Talk:St. Louis Blues

message: Gretzky played for the Blues in 1995-96 a trade deadline acquisition.
Check those facts before submitting =) vudu 03:24, 14 Oct 2003 (UTC)
thread_title: Gretzky

message: This is very awkward, having the hockey team at St. Louis Blues and the tune at the curiously punctuated 'Saint Louis Blues'. If no one has a serious objection, I'd like to make this a disambiguation page, moving the team to saySaint Louis Blues (hockey) and the song to Saint Louis Blues (music). -- Infrogmation 18:51, 19 Mar 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for your feedback. The usual policy is that when a title can refer to more than one thing that title is made into a disambiguation page. I think that's what is needed here. While I'm not overly fond of explanitory words in parenthesis after the title, such is a pretty common way of doing things, and I can't think of anything that's clearer. I'm open to suggestions if someone thinks some other wording would be better than "(hockey)" and "(music)". Cheers, -- Infrogmation 04:53, 21 Mar 2004 (UTC)

text: While the usual policy may be to disambiguate, I agree that consistency and fairness are equally important. No current National Hockey League team uses "(hockey)", a term you are "not overly fond of". Although "Saint Louis, Missouri" is commonly abbreviated "St. Louis", St. Louis Blues is listed alphabetically after San Jose Sharks by the National Hockey League. Therefore, they might not consider it an abbreviation of Saint Louis Blues. With W. C. Handy's "Saint Louis Blues" we can make this distinction. -- 24.217.211.99 19:53, 6 Apr 2004 (UTC)
replies: text:  As I mention on User talk:24.217.211.99, I reverted your move of the hockey article from "St. Louis Blues (hockey)" to "St. Louis Blues", due to your improper procedure rather than just because we seem to have a disagreement as to the best way to disambiguate. If you think the page needs to be disambiguated or renamed differently, perhaps we need to get other opinions on the question elsewhere on wikipedia. Cheers, -- Infrogmation 23:20, 6 Apr 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it's less a matter of official title than what term a typical user is going to look for (that's why we have Wikipedia:Naming conventions (common names). In this situation I think the disambiguation page (and the redirect to it) will be most helpful to a typical reader. - Hephaestos|§ 18:05, 7 Apr 2004 (UTC)

text: St. Louis Blues should be a disambiguation page. It should not redirect to the hockey team. Nothing wrong with St. Louis Blues (hockey). It's a special-case name. If "New Orleans Jazz" were still a basketball team, the same might be required of it.  Likewise if the Flyers were renamed the Philadelphia Experiment, or if the Avalanche were renamed the Colorado Front Range.-- Decumanus | Talk 18:53, 8 Apr 2004 (UTC)
replies: text:  Exactly. "St. Louis Blues" is the name of more than one famous thing. -- Infrogmation 22:28, 8 Apr 2004 (UTC)

text: 24.217.211.99, Please stop your unilateral moves, which I have not been the only one to object to. I applaud your desire to have other people discuss the question, let's wait to move things around until we see if we can get some sort of consensus. Cheers, -- Infrogmation 22:12, 8 Apr 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: The first unilateral move was 20:13, 23 Mar 2004 by none other than Infrogmation. -- 24.217.211.99 04:22, 9 Apr 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[St. Louis Blues]] vs. [[The St. Louis Blues]] 

message: I'm as big a fan as anybody of my hometown Blues, but is Jeff Woywitka really worthy of "Current Stars" status?  And for that matter, is Pronger worthy of "Not to be Forgotten?"  Now hear me out - of the three players on that list before Pronger, we have two who have banners hanging at Savvis, and then Brett Hull, who is third on the all-time scoring list and is second on the all-time list for goals in a season (in addition to numerous other accomplishments), and he played here longer than Pronger.  Just a thought.  - Chris
Chris--I'd argue that Pronger, as a former Hart Trophy winner, probably deserves to be in the not to be forgotten category. He's probably also a future HOFer. I'd say he's not to be forgotten. Zeus1233 10:29, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Pronger is already listed in the Captains. Its redundant to list him in NTBF. Think of it this way: There are three listing: HOFers, Capts and NTBF (other/misc). ccwaters 11:03, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Current Stars 

