Talk:National Hockey League/Archive 1

message: Congradulations, National Hockey League is now a GA.  False Prophet 19:41, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: GA

message: Could somebody who knows this stuff please add an explanation of the structure of the league, in the sense of who plays who how many times per season and where, how points and play-off places are awarded, how the draw for the play-offs is determined etc etc etc. Thanks! Cambyses 21:42, 21 Apr 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  How it works 

message: Can anyone tell me what the deal is with this phrase?  A search for it (in quotes) shows that it appears in every single sports team page, and virtually no where else in the Wikipedia.  Is it an actual Encycplodeic convention, or is it just something someone stuck in to a template at some time or another?  It strikes me as too folksy and vaguely inappropriate.  Wouldn't "Other Notable Players" or something like that be better?  I changed it on the Steeler's page before noticing it's in every sports team page, and I'm torn between changing it back to make it fit the sports team model, or keeping the change. Charles 16:26, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Not to be forgotten 

message: I think this page is quite disorganized and it's hard to find what you're looking for.  I recommend we restructure this page, which each section being short and to the point, with a link to another page that has much more information something like the playoff section in the NBA article.
I suggest the following breakdown where each of the subsections are short and to the point.  The reader, if wanting more info can go to the more information link if he wants for each section
Top section, which is ok as it is, but we could make it somewhat longer and interesting.
:History
::(see NHL History for more information)
::Original Six
::Expansion
::Labour Issues
:NHL Teams
::(see NHL Teams for more information)
::Current Teams (organized in divisions)
::Defunct Teams (a short listing here, more information would be found in the seperate article)
:Organization
::(see NHL Organization for more information)
::Regular Season
::Playoffs
::Stanley Cup
:Rules
::(See NHL Rules for more information)
::Time
::Scoring
::Winning
::Offside
::Icing
::Penalties
:Seasons
::Current Season
::Listing of the links to all the other seasons
:NHL People
::(see NHL people for more information)
::NHL players (here we link to a short list of the great players)
::NHL coaches
::NHL beaurocrats
:Awards
:: (see NHL awards for more information)
:: Hart Trophy
:: Art Ross Trophy
:: some more major trophies
What do people think?  I can start making the new pages, and moving content to them, and then we can start working to make this page better? -- Jeff3000 19:00, July 25, 2005 (UTC)
:Also the Evolution of Hockey template would appear in the History part of the section, where I believe it makes the most sense. -- Jeff3000 20:04, July 25, 2005 (UTC)
::I've started the re-org with the shortening of the history section, which has been moved to it's own article.  Hopefully I'll get to the others in the coming days. -- Jeff3000 15:51, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ambrose O'Brien became a senator long after he donated the trophy (which has been retired for over fifty years anyhow), and Lady Byng wasn't a politician any more than Laura Bush or Shiela Martin is.  Now the Cup is, of course, another matter.  (grins)  RGTraynor 08:58, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  New Structure for the page 

message: Would anyone object, to a article about NHL family ties? In the Site ,we could have sections like: Brothers ,Father-Son(s) ,Uncles-Nephews etc. Mightberight/wrong 26 October 2005
*That's an awesome idea...I just learned that Martin Biron has a brother...let's get started in Notable Families in the NHL.
**Before we start this article, I propose we have the Wikipedia Community take a vote. We should get a census GoodDay 23:15, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: YES: I support the creation of the article Notable Families in the NHL. The NHL has many family relations (that should be noted), further more, I'd recommend merging it with the article National Hockey League. GoodDay 23:43, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it would be a neat idea to have an article about families, but merging it with the National Hockey League article? That just doesn't make sense. Masterhatch 00:13, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The families article would make a good "daughter" article for the National Hockey League. --Aude 00:22, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes "females" should be included as well & I agree with "Masterhatch" ,this article can stand alone (no merger).  I'll start adding to the new article. GoodDay 00:45, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

text: Yes. Could also do/link to a family/dynasty page in other sports, notably Petty (& Allison, & Jarret, &...) in NASCAR, Andretti in Champ cars, Hill (& Schumacher & Villeneuve) in F1.  Trekphiler 04:26, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The more sports Families dynasty/ties, the better. If you create a Nascar Families ties or other Sports families, you got my support. Formerly Mightberight/wrong now GoodDay 15:15, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Family Ties

