Talk:National Hockey League

message: There are 31 member clubs. Just because Vegas isn't playing yet doesn't mean they don't exist. Correctron (talk) 23:04, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Clubs 

message: The Montreal Canadiens is both a Team and a Franchise. They have had the same logo, same team colours and same name for their entire history (with minor tweaks to their logo of course but still keeping the same overall CH Design). The Detroit Red Wings are both a Team and a Franchise, for the same reasons as the Montreal Canadiens. The Colorado Avalanche is a Hockey Team. Colorado would be the current Franchise, as the Colorado Avalanche have not always been known as the Colorado Avalanche, as they originated in Quebec as the Quebec Nordiques. The same is true for the Toronto Maple Leafs. The Toronto Maple Leafs are a Team, but NOT a Franchise. The Franchise would be the City of Toronto itself. The Toronto Arenas and the Toronto St. Patricks are part of the Toronto FRANCHISE, but they are NOT the same Team as the current Toronto Maple Leafs. So it would be incorrect to say things like, "The Toronto Maple Leafs are 100 years old." Or "The Toronto Maple Leafs have won 13 Stanley Cups." The Toronto Maple Leafs, the TEAM have won 11 Stanley Cups. The City of Toronto FRANCHISE has won 13 Stanley Cups with 3 different Teams. If you want to know the history of the Toronto Maple Leafs, you can look up their previous Teams, The Toronto Arenas and The Toronto St. Patricks, as both of them are different teams from the Toronto Maple Leafs, they both have their own pages on Wikipedia. But long story short, The Arenas had their own logo and their own team colours, when they became the St. Patricks, they changed their name to the St. Patricks, they changed their Team Colours and they changed their Team Logo. Same thing for the Toronto Maple Leafs as well. These were 3 different teams under 3 different owners. It's one thing if someone buys a hockey team and keeps the name and logo, essentially keeping the team the same, but if someone buys a hockey team, moves them or changes their name, logo, colours etc, then it becomes a new team. It's a very simple concept and the only reason people make this confusion with the Maple Leafs is because the Franchise didn't move to a new city but that doesn't change the fact that they became a new team, with a new name and a new identity each time. So when I edit the NHL page to reflect the fact that it is the name of the Franchise is simply "Toronto" and not the "Toronto Maple Leafs" I am making an edit to try and correct this confusion. Sparhawk85 (talk) 16:05, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Completely wrong, legally and intellectually. Plus, if you're going to make unfounded assertions, at least learn how to use capital letters and grammar correctly. Your stuff is unreadable. oknazevad (talk) 16:55, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

text: What Oknazevad said.  You've so far entirely failed to gain any consensus for your non-factual views.  If you keep pushing these edits without doing so, you're at risk of a block.   Ravenswing   16:57, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

text: And I see I am talking to 2 completely retarded Leafs fans. That makes a lot of sense now. The Toronto Arenas is a hockey team. They won 1 Stanley Cup. The Toronto St. Patricks is a hockey team. They also won 1 Stanley Cup. The Toronto Maple Leafs is also a hockey team. They have won 11 Stanley Cups. The Toronto Maple Leafs is a TEAM NOT A FRANCHISE. You cannot factually say the Toronto Maple Leafs have 13 Stanley Cups. Would you please learn the difference between the two. Wikipedia even has a separate page for both The Toronto Arenas and the Toronto St. Patricks. Now please learn how to read and stop making idiotic changes. The table on this page also clearly states that they do not include cups won by defunct teams. The Arenas and The St. Patricks are defunct teams. A consensus on this was reached 2 years ago on the Toronto Maple Leafs talk page itself. And I'm sure it was changed 2 years ago as well and then Leafs fans who refuse to accept the truth, changed it back.
Sparhawk85 (talk) 17:03, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: And now we've crossed in personal attacks. PS, I'm a Devils fan. oknazevad (talk) 17:24, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Co-signing what Oknazevad and Ravenswing said. This argument is incoherent and makes no sense, and has no grounding in facts or reality. Echoedmyron (talk) 17:48, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