message: Wikipedia:WikiProject_Ice_Hockey/Team_pages_format contains the format for Hall of Fame listings, which provides that players must have played several seasons for the team in question, and those seasons have a material impact on their selection as Hall of Famers.  None of the players reverted qualify.  Ravenswing 08:28, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hall of Fame listings 

message: Someone might add a mention somewhere of the period during which the team also had a stripe of red on their uniforms. I'd do it myself but I don't know the exact years this was in effect.Nahtmmm 18:02, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Uniform colors 

message: A few nits to pick.  For one thing, the Eagles' stay in the NHL was brief and abortive -- it would be like citing the Philadelphia Quakers in any discussion of the Flyers' history.  For another, the St. Louis Braves weren't around for "many" years; they existed for four.  For a third, the phrasing implied that Arthur Wirtz was supportive of St. Louis big league hockey ambitions, when the truth was that he demanded a St. Louis team (when no local group had applied for a franchise) to buy the local arena he owned as the price of his support for the 1967 expansion.  Ravenswing 20:46, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Chicago influence 

message: Now that Captain Dallas Drake and alterenat captain Barret Jackman are done for the season (2005-06), there are now three alternate captains in the lineup. There's Scott Young, Keith Tkachuk and Who? There has to be at least 3-letter players (A's) GoodDay 19:48, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Watched a Blues game, and I think I saw McAmmond wearing an 'A' (though I'm not sure). I've added McAmmond to the alternate captains section. If anyone disagree, simply reverse my edit. GoodDay 16:17, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Young, Tkachuk & ?? 

message: Anyone else think that something should be added to this phrase "In addition, the team has never won a game in the Stanley Cup finals. They made it to the Stanley Cup finals in each of their first three seasons but were swept all three times and have not been to a finals since."  Given the fact that these first three Cup finals were the first three years after the NHL expansion, where all the expansion teams were in the West Division, and therefore it wasn't a suprise that the Blues never won a single game of those Cup Finals. Zanter 17:50, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We'd have to do a lot better than an ESPN humour article to justify mentioning a curse in this article. Resolute 12:55, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Cursed?

message: I thought this was settled, Gretzy & Fuhr (for example) don't belong in the sections. GoodDay 22:27, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There's a guideline at Wikipedia: WikiProject Ice Hockey/Team pages format, dealing with the HHOF section. Under that guideline, Gretzky & Fuhr wouldn't belong. GoodDay 15:47, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Gretzky played in St. Louis for less than six months, Fuhr played in St. Louis for four seasons.  Gretzky does not belong on this list, and even Fuhr is debatable.sseagle 16:51, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Hall of Fame

message: Has coach Andy Murray (upon his hiring) named Bill Guerin as a 3rd alternate captain (joining B.Jackman & D.Weight)? Or has he replaced Jackman as a 2nd alternate captain with Guerin. GoodDay 18:38, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I guess it's 3 alternates, been watching a few Blues games lately. GoodDay 18:16, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: According to the 2005-2006 Rulebook (the 06-07 Rulebook had no rule change to this matter), "In addition, if the permanent Captain is not on the ice, Alternate Captains (not more than two) shall be accorded the privileges of the Captain...(NOTE) Only when the captain is not in uniform, the Coach shall have the right to designate three Alternate Captains." I'm curious to know how they can get away with this, unless they don't designate all three for one game, especially seeing as how Drake has been on the ice. I haven't been able to watch lately so I don't know what they've been doing on a game-to-game basis. Thunderstix33 03:10, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Weight, Jackman and Guerin 'rotate' the 2 alternate captaincies per game. This is what all NHL teams with a Captain & more then 2 alternates, do. GoodDay 21:17, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Alternate Captains