message: Found a factoid about Billy Taylor, who has no page; anybody doing one might use it: set a record 7 assists in 1 game, with Detroit, against Chicago, 16 March 1947. (According to Guinness, which also credited Phil Espo with 7x100point seasons, so maybe, check its accuracy...)  Trekphiler 04:30, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It's accurate.  For anyone who wants to use it, it was also matched by Gretzky on three occasions:  2/15/80 against Washington, 12/11/85 against Chicago and 2/14/86 against Quebec.  RGTraynor 06:03, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Stuff

message: Hey guys, I started a new section called "NHL: A International League." What do you think of it? Chaldean 08:56, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: The section

message: I am also an avid football fan and I found the NFL Lore website to be interesting. An NHL version of this would be awesome.
:Any suggestions? The Buffalo-Dallas "No-Goal" comes to mind :) ccwaters 04:15, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Great Idea! There are definitely tons that come to mind. Darryl Sittler's 10-point game, Rocket Richard being named all three stars in a game, Toronto's comeback from a 3-0 deficit in the 1942 Stanley Cup Finals, Montreal Canadiens and the Red Army's 3-3 tie in the 70's considered by many the greatest game ever played (I disagree), Steve Smith putting the puck in his own net to knock the Oilers out of the 86 playoffs, just tons that could be done.  Croat Canuck   04:31, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Didn't Gretzky get all three stars in his last all star game? or am i am dreaming again? Masterhatch 04:35, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  You could be dreaming, i can't recall that happening, but I could be wrong. Richard's was important though cuz he absolutely destroyed my Leafs with 5 goals.   Croat Canuck   05:17, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Gretzky got all three stars in his last game, yes.  All-Star Game, I've no idea. RGTraynor 06:21, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

text:  Yeah but Richard's was for his actual achievement in the game, Gretzky's was more a lifetime tribute thing etc... so thus Richard's is a bit more memorable, as well as for a variety of other reasons.  Croat Canuck   06:39, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If I may quote Tony the Tiger "Greeeat!" Yes, the NHL Lore article is a brillant idea. Patrick Roy winking confidently at a LA Kings player during the 1993 Finals comes to mind. GoodDay 14:47, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Bobby Baun scoring the Cup winner on a broken leg, as well as the Bill Barilko goal / death saga come to mind from this Leaf fan's perspective. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Hevato (talk • contribs) 09:24, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Lore

message: I saw it in an article by John Buccigross, as part of his mailbag, a couple of months back, and sure enough, it's panned out whenever I make note of such things.  Unfortunately, that article is now ESPN Insider only.  Is there another source that might be able to verify that information? 70.72.76.224 10:23, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Source of TV Timeout Info 

message: I took the rink in the NHL rulebook, which has the new markings.  Any complaints if I replace the diagram in this article?  It'll be a new filename, so hockeyrink.png will still exist for other leagues that don't use the trapezoids. scsgoal31 19:29, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: IMO it would be easier to read if it were rotated 90o.  The names of the benches and penalty boxes are hard to read. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Toll booth (talk • contribs) 14:58, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: New NHL Rink Diagram

message: What happened to the logos in the "Current Organization" section?  Were those removed for a reason, or is it just an error?  Doogie2K 05:33, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Logos? 

message: Is anyone else here pissed about the Overtime Loss rule? Why should a team be "awarded" a point for losing in overtime? This stupid rule recently cost the Vancouver Canucks a playoff spot because 8th placed Edmonton has won less games than the Canucks yet they get 8th place simply because they earned a lot of overtime losses. What's your opinion?
: My opinion is that it's a discussion better suited for a bulletin board or a hockey blog, neither of which Wikipedia is.  RGTraynor 20:45, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  OTL 

message: The article mentions that the League was founded in Montreal.  Is this still the headquarters of the NHL?  The article doesn't say. Fishhead64 05:16, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe it's in Toronto now. -- Jeff3000 13:29, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

text: NHL is headquartered in NYC.  The NHLPA and Hall of Fame are in Toronto. --Skeezix1000 15:55, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 1251 Avenue of the Americas, 47th Floor New York, NY 10020 ccwaters 16:04, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Headquarters

message: This article only has one reference and it is in a dire need of a cleanup. JAbeach 03:26, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Failed GA

