significant than a mailing address or a locker room. At most, it is evident that it merits only be a single sentence in the team information section (the restaurant is completely insignificant and 90% of all rec centers have a snack bar). I personally have no problem with Toohool's edit that I linked before, but some might still see it as trivial. Yosemiter (talk) 18:43, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
There are provably a fraction of readers mildly interested in its existence, but I'd wager I could scare up some readers who'd be interested in the company that makes Fleury's skates, the color of the locker room carpet, and the name of the president of the booster club, all items for which I bet I'll be able to find some press mention somewhere.  My objection to the practice facility being mentioned in any franchise history section is that over the course of a team's history, the identity of the practice rink in any given season IS trivial.  Certainly no other team article in the Knights' division sees fit to mention them, and I expect that's the same league-wide.  I'm not opposed to such a mention in the 2017-18 team season article, but in the main article, no.   Ravenswing   20:38, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
Out of curiosity, if a Professional Minor league team were to start using City National Arena, would that make it notable enough to be on wikipedia? NetWitz (talk) 01:27, 20 August 2017 (UTC)NetWitz

In this very hypothetical situation (LV had an ECHL team previously and it folded due to no arena, but at this time I highly doubt VGK will allow competition or launch its own minor league team as they just signed a 3 or 5 year deal the Wolves), it depends on whether the arena gets some non-regional coverage and probably based on the exposure the hypothetical team gets. If said hypothetical team is at the AHL level, then the arena would likely be notable. The ECHL is a likely but not definite and anything lower (SPHL, FHL, junior), it is highly unlikely (based on my observations) that the team's presence will make it notable. Yosemiter (talk) 01:36, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
How about an NCAA hockey team? NetWitz (talk) 01:41, 20 August 2017 (UTC)NetWitz
Div. I - probably, still all hypotheticals as it actually depends on the coverage of the facility, not the tenant. Yosemiter (talk) 01:57, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
Does this count as non-regional? [[1]] NetWitz (talk) 02:07, 20 August 2017 (UTC)NetWitz

That is a non-independent blog (that is what the "B" stands for in SB Nation). A good source for routine coverage, but not usually enough to establish GNG (IMO). Yosemiter (talk) 02:47, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
Oh ok. Thank you @User:Yosemiter NetWitz (talk) 05:14, 20 August 2017 (UTC)NetWitz
The UNLV hockey team is confirmed to use City National Arena is their home arena (Proof: [[2]]), does that make it notable enough? -NetWitz- 01:53, 24 August 2017 (UTC)NetWitz

For pity's sake, no. What makes it notable is for it to receive significant coverage from multiple, reliable sources, and non-local to boot.  NetWitz, will you just let it go?  If this skating rink becomes notable enough for a Wikipedia article, someone else can write the article, but this crossed the line into obsession weeks ago.   Ravenswing   09:37, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
Oh ok, thank you @Ravenswing btw, there was no need for you to reply to me in a rude attitude -NetWitz- 15:27, 24 August 2017 (UTC)NetWitz

Quite aside from that you've shown no hesitation or compunction to be rude to a number of editors (a contributing factor to your blocking), I'm not at all the first editor to urge you to drop this crusade.  The community has decided several times over that this practice rink is not notable in any way, shape or form.  Take that consensus as a settled fact and move on.   Ravenswing   07:31, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
I'm perfectly fine with dropping it, I just don't like being talked in a rude manner that's all, over and out -NetWitz- 07:43, 25 August 2017 (UTC)NetWitz

I think the team uniform images needs to added.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:8801:2D01:64D0:4816:99D:7CEE:3A33 (talk) 00:15, 8 August 2017 (UTC) 
Out of curiosity, will uniform images ever be added or is that not mandatory? NetWitz (talk) 07:50, 18 August 2017 (UTC)NetWitz

It would be nice to have, but it is certainly not "mandatory". They have to be created by someone with sufficient graphical editing skills. I believe @Kevin W. and Rickyharder: have done some of the ones for other teams. Yosemiter (talk) 17:38, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
Thank you @Yosemiter!!!  Also, User:Silent Wind of Doom has done many team uniform images as well. NetWitz (talk) 01:35, 20 August 2017 (UTC)NetWitz