message: 21 paragrphs, less than one per season, and we are devoting a large paragraph to a game that was poorly ref'ed? i find it an inapproipriat use of space, and i strongly suspect that the game is not memorable, or really remarkable, it certianly is going to prove inconsequencial in the panteon of local sports history dealing with errors by officials (the 1985 world series anyone, missouri's defense forced to play a fifth down at the goal line?)
I'd really prefer that the St Louis Blues are not saddled (muddy) with fan reaction to a single game in an unremarkable season.Childhoodtrauma 23:27, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The paragraph has got to go. The Blues put themselves in the situation for a 'bad' call (they stank most of the season). The 'McGeough' incident should 'at least' be reduced to a couple of sentences. GoodDay 18:16, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree - Zanter 21:36, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  the current last paragraph about the "we was robbed" 

message: Should there be a section or at least mention of the 'Tampering' with Scott Stevens? 
Kylar 19:58, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tampering 

message: :Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *Support or *Oppose, then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's naming conventions.
*Support BsroiaadnTalk 03:17, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *All links to the capitalized title are intended for the hockey team. That indicates that it is the primary topic for the term. Dekimasuよ! 08:19, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  "St. Louis Blues", the world famous tune which the hockey team is named in reference to and which we have an article on at St. Louis Blues (music) is certainly capitalized.  If links to the disambiguation page are more commonly refering to the hockey team than the music, that is an indication that editors of the music articles have been better at correctly directing the article links than those of the hockey articles, which is in no way a valid argument for changing the disambiguation. -- Infrogmation 13:31, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I've never heard of that song to be honest (no offense) I always thought they were named after the genre. Either way, whether all of the links going to St. Louis Blues are for the hockey team or not, the hockey team has many many more wikilinks to it than the other articles combined. Even if they are named after the song (which I still think it's the genre, but whatever you may be right), the hockey team is more relevant in this day and age. BsroiaadnTalk 13:43, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  No reason for anyone to take offence; as Will Rogers said, everyone is ignorant, only on different subjects.  The Saint Louis Blues is one of the most famous and influential musical compositions of the first half of the 20th century, and no doubt there are hundreds of bands all over the world playing this standard tonight.  No doubt outside of North America, and with people more familiar with music history than hockey, it is the more famous "St. Louis Blues" than the team. However there is no contest about something somehow being "more relevent"-- the composition and the hockey team are both very important subjects within their respective topics.  I therefore think this exactly the type of case that Wikipedia disambiguation pages are designed for. -- Infrogmation 23:36, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Indeed the music will be more well-known by people who study music and don't watch hockey. I just thought that the fact that St. Louis Blues (hockey) has an overwhelmingly bigger amount of wikilinks to it than the rest showed that more people (in general, regardless of what they are fans of) are looking for the team, thus it should be the primary topic. BsroiaadnTalk 02:16, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Survey

message: :Any additional comments:
I am assuming the change over hasn't been completed, as it is now the confusion does not seem to be worth the gain.
:st louis blues (song) redirects itself to st, louis blues (music) although it is about the song. 
the st. louis blues music(as underdeveloped as it it) is just the st. louis blues, and its "for other uses" link currently  redirects to the hockey page not the dab page.
::I would suggest making the song (the song), the music type (the music),and we can dot the "i" on all the cross redirects from there.Childhoodtrauma 02:52, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've fixed all that. Except I left St. Louis Blues (music) at the same location and the St. Louis blues at the same location. The rest I have fixed. BsroiaadnTalk 03:19, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

text: *Reply: If you look at the other talk pages, I have posted on all of them that a discussion is going on here. As to your reason for not making the hockey team St. Louis Blues instead of St. Louis Blues (hockey), it's not very good in my opinion. First of all, genres aren't capitalized, so St. Louis blues has absolutely no reason to be on St. Louis Blues. Secondly, as per WP:DAB#Primary topic the article that will be searched for most frequently should get the main page and that can be decided by links to it. St. Louis Blues (music) - 27 links, St. Louis Blues (Australian rules football) - 27 links, St. Louis Blues (film) - 28 links, St. Louis Blues (hockey) - over 1,300 links, so the hockey team should clearly be the primary topic. BsroiaadnTalk 23:05, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *CommentBut most of those are probably because of the NHL infobox. -- Beardo 04:46, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *Reply: 262 wikilinks to it are because of the template, the rest are actually inside the articles, which still leaves over 1,000 wikilinks to it. BsroiaadnTalk 13:14, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