message: Wikipedia policy on national varities of English is stated in WP:MoS#National_varieties_of_English.  Importantly, they state "Articles should use the same dialect throughout." and "If an article is predominantly written in one type of English, aim to conform to that type rather than provoking conflict by changing to another." This page consistently uses Canadian English spelling.  The NHL currently is both an American and Canadian sport, and it came out of Canada.  Thus the statement "If an article's subject has a strong tie to a specific region/dialect, it should use that dialect." does not immediatly apply, both american and canadian spelling would be acceptable, but since the article has consistently used canadian spelling it should remain with that spelling. -- Jeff3000 18:34, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I totally agree. Masterhatch 02:39, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Spelling 

message: Why is this not mentioned in the article? Given the detial to the NHL history, one might wonder why this isn't mentioned.--Hellogoodsir 17:57, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Because it has nothing to do with the NHL as a league or an organization, but instead certain individuals who play or coach in the NHL. -- Jeff3000 18:00, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Operation Slapshot 

message: Does anyone believe they should go back to the 1-16 rankings instead of two divisions of 1-8 for the playoffs?  Would this make the playoffs more fun with larger upsets and make it really cup "crazy".
Max.pwnage 04:22, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Possibly this might make an interesting discussion on a bulletin board or a blog, which Wikipedia isn't.  Good luck with the discussion when you take it to a more appropriate site.  RGTraynor 12:50, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rankings 

message: Do you think there should be logos with each team under the Current Organization headline? I think it would look good, but I don't know if there are any specific rules regarding pictures on the website. Also, the regular season tie-braking procedures still need to be added. Unless someone beats me to it I will do it within a couple of days. Oh, and under the NHL: And international league headline there are some source numbers that look wrong. They are bigger than source numbers usually are. I would change it but I don't know how since I'm new to this system. Could someone do that please? - JesperLærke 19:41, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The logos cannot be added legally because they are copyrighted and do not pass fair use criteria in this article.  See Wikipedia:Fair use.  The current numbers in the international league section have a verifiable source, if you can find a better/newer source please go an update them, and give the source on the page.  Everything that is added has to be verifiable and have reliable sources. -- Jeff3000 19:46, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I didn't mean that the links were wrong, only that footnotes are usually written in raised numbers. It's simply a matter of wikifying the section's appearance. I don't know how to raise  the numbers, that's all. JesperLærke 20:14, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The raised format for the citation using a notes section is a different style of citation (See WP:FOOT). This page uses a different format of just inline citations.  Both are acceptable in the Wikipedia Manual of Style. -- Jeff3000 20:53, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Logos 

message: Hello everyone,
I want to apply for featured article status for this article.  It's gone through peer review and I've addressed the concerns that were brought up.  The article is referenced quite well, has prose, fair use images, and so I think it passes the featured article criteria.  Does have any suggestions, before I go ahead? Thanks -- Jeff3000 03:34, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it looks pretty good right now. One thing i don't like is the God-awful colours used in the current organisation section. Less "bright" colours woudl do the job better, in my humble opinion. But that is being nitpicky. The article is actually really good (a hell of a lot better than when i first came to wikipedai over a year ago) Masterhatch 04:04, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: done, less bright colours used. -- Jeff3000 04:20, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: LOL thanks;) Masterhatch 04:34, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Featured 

