Talk:Calgary Flames/Archive 1

message: I am removing the section about the Red Mile in 2005.  Having walked down 17th Ave after about half of the games, I have not seen anything resembling what happened in 2004.  If something did happen this season, it could only have been in one or two games.  If this really did happen, please cite your source.  -- JamesTeterenko 05:38, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Red Mile in 2005 

message: Is there any way that we could shorten the ownership box in the Team Info box?  I know the Oilers' ownership group has a collective name (EIG) that makes it a lot easier.  Also, who owns Bud McCaig's share, now that he's gone? Doogie2K 05:44, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Officially, the Flames are owned by the Calgary Flames Limited Partnership.  I suppose we could just put that in the infobox and add a separate section listing the franchise owners.  Jeff McCaig inherited his father's share of the team.  Resolute 05:48, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: For that matter, why not simply make a separate article?  Or would that not be considered "noteworthy," per Wiki standards? Doogie2K 16:05, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Another thought: Ownership 

message: That's not anything special about Sutter.  That's just standard defensive hockey.  It's especially popular from trapping teams like Minnesota, but most teams do it when they have a two- or three-goal lead.  Calgary just does it earlier because of their relatively weak offence.  Doogie2K 18:58, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, the Flames under Sutter play a puck pressure/pursuit system, or basically an aggressive trap:  Attack in the offensive zone,  play keepaway.  Completely the opposite of the Wild system, which is a passive trap that relies on neutral zone turnovers to generate offense.  I have to ask, what was the point of this comment, aside from complaining about the Flames style? Resolute 05:48, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I wasn't complaining about anything, though I had to suspect this was going to happen. Basically, all I was saying is that this is standard, albeit a bit more aggressive, defensive hockey, and that shutting down after going up a goal or two is not something unique to Sutter's strategy.  How he does it may be different from how Lemaire does it, but the fact is, it still happens.  Also, note that I said, "...most teams do it when they have a two- or three-goal lead."  I've even seen the Oilers do it a time or two this year. Doogie2K 16:09, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Sutterizing"? 

message: I removed the Calgary Hitmen from the list of affiliated teams.  The Hitmen are owned by the Flames, but there are no affiliations between the NHL and CHL at the club level. Resolute 06:12, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: They are still affiliated... via ownership. Maybe a footnote would be better than totally removing them. The Calgary Flames website even lists them as an affiliate along with the Knights and the Wranglers. --Arch26 06:26, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Possibly as an advertising stunt.  "Affiliation," as the hockey world knows it, involves one team being a farm club to the other, and that just isn't the case here.  Common ownership doesn't "affiliate" the clubs; by that token, we'd have to list Delaware North and SportService as "affiliates" of the Boston Bruins.  RGTraynor 14:21, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Very true.  I think only one or two former Hitmen have ever been drafted by the Flames, most notably Brent Krahn, their minor-league goalie. Doogie2K 16:06, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Yup.  It is in the Flames best interest to promote the Hitmen as much as possible, since all revenue goes into their pockets, thus they list them as an affiliate. I have again removed the Hitmen from this list for the reason stated above.  This is not a club-to-club affiliation.  In fact, I'd like to remove that entire affiliations line altogether, as it is redundant, and is not mentioned in the Facts section on any other NHL team page. Resolute 05:39, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Affiliated Teams

message: Djstreet 14:45, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There is no need to include every single forum about the Flames.  We should only include ones that are actually popular and useful.  If you compare calgarypuck.com and flamesforum.com (which you keep adding) there is a clear difference.  Just looking at the main forum in each about the Flames, calgarypuck.com has 11,333 threads, flamesforum.com has 39.  Wikipedia is not a collection of external links.  I will remove flamesforum.com.  -- JamesTeterenko 15:54, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

text: The link I provided above states that, There is nothing wrong with adding a list of content-relevant links to an article; however, excessive lists can dwarf articles and detract from the purpose of Wikipedia. On articles about topics with many fansites, including a link to one major fansite is appropriate, marking the link as such. See Wikipedia:External links and m:When should I link externally for some guidelines.  I consider flamesforum.com a fan based site.  As you clearly marked it as a forum in the link, and it is actually named as such, I believe it is fair to judge it based on the activity of the message forum.  Since you mention an extensive picture gallery, I took a closer look.  All I could find were a bunch of pictures from two practises that haven't been filtered for quality and content.  So, I stand by my position that this link is not worthy of being included in the external links.  I am not affiliated with any Flames message forum.  The only one where I made more than one or two posts is the one that has since been shut down on the Flames site.  -- JamesTeterenko 01:38, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Djstreet, you have one third of the posts on flamesforum.com.  You may want to review the guideline Wikipedia:Autobiography.  It states, You should wait for others to write an article about subjects in which you are personally involved. This applies to articles about you, your achievements, your business, your publications, your website, your relatives, and any other possible conflict of interest.  -- JamesTeterenko 04:52, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