text: *Reply: And that's fine, but genres aren't capitalized (excluding the first letter), so St. Louis Blues and St. Louis blues wouldn't be on the same page anyway. But the hockey team is the primary topic (at least for Blues and not blues,  which by the way St. Louis blues has less than 100 wikilinks to it), and so it should be at St. Louis Blues, not St. Louis Blues (hockey). I'm not putting down the other articles, but the hockey team has many more links to it. BsroiaadnTalk 13:14, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: * As shown in the discussion above, the arguement about capitalization is incorrect and irrelevent, as the user above admits they had never even heard of the St. Louis Blues when they started this discussion (which could have been remedied by looking at the articles on the disambiguation page before proposing the move). -- Infrogmation 23:40, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *To make it clear, I am not the one that proposed the move, I merely supported it. Secondly, "when I think of St. Louis blues I think of the Blues" shows they were talking about the genre since they linked to the genre, which wouldn't be capitalized (see heavy metal, smooth jazz, hard rock, etc.) so how is my statement incorrect? BsroiaadnTalk 02:13, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

text: The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal.  Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.</div>
It was requested that this article be renamed but there was no consensus for it be moved. --Stemonitis 05:56, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Discussion

message: According to CBC.ca:
-Dallas Drake has been waived
-Curtis Sanford will not be signed
207.148.178.250 01:11, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Blues make roster changes (www.cbc.ca) 

message: As long as Drake remains on waivers, he's still a St. Louis Blue and the Blues team captain. So people, pleased stop removing him from the 'current roster' (along with other post-Drake edits). GoodDay 00:19, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Drake is now off the roster.  Erryday I'm 05:48, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yep, he's gone. GoodDay 22:53, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Dallas Drake

message: There's some uncertainty over the Blues captains from 1970-77 (between Arbour and Berenson). Could someone help fix this uncertainty & perhaps provide a citation? GoodDay 22:27, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It seems Berenson was named captain in 1970, but was traded the same year. Then he was captain again from 75-76, then again from 77-78, and the season in between those 2 seasons Unger was captain for one season. As for as Arbour, I have no idea.   D1R3C7  23:38, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I can't find any citations, backing Arbour's second stint as Blues captain. Therefore, I've removed the second mentioning of his name from the list, replacing it with 'no captain'. GoodDay 14:21, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

text: RG, feel free to straigten out the Blues captains list. I don't know what's wrong with the people at the Blues official website, but they've got it wrong. Even more bizzare, I've old hockey books at home which describe Roberts & Unger as Blues captains. I suspect Roberts & Unger only -filled in- during injuries; honestly the Blues have gotten me confused on their captaincy past & present (as seen below). GoodDay 17:34, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

text: Nevermind, I've fixed the list to reflect the NHL Media Guides list. I've also removed the Blues captain successon boxes from the Roberts & Unger articles. GoodDay 18:16, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

text: Somebody has inserted Roberts & Unger again. GoodDay (talk) 20:18, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: So revert it...Well I did this time, but when you see it revert it. -Djsasso (talk) 20:20, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

text: OK, I've added the Blues, to my watchlist. Jumpin' Junipers.. 'diacritics' appearing on NHL articles, 'birth countries' being tampered with and now? the captaincy thing. Well, this looks like a fixing job for somone who's grumpy (and I'm grumpy). GoodDay (talk) 20:56, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  I thought when Brewer was made captain as "the 19th captian in blues history" http://blues.nhl.com/team/app/?service=page&page=NewsPage&articleid=352757 he was 19th on the wiki list. he is no longer 19th. is this the result of the unger etc issues? if you add back roberts and unger and count red twice, brewer becomes 19th. if this is the issue, i suspect many people are likely to try to fix the captancy to match not only what the blues' claim on their web site, but also during their games, in their guides, et al.Childhoodtrauma (talk) 19:33, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