message: As part of this project, I've performed a check on the accuracy of several citations in this article.  Results were as follows:
#Footnote 2(a). "After a series of disputes in the Canadian National Hockey Association (NHA) between the owner of the Toronto Blueshirts and the owners of other teams, all the owners met at the Windsor Hotel in Montreal to talk about the NHA's future"
#*Problems:
#*#The book title is listed as Brian McFarlane's History of Hockey, but the ISBN leads to 100 years of hockey history.  Publication date and location would seem to indicate that this is the desired book, although another book, Brian McFarlane's World of Hockey, has a name similar to that indicated.  Clarification needed.
#*#No page numbers given for book.  Impossible to check citations.
#Footnote 17. "Starting in the 2005–2006 season, after testing in the American Hockey League, a trapezoid area behind each goal net has been introduced. The goaltender can only play the puck within that area or in front of the goal line;"
#*Problem.  From website: "(NEW for 2005-06) A restricted trapezoid shaped area behind the goal will be laid out as follows: Five feet (5') outside of each goal crease (six feet (6') from each goal post), a two inch (2") red line shall be painted extending from the goal line to a point on the end of the rink ten feet (10') from the goal crease (eleven feet (11') from the goal post) and continuing vertically up the kick plate. (Paint code PMS 186)."  
#**No mention at this site of the limitation on where the goaltender can play the puck.
#Footnote 25 (a and b). "In the past, however, if a player was deemed significant enough, the pending period would be waived; only 10 individuals have been honoured in this manner. In 1999, Wayne Gretzky became the last player to have the three-year restriction waived..."
#*Checks out.  From website: "On November 22, 1999 -- seven months after his retirement -- Gretzky was inducted into the Hockey Hall of Fame in Toronto, Canada, becoming the tenth and final player in Hockey Hall of Fame history to have the mandatory three-year waiting period for enshrinement waived by the Hall’s board of directors."
#Footnote 11 (b, c, and d).  
#*11b: "The NHL received record attendance in the 2005–06 season. 20,854,169 fans, an average of 16,955 per game, was a 1.2% increase over the previous mark held in the 2001–02 season."
#**Checks out. From website: "According to the league, it set new records for total and average attendance - 20,854,169 fans overall and a per-game average of 16,955 - an increase of 2.4 per cent from the 2003-04 season and 1.2 per cent higher than the old records set during the 2001-02 season."
#*11c: "Also, the Montreal Canadiens and Colorado Avalanche sold out all of their home games and all six Canadian teams played to 98% capacity or better at all home games."
#**Checks out.  From website: "The Montreal Canadiens played before sellout crowds of 21,273 for each of their 41 home games... All six Canadian NHL teams - the Montreal Canadiens, Toronto Maple Leafs, Calgary Flames, Edmonton Oilers, Ottawa Senators and Vancouver Canucks - played to 98 per cent capacity or better during the season... Like Montreal, the Colorado Avalanche sold out each of their 41 home games..."
#*11d: "Twenty-four of the thirty clubs finished even or ahead of their 2003–04 mark. The Pittsburgh Penguins had the highest increase at 33%, probably because of Canadian phenom Sidney Crosby."
#**Checks out. From website:Twenty-four of the NHL teams finished even or ahead of their 2003-04 attendance numbers. The biggest jump in attendance was in Pittsburgh (33 per cent), no doubt thanks to the arrival of No. 1 draft pick Sidney Crosby."
Several problems need to be fixed here. --RobthTalk 04:13, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As far as the NHA cite goes, you can just as readily use Charles Coleman's Trail of the Stanley Cup, Vol I, pp 328-330, Kendall/Hunt Publishing Company, .  RGTraynor 17:56, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: For the citation check for Brian McFarlane's book, the ISBN check works for me. See .  I no longer have the book to check the page numbers, however.  As for the second comment, the citations have no been fixed. -- Jeff3000 20:38, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Using Amazon's electronic book sight, I have added page numbers to all of the references from McFarlane's book. -- Jeff3000 22:34, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Citation spot check 

message: I'm looking for some books/websites/etc that refer to the NHL's popularity, historically and how it has evolved.  Things like where it is popular, Canada, US, Europe, and how it compares to the other professional leagues in North America.  If you have any suggestions, please post them here.  It's one of the suggestions in the FAC.  Thanks. -- Jeff3000 01:18, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Popularity 

message: Since the FAC is now closed, I'll respond here. From FAC:
* Object The rules of a sport need not be regurgitated in an article about a competition, unless the rules are specific to that competition. In this case, things like the difference in size between NHL and international rinks are useful distinctions, but things like the objective of the game and icing are common to any ice hockey competition. Oldelpaso 11:54, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: So in general, I believe most of the content is warrented as it is NHL specific.  I will try shortening the first two paragraphs of the of the Game section and the 4th paragraph of the Rules section. -- Jeff3000 20:57, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

text: *Comment: Ok I've shortened the Game section, and tried to make the Rules section more specific to the NHL, and differences between it, and the IIHF. -- Jeff3000 21:11, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

text: I've made a couple of changes to the icing paragraph to show what I mean. Oldelpaso 13:49, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

text: The rules section is bettered by your changes.  Thanks.  But I respectfully disagree that the Game section needs to go.  I think any description of the NHL needs a short description of the main part of the NHL, which is that they play the game of ice hockey; and as I explained above, I've already shortened the section, and the rest of the section is NHL specifics. -- Jeff3000 14:19, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: From the FAC

message: Is it possible to provide a figure for the NHL's total annual broadcasting income please? At the moment the article only gives a number for what appears to be one of three main deals. Merchbow 06:34, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Total annual broadcasting income?