text: I have to agree with James here. Flamesforum is a fine site, but Wikipedia is not advertising, and you'll have to find somewhere else to bump up its traffic from. Fagstein 09:50, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

text: I'm quite comfy with seeing the same criteria we use on AfD to judge the notability of a site.  A discussion forum with only 750+ related posts, a third from a single user, is far under the radar.  RGTraynor 23:48, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  external link spam or legit 

message: I don't think 11th Ave. was called the Red Mile back in the 80's. I'm not 100% sure but I think it was just called Electric Avenue. Here is the sentence in question:During these celebrations, 11th Ave became known as "The Red Mile" and the "Red Mile" moniker was transposed to 17th Ave in 2004.
70.72.37.9 03:00, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, well just as 17th Avenue is simply that MOST of the time, the name "red mile" was really only applied when it was pertinant (just as it is now). So yes, you are right, MOST of the time, it was "Electric Avenue" or "11th Avenue". --Arch26 04:20, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually the name The Red Mile was a play on the Movie/Book The Green Mile which was not even written during the 80's. So it was not even possible that it was called The Red Mile. It was always just called Electric Avenue. --Djsasso 18:17, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Red Mile Name History 

message: Who played #17 for the Flames in the 05-06 season?ohyeh 01:26, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  17 

message: I would propose to remove the disclaimer on this section that it is updated after every season, and instead open it up to be updated constantly. There is only one active player on the list and Iginla is extremely likely to pass Nieuwendyk this season. With the current disclaimer, this will mean that Iginla remains 4th on the list until the end of the season when in fact he could be in third as soon as the All Star break. If nobody objects, I plan to remove this disclaimer and update Iginla's numbers for the first few games of this season. Anderal 22:25, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Franchise Scoring Leaders 

message: Even though I'm Oilers fan (and I hate the Flames), I was kind enough to notice that the Brent Khram (or is it Kharm) guy wasn't on the roster. I remember that was the goalie in a game where Calgary got creamed (9-4) last season, so I think he should be added back onto the roster. Ohyeh
: 1) Its Brent Krahn. 2) The section is named "Current Squad", emphasis on current. 3) He never played a minute for Calgary Flames. Calgary was backstopped last season by Miikka Kiprusoff, Philippe Sauve and Brian Boucher. 4) It was Boucher vs Nashville http://sports.espn.go.com/nhl/boxscore?gameId=260318027. ccwaters 15:11, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Krahn DOES play for Omaha however, meaning that the Flames can recall him any time. He did play in last year's pre-season, so maybe that's the 9-4 game you were thinking about. --Arch26 00:19, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What I've done with the Edmonton Oilers page is to put all the minor-leaguers who are likely to be called up in comments for easy addition/subtraction.  Might be something good for guys like Krahn (who, I thought, outplayed Sauve in the preseason last year).  Doogie2K (talk) 01:52, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You won't get any argument out of us on that point. The thing with Krahn is that he still need to play and he's no going to get that with the big team right now. Should Kipper go down, it could very well be Krahn stepping in for him. Anyhow, I'm not sure that having the AHLers on this page is fully nessicary, but I could see use for it. Chris handforth 07:18, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Brent Khram 

message: this isnt a bad page but if all those stupid wikipedia example pics wernt there —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nikehockey 99 (talk • contribs) 
:Dude... YOU added them... -→Buchanan-Hermit™/?! 03:26, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Article

message: I am starting to file through this article and add references and make some changes where I can.  The article on the New Jersey Devils was recently made a featured article, and I see no reason why we can't do the same for the Flames.  Any help or suggestions in improving this article is always appreciated. Resolute 21:34, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Article improvement