I have made uniform graphics for the Hebrew version of this article. I'm not the best graphics guy in teh world so there may be some inaccuracies, but check it out here. Keep in mind that Hebrew is written right to left, so the home uniform is to the right in my graphics. Tdunsky (talk) 11:32, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
Sorry this has taken so long.  Just decided to finally do it.  Might also go ahead and do the rest of the league.  This is a new template, which I'll apply to everything else.  The size restrictions on the image causes it to become blurry, but after some screwing around, I couldn't quite figure out how to fix it.  Hopefully someone else will. --The Silent Wind of Doom (talk) 05:59, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
I just cleaned up the wording of "Home" and "Away" and made only the first letters upper case for ease of reading. That's it. Fyunck(click) (talk) 06:12, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
Thank you @Silent Wind of Doom: and @Fyunck(click):!!! -NetWitz- 07:00, 16 October 2017 (UTC)NetWitz

@Ravenswing: Why do you think this article needs a section for retired numbers when the team hasn't retired any numbers? The only content in the section is the statement that Gretzky's #99 has been retired league-wide, which is not information that is specific to this team, and therefore doesn't need to be in this article, any more so than the fact that the team isn't allowed to have more than 50 players under contract. By my count, there are 3 other NHL teams that haven't retired any numbers (Nashville Predators, San Jose Sharks, Columbus Blue Jackets), and none of those articles mention #99. Toohool (talk) 04:59, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

Those other team articles should likewise mention this fact - that they don't doesn't mean it shouldn't be included here. That number is considered "retired" league-wide. It's not like a number that is forbidden from use, like the number 00; that doesn't need to be mentioned here, but 99 does. Echoedmyron (talk) 14:09, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
How is the fact that 99 is a retired number any more relevant to this article than the fact that 00 is not a permitted number? Toohool (talk) 17:54, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
Because teams typically have sections discussing retired numbers, and nowhere sections discussing what numbers the league permits them to use.   Ravenswing   18:44, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
So you insist on having a Retired Numbers section simply for consistency with other teams, even though this section conveys no information about the Golden Knights? Anyway, teams that haven't retired any numbers do not "typically" have such a section, as I pointed out above. By your logic, this article should have an Awards section that says "The team has not won any awards," and a Hall of Famers section that says "The team has not had any Hall of Fame players." Toohool (talk) 03:00, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
It does convey information: that the Golden Knights cannot issue #99.  By contrast, there is no league award debarred from the Knights, nor any person ever associated with the franchise who is a HHOF member.   Ravenswing   11:45, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

See Las Vegas or Paradise at the T-Mobile talk page. Thanks. Fyunck(click) (talk) 21:21, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

Many readers may not know the significance of the red asterisks and/or the capital “A” designation. Orthotox (talk) 21:28, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

All NHL team rosters use the standard template Template:Ice hockey team roster, which does not produce a legend. However the red crosses for injured players and the Cs and As are all links; the As and Cs take one to the appropriate sections of Captain (ice hockey) and the cross links to the image file Injured Reserve (and mousing over it on desktop reveals that as the image title also, for what it's worth). Echoedmyron (talk) 22:46, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

Should there be a section that talks about the trademark dispute with the U.S. Army Parachute Team? SportsFan007 (talk) 05:01, 13 January 2018 (UTC)SportsFam007

There already is. The only thing that might be changed is to remove the phrase "expressed concern" as they are disputing it and then add a ref. Yosemiter (talk) 06:00, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

All minor-league franchises - baseball, basketball and football as well as hockey, and for that matter soccer - are "professional sports franchises." You can do your own research on the rest, but Vegas has had at least a minor league and therefore professional baseball franchise for decades.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.77.146.34 (talk) 04:32, 24 February 2018 (UTC) 

Which is why it says: The team became the first major professional sports franchise to be based in Las Vegas. Major pro is defined separately from just pro. Yosemiter (talk) 04:35, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

Could you PLEASE call one of the sections in the History section "2017–18: First season, first Stanley cup Final". Please. 2602:304:5D4E:5E49:7DE1:DCA2:B531:F64E (talk) 18:48, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

Is that better than Start of operations: 2017–present?  Sam Sailor 16:25, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
 Not done: The page's protection level has changed since this request was placed. You should now be able to edit the page yourself. If you still seem to be unable to, please reopen the request with further details. —KuyaBriBriTalk 15:28, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