message: The coaches and GMs have been added to the table in this page.  I don't think these should be in this page, as it is too specific, and adds cluter to the page.  What is the opinion of the other editors? Jeff3000 04:47, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I tend to agree.  The Coach and GM should be listed on the team pages, not the league page. Resolute 04:43, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Coaches and GM 

message: Why is it significant to include its French name? RealFerrari 06:34, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Because the NHL as an organization is officially known by two names, the NHL, and the LNH.  They are both official designations. -- Jeff3000 06:39, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, I didn't know that. Perhaps it should be clarified in the article? Anyway thanks for answering. RealFerrari 06:45, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Consider how popular the sport is in Quebec, that for decades the Les Habitants ruled the NHL, and that the NHL is technically bilingual, have both names makes sense.OrangeMarlin 19:55, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's worth mentioning as well that the word "National" (in either language) refers to Canada. 66.183.217.31 18:13, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: French Name

message: I see a stats leaders by nationality page; what about just stats? Like first 50 in 50, top scorers, top assists, most penalty minutes/season, so forth? For instance, I've heard Mike Bossy had 9 50 goal seasons straight; was it a record?  Trekphiler™ 05:33, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: On the records

message: I added a small paragraph in the introductory section about NHL fans (being the richest, smartest and I believe best looking of any sport fans).  My comment is somewhat US-oriented, because only in the USA are the MLB, NHL, NBA and NFL the big sports.  Maybe a section should be added to build on it to discuss the economics of the NHL.  OrangeMarlin 19:52, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: A section on Economics would be very interesting, and needed.  I moved your comment to another section, as the lead was getting way too long.  Regards, -- Jeff3000 21:28, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Economics of NHL 

message: On all 30 team pages, I've re-listed the captains (listing them by season, instead of by players). Leave you opinon of these edits at Talk: Buffalo Sabres#Team captains (consensus). PS: posted this here, didn't know how else to possibly reach most NHL Wikipedians.  GoodDay 20:30, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: NHL team captains

message: Saying the Canadian majority among players in the NHL is "due to its origins in Canada" is very strange. It's not because of something that happened in 1917, it's just that in 2006 there are more hockey players (or more good hockey players) in Canada than in the US. Right? Better change (or remove) that. Piet | Talk 11:00, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Mm, got a point there.  Feel free to make the change.  RGTraynor 15:30, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Canadian players in NHL 

message: So uh... hockey season generally runs from October through April, right? Because that's all I needed to know, but it wasn't here. I had to dig through like four related articles just to find that one damn tidbit...
:Duely noted, and added to the article. Next time please sign your posts please. bmitchelf•T 19:59, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Season structure

message: Nothing set in stone yet, it seems, but I think something worth keeping track of.  megarockman 15:19, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps, but this article should be for what is, not what might be.  Certantly an entire section detailing a trial balloon being floated by the NHL is way overboard.  If anything, I think a brief statement about possible changes should be included on 2006-07 NHL season. Resolute 17:31, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  How about we wait for the league to make any changes before we worry about mentioning it?  We're not investigative journalists here, and we win no prizes for scoops.  There is absolutely no harm in following the mandate of an encyclopedia and report fact, not suppositions.  RGTraynor 07:10, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Realignment for 2007-8

message: i changed the wording to read use prior to 2005. The "evidence" for it being used from 1917 to 2005 IMO is shakey it consist of two sportlogo websites which provide not proof that the logo was used all the way back to 1917. It seems hard to believe a sport league would create a logo and used from WWI all the way to 2005 which out some changes. So I think wording it used proir to 2005 is a better fit. If someone has proof (ie actual photos, books from the period 1910s )then by all means change it back Smith03 19:50, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Old NHL logo