text: Yep definitely sounds like I'm talking to a bunch of idiots. If you don't understand the difference between a Hockey Team and a Hockey Franchise, then you have no business making edits on a Hockey Page. The Toronto Maple Leafs have 11 Stanley Cups. the Toronto Arenas have 1 Stanley Cup. The Toronto St. Patricks have 1 Stanley Cup. Those are 3 different Hockey Teams. I explained this to XboxGamer22408 yesterday when he reverted my initial edit and after explaining it to him on his talk page, he fully understood what I was talking about and even said I could go back and re-apply the edit. Sparhawk85 (talk) 17:55, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreeing with Oknazevad and Ravenswing.  Oh and I hate the Toronto Maple Leafs with the intensity of a thousand suns.  You might want to read WP:NPA. Dbrodbeck (talk) 17:57, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: You can hate something all you want, that doesn't make you right. There is a very clear differentiation between a Team and a Franchise. All you gotta do to see this is look at Winnipeg Jets 1972-96 and Arizona Coyotes. Notice 2 things here: 1) All the Division Titles and Avco World Trophies that the Winnipeg Jets won, are NOT considered trophies won by the Arizona Coyotes. 2) Notice how the page for the Phoenix Coyotes doesn't exist anymore and redirects you to the Arizona Coyotes? That's because they are considered the same hockey team. Now notice how Toronto Maple Leafs, [[Toronto Arenas] and Toronto St. Patricks all have their own Wiki page, with their own Championship and Division Titles table etc? Notice how Wikipedia itself already treats these 3 DIFFERENT HOCKEY TEAMS as DIFFERENT HOCKEY TEAMS? If you sell your Broom to your buddy and your buddy doesn't like the bristles on your broom and replaces it with a sponge and then decides he doesn't like the grey handle and decides to repaint it red. Is it really still your broom? Or a broom at all? No, it is now a mop and your buddy has even renamed it to "mop". When you rebrand something, you are changing it. It is no longer the same as it was before. Sparhawk85 (talk) 19:14, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: A city is not a franchise. Teams and franchise are the same. Some pages are split to make them easier to read as there is usually a large amount of information regarding teams that have been around a while. Your entire argument is literally just your opinion and not fact. Correctron (talk) 23:24, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

text: HHoF also concurs with the total of 13. Oh, and LET'S GO RANGERS!</SMALL> Keri (talk) 04:55, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: As a Habs fan I find agreeing with a Bruin fan and a Ranger fan disconcerting.....  Dbrodbeck (talk) 18:13, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Difference Between a Team and a Franchise 

message: Should Vegas be considered a "current" member now, rather than a "future" member? As of today, they became an official member of the NHL (https://www.nhl.com/news/golden-knights-officially-join-nhl-can-make-deals/c-287272940?tid=281011650). If not, when would they be considered a current member?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:CFC8:3680:1CFC:25C:1A44:50BD (talk) 02:56, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Whennthe new season officially starts on July 1. They aren't a current playing memeber, so saying there are 31 playing teams is misleading. oknazevad (talk) 13:36, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: It doesn't say "playing clubs". It says "member clubs".LordAtlas (talk) 13:40, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Typically across all league articles we don't add teams until the "season" they are playing in begins. For hockey consensus has been this is when the draft is held. We usually just note in the prose that they are an expansion team that will begin play in x season. -DJSasso (talk) 16:33, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

text: I recommend waiting until the 2017 NHL Expansion Draft, before adding the Golden Knights. GoodDay (talk) 02:29, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

text: I have to side with GoodDay on this one. Once they have enough players to make a roster, then we can add them. Plus waiting three and a half months isn't going to harm anything. Deadman137 (talk) 17:49, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

text: I disagree.  There is no reason why they can't be added under their own heading, rather than being placed in the Pacific division right now. Resolute 01:52, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

text: I'm with Resolute as well.  Frankly, I'm bewildered at how the Knights somehow don't really count as being a member club of the league just because they haven't hit the ice yet. Beyond that, the "harm" this is doing is that we're constantly having to revert the article against IPs who are just exercising their common sense.   Ravenswing   04:23, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Vegas isn't even mentioned in the lead which is weird too. LordAtlas (talk) 05:28, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vegas 

message: There is no reason to have French translations in every and all pages related to the NHL in English Wikipedia entries.  The language of these encyclopedia entries is English - it is arbitrary to translate into one chosen foreign language and not another.  Perhaps with the League name NHL/ LNH, there is an argument since they are both official names.  However, when this is extended to associated pages - having to translate Stanley Cup into "Coupe Stanley", the NHL Entry Draft into whatever the French equivalent is, etc, it starts to become unwieldy.  For the vast majority of English language users of Wikipedia, there is no use in having translations into one foreign language.  And there are French versions of the pages that can be easily accessed anyway.
I tried to clean up the pages but the revisions were quickly undone and then I was threatened by Wiki user Oknazevad, who seems to be some sort of French Canadian language activist.
I think there should be some sensible discussion on this issue rather than have some self-appointed arbiter of Wikipedia content stymie what are sensible improvements to the English language entries of this online resource  2001:569:79A0:6300:B87F:EBC0:491B:FFFA (talk) 21:39, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, I'm from New Jersey (Let's go Devils!) and don't speak French at all (took German in high school and college). But it doesn't change the fact that the NHL is a bilingual league, and French is not a "foreign" language for memeber teams. Or that the name "Coupe Stanley" is just as much the actual name as "Stanley Cup". Your cleanup wasn't cleaning anything up, just removing valid native language names for the topics of the articles, which we are supposed to include. oknazevad (talk) 01:58, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: It's a league with a team in a French speaking city, but this is the English Wikipedia.  The United Nations uses many languages, but this being the English Wikipedia, we use English. JOJ Hutton 02:48, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Which is why the article is at the English title. Including the French name does not in any way fall afoul of WP:USEENGLISH, and is well within the guidelines. oknazevad (talk) 13:07, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