In the infobox, the general manager should be changed to Kelly McCrimmon. 95TonyG (talk) 08:05, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

 Not done for now: The source says he will become General Manager effective September 1, 2019. Please feel free to reopen the request closer to the time. Danski454 (talk) 11:16, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

The new alternate uniforms have steel grey sections on the sleeves and socks, as opposed to black. Additionally, the helmets are the grey home helmets, not black.
The Kip (talk) 23:04, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

I'm not sure if its real or not (judging by the draft and the jersey sponsor picture, its real), but beginning in 2022-23 nhl season the Knights have the gold jerseys their home, I just wanted to let you guys know that we will have to make the gold jersey their home. 45BearsFan (talk) 20:36, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

Plenty of opportunity to make the adjustment when/if the team makes an announcement.  (Pity if true, though; the grey uniforms were distinctive.)   Ravenswing      00:30, 27 July 2022 (UTC)
As of September 20th, the announcement is real, and we should change it. 45BearsFan (talk) 03:17, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

Something should be mentioned after the fact that the Vegas Golden Knights missed the playoffs for the first time in franchise history on April 27, 2022, that Peter DeBoer was fired on May 16, 2022 and replaced by Bruce Cassidy on June 14, 2022. 129.100.205.229 (talk) 21:24, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. RealAspects (talk) 12:32, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

The records for season by season are incorrect. if you click the link and go to the full records page,they are correct but not on the main page here. The information is all over the place.
I would correct it myself but the page appears to be locked.
Thank you 2001:56A:FBE3:6E00:69DB:87B:F88:C75A (talk) 20:09, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

Could you point out the specific corrections that need to be made? I'm looking through the table and am having trouble spotting the error. Once its made clear though, I'll be more than happy to make to make the change. Leventio (talk) 20:28, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
The season by season records are correct, the 2017–18 season was removed from the table in this article as the team has now completed more than five seasons. This is consistent with other active teams, except for Seattle as they have only completed two seasons. Deadman137 (talk) 03:17, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

Season 2600:1700:B283:4DD0:A974:6723:4473:CA5A (talk) 00:49, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 00:56, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

Whoever said they won Stanley Cup is wrong. Please correct. 172.58.139.90 (talk) 03:04, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

Already fixed. Deadman137 (talk) 03:07, 11 June 2023 (UTC)
Where's their 2017-2018 playoff run in the table? Or am I missing something? 172.58.139.90 (talk) 03:10, 11 June 2023 (UTC)
Table only goes back five seasons, per all NHL team pages. GoodDay (talk) 03:12, 11 June 2023 (UTC)
It only tracks the past five seasons so the 2017–18 season was removed, this was also done for the other 30 teams that played that year. The full details are in the linked article in the section. Deadman137 (talk) 03:18, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

Can someone please add a navigation box to the Vegas Golden Knights page? The Golden Knights came after Colorado and are the most recent champions. Can you please add what I said? Please. 2601:40A:8400:5A40:C939:ECBD:B532:AA32 (talk) 20:10, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

 Done Leventio (talk) 23:50, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:Vegas Golden Knights/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Cherrell410 (talk · contribs) 02:42, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

 
GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

It is reasonably well written.
a. (prose, spelling, and grammar): 

b. (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists): 

It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a. (reference section): 

b. (citations to reliable sources): 

c. (OR): 

d. (copyvio and plagiarism): 

9.1%
It is broad in its coverage.
a. (major aspects): 

b. (focused): 

It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias: 

It is stable.
No edit wars, etc.: 

It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
a. (images are tagged and non-free content have non-free use rationales): 

b. (appropriate use with suitable captions): 

Overall:
Pass/fail: 