message: Alex Tanguay was not traded as the 2006-2007 Season began.  He was traded at the 2006 NHL draft, on June 24, 2006.  Also, Sutter stepped down as Head Coach in July 2006, not at the beginning of the season. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.66.200.193 (talk • contribs).
:If you feel that some information needs to be updated or corrected, please make the corrections.  However, the draft is considered the start of the new season, so to state that Tanguay was traded to Calgary at the start of 2006-07 is technically correct.  It is, however, more accurate to state that he was dealt at the draft. Resolute 23:06, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The Draft is not considered the 2006-2007 season.  The new season does not begin until training camp.  Tanguay was traded during the off-season.  The reason I am putting these in here, is so that once these corrections are made, they are not un-corrected like others have been.
'Resolute' is correct, the NHL draft is considered a part of the upcoming NHL season. GoodDay 02:22, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

text: You are merely arguing semantics.  The off-season is still part of a given season.  Just like the pre-season, regular season and post-season.  As I said, however, the more correct statement is that Tanguay was traded at the draft.  Also, please sign your comments using four tildes (~~~~), thanks. Resolute 03:08, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

text: It is not semantics.  When the article states that the 2006-2007 season began with a trade for Alex Tanguay it implys that a trade occurred once play started that season, which is false.  He was traded during the Off-Season, not during the 2006-2007 season.  Also, the off-season is not part of a given season, thats why it is called the OFF season. --24.66.200.193 03:24, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Alex Tanguay

message: Does anyone have any idea OR reliable source, as to wich players serverd as Flames captain during the 1990-91 season? Was the captaincy rotated on a game-by-game basis or monthly bases? Seems a shame to leaves '90-'91 season as just 'Rotating captaincy'. The Sabres & Sharks luckly have their 'rotating captaincy' periods in more detail. GoodDay 14:12, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: 1990-91 Captains

message: Lanny McDonald did not score the final goal in that series.  The final 2 goals (#3 and 4) were scored by Doug Gilmour.  Lanny scored the 2nd goal of that game. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.66.200.193 (talk • contribs).
:Indeed, it was Doug Gilmour who scored the Cup winning goal. GoodDay 02:02, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: 1989 Stanley Cup Finals

message: Fuhr only played 23 games as a Calgary Flame.  Most Flames Fans will deny that he ever wore a Flames uniform.  He was not a significant part of this franchise, nor were any part of his Hall of Fame years spent as a Calgary Flame.  He was not even a starter when he was with the Flames, serving as the back-up to Fred Braithwaite.  As such, he does not belong as a listed Hall of Famer on this page.  Note that he is not listed on the Buffalo Sabres page as a Hall of Famer, a team that he spent several significant years of his career with.  Also note that he is not listed on the Toronto Maple Leafs page, where he spent more time than with the Flames.  Thus he does not belong on this page.--24.66.200.193 05:53, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This topic has been an ongoing discussion at WPTT concering who should & shouldn't be listed in NHL team pages' HHOF sections. Currently the consensus is to include ALL players (under this consensus, Fuhr would belong to the Flames HHOF list aswell as the Sabres list). GoodDay 19:36, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I will leave it up for now, but I still disagree with his inclusion on this page.  I understand the consensus, and I understand the reasoning behind it and I fully agree with it, but that reasoning was not for situations like this.  I agree that with restrictions that people can take POV into account when editing who should be in or not, such as the case with Gretzky and which teams should and shouldn't have him listed.  The difference here is that there is no POV about what Fuhr was as a Flame.  He played 23 games, as a back-up, during one season.  He was not inducted into the HHOF because of these games with the Flames.  To list him on this page is to say that he was a Hall of Fame player with the Flames, which he clearly was not.  There has to be a line drawn somewhere.  If player A plays for Team 1 for one game, and later is inducted into the HHOF because of his play elsewhere, should this player be considered a Hall of Flame player for Team 1?  No, that would be ridiculous.  Somewhere there has to be a line drawn.  I don't think that it can be disputed that he did not have Hall of Fame play as a Calgary Flame, or that he can be considered a Hall of Fame player as a Flame, so this doesn't fall under POV editing.  I opened this discussion to discuss this issue, so I feel it should be discussed here instead of being decided because of a consensus between a few individuals.  Having an overall consensus is fine, but with cases such as this, I think it would be better off for this page to have a discussion and decision for this case individually.  If anybody disagrees with what I have said about him being included, feel free to post it here, so we can have everyone's opinion on the subject, and decide it from there.  But leaving it up to a overall guideline created by a consensus between a few individuals doesn't really do this situation justice.--24.66.200.193 21:23, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I sympathies with you (honestly). However, we shouldn't make the Flames page, the lone exception. Perhaps someday Individual team HOF sections will be added (in place of the HHOF section). Example, this page could have a Calgary Flames Hall of Fame section, who knows? GoodDay 21:41, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

