Talk:List of NHL seasons

message: I went ahead and changed the structure of this article from a messy grouping of links to a numbered table to better tell which NHL season was which. Now it's very simple to find out, for instance, which season was the 50th or something. I also removed the NHA seasons, since those are included already in the List of pre-NHL seasons. I just need help filling in start/end dates. Anything else that should be in the table? Jmj713 (talk) 22:42, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: It was reverted I guess, but it's now updated to several tables to include the information. I suggest we keep the NHA table because of the cross-over of teams, schedule format, etc. ʘ alaney2k ʘ (talk) 16:13, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Like I already told you, you've done an excellent job with the article, bringing it up to a whole new level. I think the same should be done with the list of pre-NHL seasons, too. Jmj713 (talk) 16:15, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  Good idea. After finishing this one. ʘ alaney2k ʘ (talk) 16:18, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  List to table 

message: When I saw the revert, I looked into the other contrib of the anon -- cutting back List of NBA seasons. Anyway, List of NBA seasons also has links for the playoffs and finals for that season. Which I think we should do for the NHL seasons article. What do you think? The column header 'Year' used in the NBA article is not too clear, though. What should we use? Also, a reference column is probably a good idea, although we need probably more than one reference per season. The only issue (for now) is that not all playoff season articles are done. Something I've been working on in the background, so maybe we can just link Finals articles. Of course, we could put this off until all of those articles are up to scratch. ʘ alaney2k ʘ (talk) 16:12, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I was actually thinking about doing that as we were expanding the list. I think the tables definitely do need a Playoffs and a Finals columns. We do have very few articles of the older playoffs, and that should be rectified hopefully. Putting redlinks in the tables will allow for a good overview of what's missing. Jmj713 (talk) 16:23, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  I've started with the Current Era. I'll do it a section at a time. I think the first era from 1915 will be all redlinks for playoffs. Maybe in that first era, the articles should be named NHL playoffs, not Stanley Cup playoffs. ʘ alaney2k ʘ (talk) 16:33, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps. DO we know what they were called in the press at the time? Jmj713 (talk) 16:38, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Further columns 

message: You say they are referred to as if the 04-05 season didn't happen. Can you show me where? Because the big 100th anniversary of the Canadians didn't remove the 04-05 season. Its long been held in the wikiproject that seasons are more than just the games. For example the draft still happened in the 04-05 season. Other league business still happened. The season still happened, just the games did not. Which is why we still have seperate season pages for the league and all the teams and why we label the 04-05 season as the 87th (See 2004-05 Toronto Maple Leafs season) and the next year the 88th (See 2005-06 Toronto Maple Leafs season). -DJSasso (talk) 17:37, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: If so, why are the Blue Jackets celebrating their 10th season this season, instead of last season? Jmj713 (talk) 17:52, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: My guess is that they are doing what the Flames did. The Flames called it their 26th NHL season in Calgary while the team celebrated its 25th season of play in 2005-06. -DJSasso (talk) 17:57, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

text: The 100th referred to 100 years since founding. (Founded in December 1909) Giving the lock-out year a number seems to be confusing when reading the article. The lock-out year was NOT a season of play. Yeah, there are articles for the teams and the league, but that doesn't make it a season of play. And that's what I think the table column defines, nothing else. I don't know why the Leafs article is like that. I don't think the other teams are like that. I doubt the Leafs 'officially' count it that way. ʘ alaney2k ʘ (talk) 17:53, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Most if not all of the team articles are like that. I have no problem with going either way. I just think we should be consistant. -DJSasso (talk) 17:55, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I think we should correct those articles. We should define the numbering as 'season of play' and that should not be a source of disagreement, no? ʘ alaney2k ʘ (talk) 17:58, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  The Season (sport) defines season as 'in session'. So there was no session that year. ʘ alaney2k ʘ (talk) 18:01, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

text: Yup rewording to that would work fine. -DJSasso (talk) 18:01, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: In the first line of the article there is a link to season. But I'll make the sentence clear. The Leaf's article was in error. It said -- would have been 87th -- when it would have been the 88th. I'll look at all of the season articles to be consistent. Are you otherwise happy with our work on this article? I'd like to work it up to FL. ʘ alaney2k ʘ (talk) 18:06, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah looks pretty good, and yeah I noticed that soon as I went to the Flames article. Was going to change the example but you had already replied so didn't want to make your comment out of context. -DJSasso (talk) 18:10, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Season numbers 

message: I think this could use a column to the right (non-sortable) listing all of the seasons that each team had the top record, like is done at the Stanley Cup champions article? ʘ alaney2k ʘ (talk) 16:33, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Certainly. I'm always for more information, not less. Jmj713 (talk) 16:37, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  All-time top record holders 

message: Looking at this list and the History of the NHL articles, they break down nicely into 25-year chunks. We have here the "Early Years" from 1917 to 1942 (seasons 1 through 25), then "Original Six" from 1942 to 1967 (seasons 25 through 50), then the "Expansion years" from 1967 to 1992 (seasons 51 to 75), so it stands to reason the following era would last from 1992 to 2017 (seasons 76 to 100) (not sure what we'd call this yet), and then the real "Current era" would be the next 25 seasons starting in 2017 with the 101st season, coinciding with Vegas starting play. Makes sense, right? Jmj713 (talk) 21:48, 5 January 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Eras