Suggestions for improvement will be left below
Lead: The lead section shouldn't include references, unless absolutely necessary. Most of the time, I would let one or two slide, but this article has 8 references. These should be removed, and the content that they are referencing should be explained later in the article.
Background and establishment: could you define what phase ii and phase iii are, and get a source for phase iii
Start of operations and the inaugural season (2017–2018): source needed for 2017 draft paragraph, as the one given is about the first game (make sure source provides info about everything in the paragraph, use multiple if needed)
Start of operations and the inaugural season (2017–2018): source needed for winning 8 of first 9 games
Start of operations and the inaugural season (2017–2018): source needed for Shipachyov's retirement
Start of operations and the inaugural season (2017–2018): "they have led the pacific since december 23, 2017" is unclear. in every game since then, the knights have led the division in all seasons? that needs to be more clear to specify that that was just for 2017-18. if that is true, i would like multiple sources verifing this. If it isn't true i still need a source for this statement
Start of operations and the inaugural season (2017–2018): source needed for first game
Start of operations and the inaugural season (2017–2018) - last sentence of section: source given doesn't prove everything in the sentence
Continued contention and first Stanley Cup championship (2018–present): neal and david perron - it should be james neal and david perron
Continued contention and first Stanley Cup championship (2018–present): "after a late jonathan marchessault game-tying" --> "after a late game-tying ... by jonathan marchessault"
Continued contention and first Stanley Cup championship (2018–present): space after ref 85
Continued contention and first Stanley Cup championship (2018–present): info about the hiring of mccrimmon and whatever happened to mcphee
2022–23: Stanley Cup champions: more sources needed in 3rd para (begins with the golden knights began...)
Cherrell410 (talk) 01:07, 25 June 2023 (UTC)
Thanks for the review, and apologies for the late response. I'll do my best to fix the issues this week. The Kip (talk) 00:10, 27 June 2023 (UTC)
@Cherrell410 Everything should be cleaned up now. Most stuff sourced, some bits that couldn't be were removed. I left one ref in the lead for the record, as it falls under a more controversial statement; otherwise, it should be good to go. The Kip (talk) 07:26, 28 June 2023 (UTC)
Okay. Give me a minute to check everything, but congrats on your GA! Cherrell410 (talk) 15:57, 28 June 2023 (UTC)
And thank you for the prompt review! I was expecting to wait a few months for this, haha. The Kip (talk) 16:03, 28 June 2023 (UTC)
(Criteria marked  are unassessed)

Title.
"Black Knight Sports and Entertainment" seems like an obsolete title for his company; which is now (and what I'm suggest the edit should be to) "Foley Entertainment Group" (official website with a name, more current Google hits).
Also unrelated but somewhat related, I'm trying to search through quickly, but I think "Foley Entertainment Group" is a separate entity from Foley's other groups/holdings "Black Knight, Inc.", "Fidelity National Financial", and "Fidelity National Information Services, Inc." (all 3 of these companies are on Bill Foley's wiki, albeit the link is dead). 
@The Kip Duyneuzaenasagae (talk) 03:57, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

I made the change. Duyneuzaenasagae (talk) 16:20, 22 July 2023 (UTC)
Just to clarify (cause honestly, you could list either or as owners, as its just a matter of how precise and granular you want to get).
But Black Knight Sports and Entertainment (BKSE) is not an obsolete name for the Foley Entertainment Group (FEG), nor are they considered the same entity. BKSE was formed several years before Foley made FEG to manage his entire entertainment portfolio (multiple teams, venues, hotels, etc.). When he formed FEG in 2021, BKSE basically became a subsidiary of the new company (as did Glacier Restaurant Group, SK Entertainment, etc.). However, FEG did not absorb BKSE in its own right, and BKSE is still considered an (subsidiary) entity in its own right.
BKSE LLC is still the formal owners of the Vegas Golden Knights, but BKSE itself is now a subsidiary company of FEG. This is why all VGK publications are still copyrighted under the BKSE name. Leventio (talk) 17:32, 22 July 2023 (UTC)
Giving it some thought, I've restored the ownership parameter to show BKSE, given what I said above. As explained earlier, BKSE and FEG are not the same entities (BKSE is a subsidiary company of FEG, see here for list of FEG affiliated entities).
That, and the official ownership of the team remains under BKSE (see any press material released by VGK or NHL, as well as the this press release about the Foley Group's creation here, specifically where it continues to refer to BKSE as the named owners at the end). Leventio (talk) 20:39, 23 July 2023 (UTC)
Okay makes sense. Corporate structuring can get confusing some times 😂 Duyneuzaenasagae (talk) 02:22, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