text:  This was the exact reasoning behind my pushing through the revision to the HHOF listing in the first place; that inclusions such as Fuhr => Calgary HHOFer were unencyclopedic, uninformative, and in many cases downright farcical.  I suspect that a significant percentage of those who overturned the prior consensus are envious fans of teams lacking genuine HHOFers of their own, and who seek to pad the totals.  RGTraynor 20:28, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There's ongoing disputes over the HHOF sections on all 30 NHL teams. Personally, I preferred RGTraynor's guideline. However, I voted for its removal because it continued to invite disputes. The new guideline has also caused disputes. Perhaps my original idea was best, afterall - Eliminate the HHOF sections, from the NHL team pages. GoodDay 22:12, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

text: And I still completely disagree that its uninformative or unencyclopedic. In fact its quite the opposite. When people want to know what hall of famers played for a team they want to know all of them. Not some editors POV opinion of what counts as worthy or what doesn't. Yes Fuhr didn't have HHOF stats when with Calgary but that doesn't mean he wasn't a Flame. --Djsasso 20:18, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The logic of that argument is better suited for Grant Fuhr's page, not the Calgary Flames page.  People want to know what teams a Hall of Famer played for, therefore on Fuhr's page it should list that he both played for the Flames, and was a Hall of Famer.  It is not a matter of Hall of Fame stats, its his importance and significance of his time with a team.  His very short time was of no importance or significance to the history of the Calgary Flames.  To list him as a Hall of Famer from the Calgary Flames is to state otherwise, that he was a significant player.  This does not have anything to do with POV, there is no debating that he had no significant time with the Calgary Flames (or do you really want to argue that).  If you say that it is not uninformative, then you must believe that a player that plays one game, maybe only 5 minutes, with a team, and then goes on to have a Hall of Fame career elsewhere, should be included as a Hall of Famer for that team.  That is outright ridiculous, and Fuhr in relation to the Flames is not much different.  Fuhr has no place alongside Lanny McDonald, and Joe Mullen in respect to the Calgary Flames.  Listing him there would make it seem otherwise.  If people want to know what teams Fuhr played for, there is his page for that.--24.66.200.193 15:41, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's not what I mean at all. If I want to know all the players who entered the Hall of Fame that ever played for the Calgary Flames. I don't want to have to search through every hall of famers page to find out if they played for the Flames or not. It very much belongs on one team page. I don't want to know what teams Fuhr played for I want to know what players played for the Flames. You are looking at the situation completely backwards. It has no relevance as to how much they contributed to the team whatsoever so yes a player who played 5 minutes is just as important to list next to Joe Mullen and Lanny because he made the hall of fame and at some point in time he did play for the flames. --Djsasso 19:39, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Perhaps this discussion would be better held at Wikipedia talk: WikiProject Ice Hockey/Team pages format. GoodDay 01:16, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Grant Fuhr

message: Sorry about that. I clicked on a link for "Atlanta Flames" and thought it redirected me here. Turns out it was just relabled instead. Apologies for not realizing that initially and thanks for pointing out that the Altanta Flames does have its own page.--Roswell native 17:55, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh, no problem; good fortune to you.  RGTraynor 18:43, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  WikiPorject GeorgiaUS template 

message: I'm caught up in a bit of an edit war with a user who insists on removing the mention of Peter Maher from the Hall of Famers section.  While he is correct that Maher isn't a "true" hall of famer, he is a recipient of the Foster Hewitt Memorial Award, which the HHOF regards as a significant part of its program.  I reinserted Maher, and noted that he was an award winner rather than a full inductee.  User:Walor insists on removing all mention of Maher and the award.  So, I ask, should he stay or should he go? Resolute 17:04, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As mentioned on the project page. I agree it should be listed. He was honoured by the HHOF. --Djsasso 17:10, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