message: I fail to see how hockey is #1. Baseball plays 40 more home games.....and 27 of the 30 MLB teams have higher attendance numbers that the #1 NHL team the Canadians. I'm sure the MLB doesn't give away Tens of Millions of seats, so I'm sure MLB is higher. If someone has a source that says other wise, please post it, I'd like to see it. - icuwoot 3/25/07
: Might be highest percentage of capacity, which I'd believe.  RGTraynor 20:06, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: "Highest Number of Ticket buying fans of the four leagues"

message: So I just noticed at the top of the infobox, there is an image that contains a soccer ball.  Not to cast aspersions against those billion people who think soccer is a cool sport, but let's not put a soccer symbol on top of hockey.  In hockey, diving is considered bad form and is a penalty.  In soccer,  diving is considered a part of the game.  Oh yeah, I think that Sean Avery could kick David Beckham from here to the next Spice Girls concert.  In other words, why is a boring dull sport symbol placed at the top of the greatest most exciting sport on the planet????  Grrrrrrr.  Yeah, I hate soccer.  Orangemarlin 03:58, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's the standard wikipedia image and template used for all sports related templates, including the link to the current season for each sport. -- Jeff3000 04:49, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Soccer is the template for all sports?  Oh that is sad.  Orangemarlin 05:08, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

text: I can't stand soccer for one reason.  The fake diving.  I mean they don't even dive real well.  Hasek diving is much more entertaining!  OK, I can't stand soccer because it's not very manly.  It's a girl's sport.  No, because I think women hockey players could take on a soccer team one on one.  Anyways, the sports symbol should be individual for the sport.  But I see your point.  I just don't agree.Orangemarlin 17:35, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Weird image 

message: Players cannot enter until three years have passed since their last professional game; this time period, the shortest of any major sport, has led in three cases (Gordie Howe, Guy Lafleur and Mario Lemieux) to Hall of Fame members coming out of retirement to play once more. - This is poorly worded; the 3 year period did not lead to Lemieux playing after being inducted; the practice of waiving the waiting period altogether for him did. Geoffrey Spear 14:48, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hm, good point.  I'll fiddle with it.    RGTraynor  15:04, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  HOF wait 

message: Could someone add a section about fighting in the NHL? I have a lot of questions about these fights: How come a player is not allowed to beat up a goalie, but the goalies can beat each other up? To fight do you have to be on the ice when the fight starts, or can other guys go onto the ice to join the fight? Do they train for the fights? etc. Ogeez 22:25, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fighting 

message: The founded column has been added to the tables again.  In the past that column led to much added information (such as the team name when the team was founded) that made the tables too large.  I think that such information is already in the text, and does not need to be in the table.  What do others think? Regards, -- Jeff3000 01:18, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I, for one, oppose its inclusion, especially given what I feel is the ridiculous falsehood of claiming teams like Calgary were founded in 1972.  The Calgary Flames were created in 1980, not 72. The Montreal Canadiens in 1910, not 1909, etc.  The histories of previous markets are not immediately relevent to the current one. While the technical founding dates are accurate, I find them to be little more than a half truth in practical usage.  I would just as soon they were excluded, and the dates, and significance of them, left for the team articles. Resolute 01:38, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The Flames franchise (formerly in Atlanta, now in Calgary) was founded in 1972, however it wouldn't hurt to add 1980 as the 'relocation' date, adding 'extra' dates could be done for the other 'relocated' teams (to avoid confusions & disputes). If not, then delete the column. GoodDay 22:36, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

text:  I'm in favor of their inclusion.  Given that "June 6, 1972" is the date given in the NHL Official Guides, it's tough to call it a "ridiculous falsehood."    RGTraynor  00:10, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Because the NHL guide uses the franchise founding date, rather than the team cration date.  Regardless of my feelings on that issue, in a chart on the NHL article, someone who does not know a lot about NHL history may look at that and think the Calgary Flames have existed since 1972.  At least in the team article, it is explained that the Atlanta Flames were founded in 1972, and the team moved to Calgary in 1980.  This is information that is not necessary in this chart, or in this article, IMNSHO. Resolute 00:44, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Precisely; the table is used to represent the current teams in the league and their current organization in a quick way, and the founding date is not germane enough to be in the date.  I even think that the attendence is not really important either.  By including these two columns, there could be so much more tablecruft that will be added by the passer-by.   The current history of the league includes the founding of the the teams, and so it does not need to be in the table. Regards, -- Jeff3000 05:12, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