text: Very sharp eye 'Childhoodtrauma'. The list minus Roberts, Unger does indeed come up short of 19. I'm bring this up at WikiProject Ice Hockey. GoodDay (talk) 19:36, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: GoodDay, not everything needs to always be brought up on that talk page. That is why individual articles have talk pages. Again, just fix the issue. -Djsasso (talk) 19:39, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

text: Please note Berenson is counted 'twice' (as the 2nd & 4th captain). PS: I notify the WikiProject to get 'members' there to come here (there's a chance they don't all have the Blues on their watchlists). GoodDay (talk) 19:42, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  i think what we probably have here is a difference between the franchise records and the nhl records. this is not the first time this has happened. there is a semi-imfamous case involving the "un"retirement of the number the nhl guides had listed as retired, but the red wings pesonal information had removed that distinction. eventually the nhl adopted the red wings' version of history. IF the blues and the NHL differ on the issue of sucession of team captains: a) which one do we go with, and B) almost certainly people using the non selected version will try to "fix" the entry making the blues captancy something to be corrected on an ongoing basis.Childhoodtrauma (talk) 19:00, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

text: That is actually my point, there is often a reason why people don't have certain pages on their watch list. By taking conversations to multiple talk pages like you constantly do you end up spamming people. Just be WP:BOLD when there is an obvious fix. -Djsasso (talk) 19:45, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

text: Spammy people? what's that? GoodDay (talk) 19:48, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

text: Errr, make that five. Doug Weight has been traded to the Ducks (for Andy McDonald). GoodDay (talk) 01:16, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Blues captains

message: Do the Blues actually have six alternate captains this season? Do we have comfirmation of that? (Note: the Blues website is unreliabe, it has only Weight & Jackman with As). GoodDay 21:11, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Errr, make that five. Doug Weight has been traded to the Ducks (for Andy McDonald). GoodDay (talk) 01:16, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Blues alternate captains, 2007-08

message: Would somebody explain to me why, John Davidson's name keeps getting put into the GM section at the infobox? GoodDay (talk) 21:31, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: When John Davidson took over as president, he assumed most of the functions usually carried out by a GM, with Pleau being reduced to an advisory role.  The article even notes this.  In fact, his formal title, according to the Blues' Web site is "president of hockey operations." Blueboy96 21:53, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

text: It gives the impression that Davidson is GM & Pleau is Assitant GM, which is incorrect. GoodDay (talk) 22:04, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

text: The Blue's site explicitly states that Pleau is the General Manager.  Regardless if his power has been reduced, he still has the official title.  As such, he should be listed as the GM here. --Pparazorback (talk) 22:43, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: So why not list that while Pleau is officially GM, Davidson has the final say in all hockey decisions with the Blues?  This is similar to what prevails with the Phoenix Coyotes--Wayne Gretzky has the final say in all on-ice matters, even though they have a guy with the general manager's title.  I won't edit-war over this ... just want to see this worked out since it seems to be generally understood that Davidson has the real power. Blueboy96 23:41, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The president in ALL organizations holds the real power. So really this is no different than any other organization except that it was publicly talked about in the press. If the Blues list him as officially the GM than that is all there is to it. There doesn't need to be any further clarification because the role of GM differs drastically from team to team. It doesn't really matter who holds the power, its who holds the title that gets listed. -Djsasso (talk) 00:12, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed.  While Davidson may be the de facto GM, he is not the official GM.  For us to demote Pleau from his formal title on wiki when the Blues themselves have not would be for us to introduce our own POV.  Pleau is the GM, and that is what we should be stating in the infobox. Resolute 01:39, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: OK ... so maybe put the fact that Davidson has the final say in hockey operations in a footnote somewhere? Blueboy96 02:09, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Didn't you  mention that this is already mentioned in the article itself?  The infobox is designed simply to give information at a glance.  It is fine as it is, while the article itself can mention how Davidson and Pleau interact. Resolute 15:45, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