text: He's not a hall of famer. It's really that simple. The HHOF could have inducted him, it could have decided that recipients of the Foster Hewitt Memorial Award and the Elmer Ferguson Memorial Award would be inductees, but it chose not to. Maybe he should be, but it's not up to Wikipedia editors to decide who is a hall of famer. If you want to change the header to say "Hall of Famers, and Hewitt and Ferguson award winners" then there's no question that he would be included. But he's not an inductee of the HHOF, he's not a hall of famer, and putting him in the hall of fame section is just fabricating history. --Walor 17:21, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually the HHOF press release said that winners of the award enter the HHOF as honourees not as members. So he is part of the HHOF. Just not in the traditional sense which is why we have a different sub-header above him than builder. --Djsasso 17:41, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If Maher isn't a HHOF inductee, then he dosen't belong. Concerning who belongs & who doesn't in the HHOF sections, we've got to draw the line somewhere. Honestly, the HHOF section is going just like its predecessor 'Notable Players' (which, was elimenated months ago, do to continued PoV edits). GoodDay 18:22, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: But again, he is considered a member of the HHOF as an honouree. Just like someone who has an honourary doctorate from a University. And its not like there is going to be a sudden influx of people added to these sections. Its still a pretty rare distinction. And it doesn't say on the format page that they have to be inductees. Hence why we are trying to discuss the situation. --Djsasso 18:32, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

text: The "notable players" section lacked objective criteria for inclusion.  This section does not.  People honoured by the HHOF is an objective, NPOV criteria. Resolute 19:01, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Exactly what I was trying to say written in a much better way! --Djsasso 19:06, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I still think, we could be planting seeds for 'edit wars'. I'm hoping, I'm wrong. GoodDay 19:08, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Personally, I dont think so.  The issue is over whether honorees should be included.  The HHOF thinks so, so that should be our position as well.  This is why I attempted to compromise by clarifying that Maher is in as an award winner rather than as a full inductee.  At any rate, I noticed on the team pages format template at WP:HOCKEY that this section is preferred to be in prose any way.  I think I will rewrite this section later tonight in a way that I hope will eliminate the concerns over the inclusion of both Maher and Fuhr. Resolute 19:11, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

text: I have made the changes.  Hopefully this allieviates both concerns regarding the HHOF list. Resolute 01:14, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I like this much much much much much better.  It is far more accurate and informative than simply listings names, as it discusses a persons significance with the club.  Having it this way it is acceptable to have Grant Fuhr's name on this page, as people will not get the wrong idea from simply seeing his name as a Hall of Famer with the Flames.   There also should be no issues with Peter Maher, as he should be included under a Hall of Fame category, even though he was not an "inductee".  Great work Resolute.--24.66.200.193 08:16, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah I definately like it this way. I might have to try and write something like this for some of the other more controversial teams. --Djsasso 16:44, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This is what's called for at the Wikipedia: WikiProject Ice Hockey/Team pages format (the paragraph form). Hopefully this version (and the Devils version), will be adopted by ALL 30 NHL team pages. GoodDay 21:25, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Peter Maher and the HHOF

message: Need help here, Did Yelle (now injured), only wear an A (alternate captain) while Warrener (now in lineup) was injured. Or was Yelle meant to wear the A all season (regardless of Warrener in the lineup). Need to know this, for the 'current roster' section. Are the alternate captains for 2006-07 season: Regher/Warrener OR Regher/Yelle? GoodDay 16:35, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe that Regehr and Yelle are the assistant captains, with Warrener getting the A when Yelle went down.  I am not 100% certain though, so I'll leave it until someone else confirms/denies. Resolute 17:06, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

text: So, in 2005-06 (under coach Darryl Sutter) the A's were Regehr & Warrener. In 2006-07 (under coach Jim Playfair) the A's are Regehr & Yelle. Thanks for the clarifications on the 'current roster' section. GoodDay 18:10, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have taken off the injured status for Stephane Yelle, as he was put back in the lineup tonight, Dec 16th.  Since he is back in the line-up and have also removed the "A" from Tony Amonte, as Yelle is now the second Alternate Captain.--24.66.200.193 07:28, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Had removed your edits earlier, but then I put them back. Alternate captain Stephane Yelle IS back in the lineup. PS, you should talk to anon User 68.146.208.102, he'd tried to take Yelle's 'A' away (as I had erroneously, months ago). GoodDay 23:08, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Have the Flames replaced Yelle with Warrener as an alternate captain, or is the Flames gonna have 3 alternate captains (Rotating per games: Regehr, Warrener & Yelle)? GoodDay 18:19, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Do to initial confusion, I've made Warrener a permanet alternate captain (added a wiki-linked -A). In their Feb 3, 2007 game, Regehr & Warrener were wearing 'A's, while Yelle wasn't. GoodDay 18:31, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I could be wrong, but I believe the Flames rotate the 2nd alternate captaincy between Warrener & Yelle (Regehr being alternate captain -every game-). Again, not sure of this. GoodDay 19:01, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