text:  Errr ... as was said with a similar debate on the Edmonton Oilers article, if people are confused, they can read the article.  We put the information there for a reason.    RGTraynor  19:14, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

text: It's already in this article in the prose which removes all sense of confusion.  No need for duplication which can lead to further confusion.  The table is used to show the organization of the league, not it's history.  -- Jeff3000 19:25, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Founded column 

message: I have noticed that in recent times, there has been a slow adding of more players to the notable players section. We need to set a limit of how many players should be listed, before everyone and their dog adds their favourite player and it just becomes a massive list of names. Kaiser matias 23:32, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree the current listing is problematic, because how do we set who should be on the list.  In the past I've tried finding a source which gives a list of notable players, which would thus make it hard for others to keep adding their own favourite players as it would be cited list, but I've had difficulties finding such a source.  I do think having a list of notable players is important since without that list, players which are quite important to the league such as Gretkzy or Lemieux would not be mentioned otherwise.  Regards, -- Jeff3000 00:05, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  My rule of thumb when gauging a change to the list is this:  is the suggested player notably better than those already listed?  Almost uniformly, they're not.  (About the only modern forward whose resume might merit a place is Ron Francis.)  That being said, this is exactly the problem that turned the Not To Be Forgotten sections into giant sucking holes of perpetual editing, so we should either come upon a consensus freezing a set number of players for the list, just pick the top dozen names from THN's list of a few years ago, or go without.    RGTraynor  06:41, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd suggest scrapping the 'Notable Players' section, similar sections were scraped in the 30 NHL team pages ('bout a year ago). Just my opinon. GoodDay 22:25, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, seriously. This list is a huge POV stinkhole and should be scrapped. Maybe we could replace it with a section about NHL records? --Wafulz 16:05, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

text: It might make sense to simply remove that section altogether while we contemplate a reasonable alternative for it. Resolute 06:13, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, because I'm going to insist that Dan Cloutier get added!!!  But really, notable for you may be a nonentity for me.  BTW, I reverted the anonymous editor who seems to have some man-love for Coffey.  Orangemarlin 17:10, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Please read WP:CIVIL. Resolute 17:49, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I edit Evolution and Creationism articles.  Mangrove's comment barely registered on my personal civility list.  It was more like Sean Avery yapping, vs. a check from George Parros.  Orangemarlin 17:52, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Good idea.  But please put in a section describing how Dan Cloutier is the world's greatest goalie ever.  Orangemarlin 17:50, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmm, 2002 Western Conference Quarter-Finals - Game #3 (Lidstrom scores from the 'center' red line??) GoodDay 22:30, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Our criteria certainly determines whether a player's among the top ten most honored.  Comparing a Hasek to the likes of Richter and Vernon, for instance, is absurd ... when there's a goalie who's won a Cup AND an Olympic gold medal AND six Vezinas AND back-to-back MVPs (for most of that stretch facing five shots a game more than Belfour), then he can replace Hasek in that tally.  Fuhr's got a better resume, but no goalie in hockey history's won more awards than Hasek has.  Coffey's fairly defensible, but do you knock Sakic or Hull off that list to include him?    RGTraynor  17:55, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Notable Players 

message: THe Anaheim Ducks are the current champions. It should be noted on the top of the page, along with the way they won... meaning beating Ottawa in five... it would be like Ottawa didnt do anything if they arent mentioned. TheWikiVigilante 13:05, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It is noted at the top of the page that the Ducks are now the defending champions, see the infobox.  The way they won is relevant to  2006-07 NHL season, 2007 Stanley Cup Playoffs, 2006-07 Anaheim Ducks season and 2006-07 Ottawa Senators season.  There is no need to get so detailed in this article. Resolute 13:43, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Anaheim Ducks

message: Reading the article, it says that in 2005-06, only the Canucks, Canadiens and Avalanche sold out all their home games. However a quick glance at the 2005-06 Calgary Flames season points out that the Flames sold out every home game, plus their playoff games. And I do recall hearing that the Wild have yet to play before anything less than a sellout. So what is the correct answer, and do we have sources to prove it?  —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Kaiser matias (talk • contribs).
:The current source only provides the three teams mentioned above.  If you have other sources (other than the Wikipedia articles) go ahead and add the other teams and the reference as well.  Regards, -- Jeff3000 21:45, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sellouts after the lockout 