text:  there is an additional issue involving the health of Larry Pleau's wife, which has likely reduced his workload. While John Davidson is the face of Blues management to the fans via the media, I certainly agree that that has nothing to do with who is the GM. I believe the concern on the part of some is that GM is likely included in the info block because it is percieved as a position of authority with a major impact on the current team performance. It just turns out this may not always the case. as mentioned this article already has specifically given Davidson credit for moves (unverified) that i suspect are not his alone. And saddles him with a team mentality (also unverified) as that of American First which the BLues are unlikely to really be involved in.Childhoodtrauma (talk) 18:08, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Davidson and Pleau

message: Here's a tricky one. The Seals under that name, never won a Stanly Cup title, however the franchise did (1999) as the Dallas Stars. Seals-Barons-North Stars-Stars, is the unbroken line of the franchise - also some may question the Sharks being a direct link to the Seals (butt that's a seperate story). I'd recommend a note be added, or is that's getting too nitpicky? GoodDay (talk) 16:41, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Technically they didn't cause the Golden Seals if you follow the franchise are the San Jose Sharks not the Dallas Stars. They demerged from the North Stars prior to moving to Dallas. The line is actually Seals-Barons-1/2 North Stars-Sharks and then the North Stars line is North Stars-1/2 North Stars-Stars. -Djsasso (talk) 17:01, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: One could argue though: the Dallas Stars & San Jose Sharks are equal direct links to the Seals, but I won't. GoodDay (talk) 17:20, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Not really the Sharks were an official demerging of the two franchises. -Djsasso (talk) 17:27, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  So some claim, in any event, but that seems to be at best a technicality akin to the Ottawa Senators "reinstatement" to the NHL.  In any event, the NHL Record Book doesn't consider the Seals-Barons to have a link with the North Stars, nor either one with the Sharks.    Ravenswing  17:56, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: California Seals

message: Isn't that the naming convention?  I'd rather have this as the main page and use St. Louis Blues (disambiguation), but I see that boat has been sunk.  Schmloof (talk) 15:58, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It is, but the problem is every time we go to move it there. The fact that most hockey people don't think it should be disambiguated at all comes up. So it ends up remaining as status quo. -Djsasso (talk) 16:45, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

text: We try to keep disambiguators standard through all uses. We use (ice hockey) in all instances of disambiguation involving ice hockey. -DJSasso (talk) 21:50, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Precicely.  It's just for the sake of consistency to keep it this way. Resolute 22:50, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed with DJSasso. Obamafan70 (talk) 18:27, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Move to St. Louis Blues (ice hockey)? 

message: There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:St. Louis Blues (ice hockey) which affects St. Louis Blues. Please participate on this page and not in the Talk:St. Louis Blues page section. Thank you.  —RM bot 22:15, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Move discussion in progress

message: :The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 
The result of the move request was: page moved. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 08:58, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Powers' opposing argument is based purely on sentimental reasoning and is not supported by any policy. Dolovis (talk) 22:08, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Not really, it is standard to try and avoid recentism. Remember notability is not temporary. The fact that the song is a very historical song in the context of American popular music is a strong argument for the fact that there isn't one primary topic. However, I am not saying he is right or wrong since I am not sure on this topic. But I think its disingenuous to just dismiss it as being sentimental when there is nothing in his comment that would suggest something like that. -DJSasso (talk) 00:09, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text:  There is nothing recent about the St. Louis Blues; they  have been in the NHL since 1967. Wikipedia:Recentism does not apply in this case, and no one is suggesting that the song is not notable. The facts strongly support that the hockey club is the Primary tOpic, and that is the only relevant issue that needs to be decided. Dolovis (talk) 01:30, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Relatively speaking yes, 40 years is recent compared to the song. Recent changes based on the subject. Something that happened 200 years ago is recent compared to something 1000 years ago. His argument is that the fact suggest there is no primary topic. I am merely saying that calling him sentimental is not productive to a discussion on where the page should be. -DJSasso (talk) 01:33, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: While there's certainly recentism concerns, the numbers of links and views seems pretty convincing that the hockey team is the primary topic. And there's no precedence clause to WP:PRIMARY; being the namesake doesn't automatically make it the primary topic, or make the other topic require a disambiguator. And it's not like there wouldn't be hatnote to point to the song. oknazevad (talk) 01:48, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Djsasso makes some very valid points, and the time differences is largely what makes this move trickier, It's much easier in moving articles to determine the primary topic when they are in the same historical period. Although there's clearly a primary topic in terms of article views and links, that may be because the hockey team exists in a period of time when mass media plays an important role in peoples lives. Combine that with the song having such a large impact on American music and the hockey team's name coming from it and I have to lean toward either 1) the song being the primary topic or 2) both the hockey team and song being primary topics (esp. compared to other things named "St. Louis Blues"). Another way to look at the issue and deal with the complexity of the difference in historical periods between the song and hockey team is: if the hockey team ended tomorrow, what entity would be more influential in 100 years? Bhockey10 (talk) 02:13, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