text: This is not correct.  There are two A's for the Flames this season, Yelle and Regehr.  The Flames have had many injuries and sickness this season, and as such other players have worn A's for a game or period of games (players such as Tony Amonte and Daymond Langkow).  With both Regher and Yelle healthy, they were the A's.  I have been to every Flames home game this season, as well as have watched every away game.  I am also a huge Stephane Yelle fan.--24.66.200.193 08:04, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've fixed it again (it's Regehr & Yelle). Some other anon-user out there is trying to mix things up or he was mixed up. I suspected Yelle was injured, but wasn't certain. GoodDay 20:01, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've watched the Flames game (Feb 28) against the Minnesota Wild.
Along with Captain Iginla - Regehr, Warrener & Yelle were in the lineup. Regehr & Warrener wore the 'A's, Yelle didn't. Yet in other games Yelle wears an 'A', Warrener doesn't. Therefore it's obvious, Regehr wear his 'A' every game, while Warrener and Yelle rotate the 2nd 'A' between them. It's C-Jarome Iginla, A-Robyn Regehr, A-Rhett Warrener, A-Stephane Yelle. PS- I've watched the game intensely, rewind it, watched over again. GoodDay 18:19, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You are correct now GoodDay.  The team has now decided to rotate who "wears" the A between Warrener and Yelle.  Both are still Alternate Captains.  This is different from earlier in the season when only Yelle was wearing the second A. --24.66.200.193 04:51, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Warrener & Yelle

message: Seeking Wikipedian views - Should we make a note, that Vernon actually wore #29 during his 2nd stint (2000-02) with the Calgary Flames? GoodDay 22:02, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Doesn't matter to me...depends on if you can write that in so it flows well with everything else. --Djsasso 22:11, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

text: If the team didn't retire it, no, it's not pertinent.  (Heck, Bobby Orr started out wearing #27 and Gordie Howe started out wearing #16.)  It might be worth mentioning in the Mike Vernon article if that article places any particular weight on the number he wore.    RGTraynor  02:44, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The Bobby Orr & Gordie Howe examples settles it. The Mike Vernon entry is alright, the way it is. Thanks for the imput, guys. GoodDay 01:26, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Retired Numbers

message: In accordance with the consensus reached at WPT, I've added 'Retired Numbers' to the Honored Members section (putting it in pros style). GoodDay 19:33, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Honored Members

message: I have decided to try a concept practiced with some other pages, notably Chicago Bears and Chicago Bears seasons, to help reduce the size of the main team articles by moving content to child articles.  While the Flames history at 27 years is not excessively large, I used the Flames as a concept test because it is a managable size.  I did want to leave a partial history in the main article, however, and I feel the last five years is a logical breakpoint.  If met with general approval, this is a change that I intend to propose at WP:HOCKEY/Team pages format, and to do across all teams. Please offer any comments.  Thanks, Resolute 00:39, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Split and reduction of season-by-season record

message: I've asked this before, again if anyone can find a source for the players who served in the 'rotating captaincy'. It would be much appreciated. PS- Through old hockey game showings: Doug Gilmour, Joel Otto, Joe Nieuwendyk, Ric Natress were among the rotating captains. Just not sure 'when they served and for how long'. GoodDay 00:39, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Flames captains in 1990-91

message: Is it just me or does it seem like a lot of the section could esily be merged into the sections for those respective seasons? The Red Mile has its own page, so why does it need this much detail here?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sebby7 (talk • contribs) 17:07, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The idea is to put a summery of the really major stuff in this section. The minor-noteworthy events from season to season goes to the season pages. Because the point of this page is to get a summery of the team as a whole so alot of these facts should be here. --Djsasso 18:56, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