Per the WP:BRD earlier, I personally believe that "(colloquially referred to as the Knights)" should be added to the lead, akin to that on Toronto Maple Leafs and Detroit Red Wings. While the short name is heavily-used amidst the fanbase, that's not exactly an RS; that said, one RS, the Las Vegas Review-Journal, does heavily use it, as shown in 1, 2, 3, and so on.
Most others seem to use the full name, which I'm a bit surprised by, but in my opinion the LVRJ might be enough considering it's their home market's primary newspaper.
(Pinging @Sbaio per earlier revert). The Kip 18:37, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

I have not seen anyone else use it except for LVRJ. In addition, looks like there might be a WP:COI issue regarding LVRJ if they are related to the team in any way. – sbaio 18:37, 1 February 2024 (UTC)
How is that COI? I'm not seeing an editor who claims to write for the Review-Journal at work here. That's like saying we can't use the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette to cover the Pittsburgh Penguins. dannymusiceditor  oops  04:57, 2 February 2024 (UTC)
IMHO, colloquial names should be deleted from all the NHL team pages. GoodDay (talk) 19:51, 1 February 2024 (UTC)
I disagree with several of GoodDay's opinions on hockey-related Wikipedia editing, but I would for the most part agree with them here. If the nickname is something close to the full name - Pens, Caps, Nucks, Leafs, Wings, Sens, Oil, or literally just a part of the name in this case, the list goes on - such names can be very, very easily inferred by anyone and it's not close enough to warrant including in the lead if anywhere. (I have different feelings about teams such as the Habs and Bolts, but that does not apply here and we can discuss that elsewhere.) dannymusiceditor  oops  05:03, 2 February 2024 (UTC)
For nicknames like Wings and Knights, I'm pretty solidly on the side that its an redundant inclusion, given that its just the last word of the name.
That said, this should be handled on a case by case basis (and not a blanket ban on all team articles), as the names have differing circumstances that could strengthen their case for inclusion.
For names like Pens, Caps, Sens, and Nucks, I can see someone arguing for their inclusion given that they are not words, but contractions and would not be clearly evident to the uninitiated. The fact these articles use the nicknames throughout its body would further the case for inclusion (that said, I don't think we should be using nicknames at all in the body, but that's besides the point). That all said though, whoever would make the argument would need to make a strong case for its common use in RS to justify its inclusion.
Building upon all that, I feel the only (name derived) nickname that should be included without question is Nucks (which hilariously enough isn't in the Vancouver Canucks article). Unlike Knights and Wings, Nucks in itself is not a word in the name, and more importantly, unlike the contractions like Sens, Pens, Caps, etc., Nucks actually serves as a primary redirect to the team article. Based on WP:RPLA guidelines, mention of Nucks should be included in the lead (especially as its not a term that forms a "word" in the article title), to make it clear to any potential unititated searcher as to why they were redirected to the article when searching Nucks.
One could make a similar RPLA argument for the Leafs as that's also a redirect, but Leafs being a word of the name sort of weakens its case imo. Leventio (talk) 23:31, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
I agree with Leventio here. Nicknames such as Wings and Knights are generally unnecessary to list (though I also would not object to their inclusion). Nicknames like Pens, Caps, Sens, Nucks are not inherently intuitive. These nicknames are encyclopedically relevant as they are used in reliable sources, and therefore should be mentioned, but they should generally not be used in prose to refer to the teams. Wracking talk! 23:41, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
I agree. In prose, Golden Knights, but a blurb about the team colloquially using Knights works well. Same for the other teams too. Conyo14 (talk) 03:46, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
I support this, in that the nicknames are encyclopedically relevant, while I will add there is no harm including the more intuitive Wings, Leafs, etc. What's intuitive to one may not be intuitive to all. The nicknames should not be used in prose, though. –uncleben85 (talk) 02:08, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
(also, FWIW, Knights has been used by other sources, though perhaps less often and usually in tandem with Golden Knights: see The Athletic [3], TSN [4][5], Associated Press [6][7]) Wracking talk! 00:01, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

Season by Season Record page, 2020-2021 postseason, loss was to the Stars in the Conference Finals, not to the Canadiens in the “Stanley Cup Semifinals,” which doesn’t actually exist. 2600:1700:2B1:9410:B911:ECCE:BBAE:2196 (talk) 21:32, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

 Not done: In 2021 Vegas lost to Montreal and the round name is correct. Deadman137 (talk) 02:51, 7 May 2025 (UTC)