text: Actually, the way that French is added to these articles falls perfectly under the guidelines recommended by the WP:MOS. The personal opinions of a few editors on a talk page are not enough to change this. Deadman137 (talk) 03:04, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

text: Ligue nationale de hockey is a formal name for the NHL, so it is appropriate to note this.  And given that is literally the only time French appears in this article, this is much ado about nothing. Resolute 13:56, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

text: I agree that for organizations where there is a formal name in an alternate language, it is reasonable to note it in the article text. (Although I personally disagree with it, general consensus is also to list the alternate title as part of the infobox caption.) isaacl (talk) 15:40, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

text: What happens at other language wikipedias is irrelevant here.  Dbrodbeck (talk) 12:50, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

text: Those other pages are also official NHL names, the logos for which often feature the french translations, especially in Canada they are almost always in both. I think you are on the wrong side of this unfortunately. -DJSasso (talk) 14:17, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

text: Please show me on this doll where the French translations hurt you. LordAtlas (talk) 02:39, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

text: The entire country of Canada is not one limited geographic region....Yes Quebec has the majority of french speakers, but there are french speakers throughout the entire country since we are a bilingual country. -DJSasso (talk) 10:38, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

text: If you need to refer to the full names, then, yes, these are used (being the literal translations, there isn't any other option). Of course, if you are in a conversation where the context is understood, often the terms will be abbreviated, just as they would be in English. I'm of two minds regarding these terms that are basically common phrases for any sport combined with a descriptive sport-specific adjective. On the one hand, it is in a way similar to translating a simple term of art like "ice hockey stick", and there are inter-wiki links to provide translations. On the other hand, the benefit-to-discussion ratio of removing the translations is pretty low; I don't see much point in taking them out now that they're there. isaacl (talk) 16:20, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

text: On a side note, I'm not clear why you're calling the translations contrivances; as I stated, these are the appropriate French terms. isaacl (talk) 03:31, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

text: Not sure why you're saying that; I assure you these are the regular terms in use, just like "Stanley Cup Playoffs" in English. isaacl (talk) 21:14, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  French Translations 

message: Could you please update the timeline of teams? The Capitals won the Stanley Cup. Could you please update the timeline? Please.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:304:5D4E:5E49:846C:38F1:9260:4EE1 (talk) 13:04, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Update Timeline of Teams 

message: The Bruins actually used brown as their predominant color until around 1934. My only source for this is the unofficial NHL uniform database, but if someone could find a source and then knows how to fix the timeline to reflect their actual team color scheme from their inception till about 1934, please do so. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist (Speak quickly) (Follow my trail) 22:28, 15 December 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bruins colors on franchise timeline 

message: The Shark's arena is called SAP Center at San Jose.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 153.2.246.33 (talk) 15:27, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Then I suggest you bring it up at Talk:SAP Center, not here. However, Wikipedia uses the most commonly used name in media for article titles, not official titles as the common name is what most people would be looking for or referencing in the most frequent circumstance. It is a bit telling when even the arena's own social media simply calls itself "SAP Center" most of the time (as seen here and here). Yosemiter (talk) 15:34, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  San Jose's Arena Name 

message: Can any interested parties please discuss how to refer to the District of Columbia at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ice Hockey? Thanks! isaacl (talk) 22:05, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  District of Columbia 

message: I think that the chart that states the teams, their arenas, capacities, etc, should include the coordinates of the arenas. This would be consistent with the NFL and NBA pages. I could also see removing the coordinates from both of those pages. However, I think that it is nice to have. Itsanandj (talk) 23:46, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: What purpose does that serve other than clutter an already large table? The arenas and cities are both linked, hence implicit coordinates (locations) already in the table. There is also a map showing the locations of the teams directly above. Why do we need a fourth way of showing location? Yosemiter (talk) 23:53, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

text: Already done As stated above, there are already multiple ways to get locations. Upsidedown Keyboard  (talk) 01:28, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 4 November 2019 