message: On the team pages I know we have a list of every year they've won a title, but I think we should have their total number of titles at the beginning of that. The other leagues all have it and it makes the pages easier to read.
Agree? Disagree? Portlygrub 11:06, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Team Pages 

message: I came across this interesting blog post while researching a different topic and thought it was interesting. Perhaps it could be incorporated into this article in some fashion? --4.239.168.103 03:56, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: While using blogs as sources is generally frowned upon the article the blog used as its own source, located here, qualifies as an appropriate source. I'm sure it could be worked in somewhere with the right working. Kaiser matias 06:00, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

text: This should have been clarified but it is 50 million NHL fans in the United States, not the world. According to the blog there are 8.3 million Americans very interested, 13.5 million Americans somewhat interested, and 27.5 million Americans who are a little bit interested. Also, to suggest all 33 million Canadians are hockey fans, let alone NHL fans, is a bit of a stretch. --4.239.168.19 04:51, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  NHL "has somewhere around 50 million fans"? 

message: I don't feel such a section or even a couple sections deserves mentions.  We can't and shouldn't document every time there are discussions or speculation regarding such expansion, until expansion becomes a reality.  Regards, -- Jeff3000 17:59, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with you somewhat. Expansion and schedules seem to be a never-ending source of interest, though. Is there a place that we could put it? Should there be a separate article? 'Future of the National Hockey League'? :-) Alaney2k 18:17, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: So a reporter asks the proverbial question, and gets an acknowledgement that these cities came up in a comment, however briefly it may have been, and suddenly it snowballs into speculated plans for expansion? I really don't think its encyclopaedic to include this just yet. ccwaters 19:40, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I took out the text and put it where it may be relevant -- the 2007-08 NHL season#League Business article. It could be relevant there, as well as the schedule discussions, which are going on, but not in the article. That sort of stuff has been in League Business sections for previous seasons. Alaney2k 20:25, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, I think that's best for now. Nobody said anything like "we plan on becoming a 32 team league within 5 years and candidates cities are x, y, z." Actually they said no, they discussed it and there are no plans, they have greater concerns at the moment. ccwaters 00:07, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

text:  There's definitely a place for discussion of future expansion ... on the many extant hockey forums out there in cyberspace.  Obviously Wikipedia isn't it.    RGTraynor  04:16, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Possible expansion teams 

message: I changed the part saying that Hockey fans are more affluent so the tickets are more expensive than other sports. If you have ever bought tickets to sporting events (like I have) you would know this is not true. I checked the source and it did not source a study and I thought it was just an assumption made. I am sorry for deleting it, but I would be very surprised if it were true.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.69.145.180 (talk) 21:38, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Higher ticket prices and more affluent fans 

message: It cited a reference, http://www.gsb.stanford.edu/news/bmag/sbsm0408/feature_sports.shtml that states the same thing, but that article doesn't cite any facts to base it's statement on.  Citing heresay is still heresay. 66.74.197.175 02:42, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It says right in the article that a study was done. That is enough to cite based on. But I will look for better citations for it. --Djsasso 02:56, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

text: That source is by all wikipedia guidelines and policies considered a reliable source and thus meets Wikipedia's verifiability policy.  Please stop removing verifiable information.  Regards, -- Jeff3000 03:30, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removed comment about "fan base is also the most affluent and well educated of the four." 

message: Hey...great article!  I am enjoying the clear, thorough layout and format of the information as we speak (and I type).
In the 'Notable players' section, do you think it would be nice if the players could be labelled by team, similar to how mentions of congressmen are labelled by their party and state?  I think it would shed some light on the respective strengths of the teams as a reflection of their players. DRosenbach (Talk | Contribs) 13:50, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't quite get what you mean, could you give an example? --Krm500 (talk) 14:09, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: How about like Joseph Mason (Calgary) scored the most points in the season and Kurt Weisner (Anaheim) had the most assists. DRosenbach (Talk | Contribs) 01:35, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure I like the idea.  It makes the text busier; the interested reader can always click on the player's wikilink for more info.  Regards, -- Jeff3000 (talk) 02:44, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Notable Players