text: There's more to determining primary topic than just article links and page views.  Powers T 15:03, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

text: The last sentence of the nom is based purely on personal convenience and is not supported by any policy. Also, as mentioned above you can just type "St. Louis Blues (ice hockey)|" in any case. Jafeluv (talk) 01:13, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text:  But the first sentence of the nom is based on WP:PRIMARYTOPIC and is well supported by policy. Dolovis (talk) 02:07, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Can't disagree with that. Jafeluv (talk) 16:31, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

text: Regardless if a convenience factor is openly stated, most moves I've seen usually have some convenience factor. The main convenience factor should be to help readers navigate Wikipedia better. Bhockey10 (talk) 02:13, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

text: I'm not sure of the appropriate procedure with a move of this nature, but as there is no move proposal banner on St. Louis Blues or the other variations of this article, I think this discussion risks being a bit one-sided. isaacl (talk) 01:59, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: A link to this discussion was left on that talk page and its listed at requested moves. This is basically how these discussions are handled. -DJSasso (talk) 02:05, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

text: The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move.  Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.
Object strongly; I think this is wildly inappropriate to ONLY discuss on the hockey article with no notice on the relevent St. Louis Blues articles!  There is not consensus to move until there is consensus in the music, blues, etc forums as well. -- Infrogmation (talk) 12:53, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

text: There actually was notice on the disambiguation page talk page. Since those two articles are the only articles involved it was only necessary to notify those two articles. It was also listed on the Requested Moves page for outside opinions. -DJSasso (talk) 12:56, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

text: If you wish to start a discussion to move it back then do so. However, your attempt at a revert created quite a mess where the actual hockey article was deleted from the wiki completely instead of being moved back to its old location. Until you can show there is a consensus to move it back please cease moving the article around. -DJSasso (talk) 13:04, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

text: What DJ said; the only two articles affected received notification.  The song's page is, as far as I can tell, completely unaffected by the move.  Going to every music forum you can name in an attempt to overturn a result you don't like would be a blatant WP:CANVASS violation.   Ravenswing  14:41, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text:  It looks to me that notifying people interested in "The Saint Louis Blues" (which might refer to multiple things) would have been only reasonable. You argue that that would have been a blatant CANVASS violation, whereas only confining the discussion only to the those following the hockey team is not? Puzzled Infrogmation (talk) 02:02, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

text: Please don't reverse the page move, or you'll have me singing the blues. GoodDay (talk) 19:06, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: The problem, as I see it, is that the majority of participants were more familiar with the hockey team than with the historical importance of the song.  The song really got unfairly short shrift in the discussion; however much fun hockey is -- and I'm a member of the WikiProject -- you simply can't compare any individual team to one of the ten most important works in the American musical canon.  The Blues aren't even one of the 10 most important American hockey teams!  Powers T 15:00, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: If the historical importance of the song defined location, it would be at "St. Louis Blues" rather than "St. Louis Blues (song)".  What matters here is what the primary topic is, and that is determined by common usage.  If you can convince me that the hockey team is not easily the most common thing a reader would expect to find when searching this title, I will happily reverse my opinion.  Besides, I am not entirely certain what the problem is.  When this title pointed to the dab page, the song was simply one of many links buried in a list.  The current hat note gives the song prime placement ahead of the dab list.  I would say the song's position has been impoved by this move. Resolute 16:41, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: But that's just it -- I'm not advocating that the song get the undisambiguated title; I couldn't with the obvious discrepancy in popularity.  But neither do I think a strong case can be made that the hockey team is primary, given the historical importance of the song.  Without the participation of learned music historians, it's no surprise that most of the people who did participate were only familiar with the hockey team.  Powers T 00:07, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