message: The NHL announced today that the Kraken are now a member club because they finished paying their expansion fee. On the other hand, it's indisputable that they're not yet competing, and they certainly don't fit within the current divisional alignment. I suspect we may start to get some sort of edit warring over people who want to say their membership is now "officially official" (we know many Wikipedia editors think the word "official" is very important) and that the count of teams, etc., must be updated ASAP. There will be other people who will say it's too confusing for non-aficionados who read this article and then see the standings that don't list the Kraken. My thought is that a reasonable compromise would be to revise the opening sentence to say something along the lines of "in which 31 clubs compete—24 in the United States, one in Canada—and an expansion franchise will begin play in the fall of 2021." Elsewhere, at an appropriate place, the article could refer to the Kraken's member status becoming effective today. This doesn't need to be a huge issue, but these things tend to lead to tug-of-war style edit wars that it would be best to avoid. Hence why I'm raising it here. I think there's a legitimate, verifiable basis for listing the Kraken as a member club, but due care must be taken to reflect that there are only 31 playing member clubs for the time being. 1995hoo (talk) 16:46, 30 April 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: When Vegas came in we didn't change anything until around the expansion draft, so I would do the same this time as well. Deadman137 (talk) 22:47, 30 April 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Sure, but we know there are plenty of people reading Wikipedia who don’t remember that or who are unaware of it. My point is, can anyone come up with a good way to make it clear so those of us who are interested in accuracy don’t have to keep reverting changes for the next two months? 1995hoo (talk) 14:05, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Short of leaving a hidden note, not really, because there hasn't been enough disruptive editing yet to protect it. By Monday or Tuesday most of the editors that you're speaking of will have forgotten about it and moved on to other things. Deadman137 (talk) 14:45, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Seattle Kraken 

message: There are two problems with this table:
* Czech Republic did not exist before 1993 just like Russia did not exist before the end of 1991
* Some of the numbers are different than in the sources
In addition, nationality listings are incorrect in about all sources that I could find since Darius Kasparaitis is listed as being Russian (born in Lithuanian SSR, played for both Russia and Lithuania, never had Russian citizenship) and Andrey Pedan is listed as being Lithuanian (born in Lithuania, never had Lithuanian citizenship). There might be more examples like this, but these two players are the first ones that I remembered. – Sabbatino (talk) 08:30, 6 June 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Origin of players 

message: The metropolitan and central divisions look nearly identical on the map making it hard to read. I am color blind (protanope) to be fair. Maybe they should be shaded differently? - 
Dkyguy1995 (talk) 12:03, 29 August 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: This is a great point! When I put together the new map, I tried to match the old colours, but they are quite pale and unsaturated, which probably doesn't help; Metro is a pale green, and Central is a pale yellow. Having the lived experience, are there shades or colours that you would recommended? –uncleben85 (talk) 13:07, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: @Uncleben85: sorry to butt in, but i just spent the last ten minutes staring at the map and wondering why the atlantic didnt get a color when the other three did. oops. if you do update the map (and maybe the colors in the table underneath it as well?) could the "empty" states/provinces be a lighter gray and/or the atlantic be a darker blue? thanks a bunch! Oasisarah (talk) 19:45, 2 February 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, that's definitely something I can do! I think having higher saturation will probably help too. @Dkyguy1995 any insight? –uncleben85 (talk) 22:09, 2 February 2023 (UTC)
thread_title: Color of Divisions on Map

message: There is a project on Wikimedia Commons to add structed data elements to as many files as possible.  One of the important data elements is the Depict statement which says what is depicted in the image.  A very easy to use tool called Depictor has been written using a game like interface to add Depict statements to Commons images.   It's very easy and anyone can do it.  I have created a challenge on the Depictor tool site to add Depict statements to all of the photos of NHL players on Commons.  If anyone would like to help you can find the challenge here.  When you click on the link you will be shown a known photo of an NHL player on the left and another photo on the right.  If the photo on the right showns the NHL player you just click on Yes, if it doesn't click on No, if you are not sure then click on Skip (On a mobile device the known photo will be on the top and the unknown on the bottom).  There is a Youtube video describing the tool and how to use it here. You will need to authorize the tool to use your Wikimedia Login. Give it a try, its easy. Thanks Captain-tucker (talk) 21:10, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Help add Depict statements to NHL player photos on Commons 

message: The “Teams” section is confusing. It starts with discussing alignment when NFL had 31 teams, and discussing the 17-18 realignment. 
this is no longer current information. As far as I’m concerned it could even be deleted entirely, or moved down, as a historical follow-up information. But the section should begin with describing the currrent alignment of teams. SWojczyszyn (talk) 10:24, 9 January 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Teams section 

message: I just added the image NHL_Hockey_Rink.svg to this section, as the comparison image with NHL vs. Intl rinks does not reflect the current markings. Ideally that image should be updated so two aren't needed, but as is the text was very confusing when paired with the image with old markings. Walkersam (talk) 20:37, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Section:'Rule differences with international hockey' images 

message: Not sure how to fix it
but Utah is not colored and the Utah team is for some reason in Arizona right now can someone fix it Onlygoodvibez (talk) 00:56, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Map is wrong