text: The Red Mile section has very little detail compared to its own article, which is as it should be.  The Red Mile especially, and the C of Red to a lesser extent are major defining characteristics of the club, and most certainly belong on this article in their summarized forms.  The Red Hot video bit, and the Trivia section really don't belong, but I haven't get gotten around to removing the content, or integrating it into other parts of the article yet. Resolute 02:44, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I tried to remove the red hot video, but someone seems to be obsessed with it and keeps adding it back in. Why is it that we're told to follow policy, and yet the so called "experienced" editors keep ignoring it where it suits them? -- Sebby7 15:26, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Not obsessed, just waiting for a valid reason for the removal. When you can use something other than a POV statement of I don't think its noteworthy to remove it then I will be more than happy to let it go. However, wikipedia already has a standard that music videos inherit notability if the artists making them are already notable. In this case the Flames players involved are already notable. Therefore the music video inherits their notability. --Djsasso 15:31, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: At the same time, it really is little more than trivia.  One of these days, I'll get around to creating 1986-87 Calgary Flames season, and will move it there, given it was relevant to that season, but not so much to the team itself today. Resolute 17:06, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah I agree with that. I just figured baring a place to put it currently that that is the place for it to be. --Djsasso 17:29, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Noteworthy Events

message: :Image:Calgary Flames logo 1980-1994.png is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is  other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page.  Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot 03:28, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's been fixed. --Djsasso 01:29, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:Calgary Flames logo 1980-1994.png

message: Part of the Calgary Flames article has been copied to Calgary Flames notable players and award winners by User:Resolute. I couldn't find any discussion about this split and was curious about it. Does this mean the section in the Calgary Flames article will be removed or summerized with a link to the new article?Billy (talk) 05:57, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've been very slowly working to build this article up to Featured Article status.  One of the things that really prevents this is an overabundance of lists.  Using the format established by the New Jersey Devils article, which is currently a FA, I removed the collection of lists to their own article, and yes, have linked to it both in the Honoured members section, as well as the  template. Resolute 06:01, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Also to add: The sections on the team's jersey history and Harvey the Hound require expansion, and I intend to add a section on the Flames' community support, and with the article already near 50kb, with additions likely pushing close to 60kb when finished, a split becomes warranted for size reasons as well. Resolute 06:10, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds good. I was just curious and doing a new page patrol and saw it come up. I was curious because I'm from Calgary and it caught my attention. I certainly think it deserves Featured Article status. Its certainly a very comprehensive article on the subject.--Billy (talk) 06:14, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, it still needs expansion in areas, citations in others, more images (was going to get a pic of the Stanley Cup banner tonight at the Hitmen game, but forgot my camera) and a thorough review/copy edit by someone with a better flair for words than I, but work progresses.  Resolute 06:19, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: IMHO, the team captains belong on the main article. GoodDay (talk) 19:15, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't, except for noting who the current ones are on the roster. Team captains are no more notable than anything else that was split off in this move. --Djsasso (talk) 20:09, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

text: However, a captain list is on the other NHL team articles. GoodDay (talk) 22:56, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, and that is one of the things that will hold up making the articles Feature Level which is why its being removed here and eventually on all the others I would assume. Though I am willing to bet he is just going to switch it into prose slowly. I say just let Resolute keep going and see what he comes up with, he usually comes up with great stuff.  --Djsasso (talk) 23:48, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

text: OK, I won't stand in the way of progress. I hope Darthflyer co-operates at Philadelphia Flyers (mind you, he's been good these last few months). GoodDay (talk) 17:41, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the vote of confidence, Djasso, though I'm not sure how I would change a list of captains to prose.  Though I may try to integrate the more notable ones - ie the co-captain era of the mid 80s into the main history. Resolute 17:43, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

text: After completing the rewrite, I've listed this article at Peer Review for additional feedback before listing as a Featured Article candidate.  All feedback is welcome! Resolute 23:39, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Split of Calgary Flames into [[Calgary Flames notable players and award winners]]

message: The purpose of nominating this article for good article status is to have an outsider provide some comments on how to improve it, to help it along its road to FA, as well just to get a general assessment of how the article is faring. Cheers. --Maxim(talk) 16:44, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Good article (it hasn't been reviewed yet, this a general comment) 

message: I am glad to report that this article nomination for good article status has been promoted. This is how the article, as of December 24, 2007, compares against the  six good article criteria:
:1. Well written?: 
:2. Factually accurate?: 
:3. Broad in coverage?: 
:4. Neutral point of view?: 
:5. Article stability? 
:6. Images?: 
An excellent quality article here, very good work on the refs.  If you feel that this review is in error, feel free to take it to Good article reassessment. Thank you to all of the editors who worked hard to bring it to this status, and congratulations.</div>— Qst 19:50, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Successful [[Wikipedia:Good articles|good article]] nomination