text:  I'm more familiar with the hockey team myself, but if the evidence had suggested that the song was the more common term by as wide a margin as the team proved to be, I couldn't do anything but oppose the move.  It didn't.   Ravenswing  19:39, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

text: Today (2011), It doesn't appear that many would associate St. Louis Blues with a song written in 1914. GoodDay (talk) 20:17, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: If that's true, it's only due to a general ignorance of music history.  It's among the first 10 American songs I'd want any encyclopedia to have.  It's the "Rock Around the Clock" of the Jazz Age.  Powers T 00:07, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

text:  "Today (2011), It doesn't appear that many would associate St. Louis Blues with a song written in 1914."What an absurd statement! The Saint Louis Blues is one of the most famous and influential musical compositions, played every day by bands all around the world, and no doubt millions of the people who are familiar with it don't even know that there's an American hockey team named after it. -- Infrogmation (talk) 02:02, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

text: Please see Wikipedia talk:Disambiguation#Educational value and consider if this alternate wording would have swayed anyone to the importance of making this title a disambiguation page.  Powers T 15:31, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I didn't come in on either side of the issue, however, this wouldn't sway me in a particular direction because the song should definitely not be the primary topic. That much I am sure on, I am just not sure on if the page should be a dab or the hockey team. -DJSasso (talk) 15:37, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

text: Comment Keep in mind the purpose of dab pages, and the issue of what title links to what article is for the ease of the readers to find info. If someone is looking for the song: when typing "St. Louis Blues into the search box 1) [[St. Louis Blues (song) appears second, it's very easy to click on. 2) if someone clicks on St. Louis Blues there's a clear hatnote to direct them to the song.  Bhockey10 (talk) 22:00, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Requested move 2010 

message: The logos listed are not complete, one is wrong, and the dates are inaccurate.
The logo currently listed as one being used from 84-98 was never used on an official primary jersey.
The official St. Louis Blues page:  http://blues.nhl.com/club/page.htm?id=39484 shows 4 different versions of logos that have appeared on the chest of the primary St. Louis Blues jerseys since coming into the league in 1967.  
Also, this sports logos site: http://www.sportslogos.net/logos/list_by_team/25 displays all of the shoulder patches and other logos the team has displayed on their jerseys at one point or another.
I recommend to add a logos section to include all of these logos/patches.
I was going to do it myself, but I haven't figured out how to add images yet.
Cprice12 (talk) 20:08, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Blues Logos 

message: It says the Blues won 3 conference championships between 1968 and 1970. Were there even conferences back then? I believe that's not true, at the time the NHL only had two divisions and no conferences. Tdunsky (talk) 17:38, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Sigh.  You are, of course, right.  Whoever added that simply assumed that winning a Campbell Bowl back then equates to winning a Conference title today. I've removed it.  Thanks, Resolute 20:26, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Conference championships in the 1960's? 

message: I want to edit PLEASE Hockey7474 (talk) 18:02, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: You need to have a specific edit you want to make. Otherwise you won't be able to yet. -DJSasso (talk) 18:04, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 12 June 2019 

message: Nazem Kadri should say Tom Stillman GamersBaseball24 (talk) 05:03, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: It's fixed now. Deadman137 (talk) 05:12, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 24 May 2022 

message: somebody needs to send an edit request to get this changed GamersBaseball24 (talk) 05:06, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  still showing kadri as owner 

message: In "Franchise Playoff Scoring Leaders" table, "change Ryan O'Reilly's position from D to C" Imallov (talk) 22:00, 23 September 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. MadGuy7023 (talk) 22:25, 23 September 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 23 September 2022