Talk:New York Islanders

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
 This article is part of Wikipedia:WikiProject Ice Hockey, an attempt at building a useful ice hockey resource. If you would like to participate, you can choose to edit the article attached to this page (see Wikipedia:Contributing FAQ for more information).

Ice hockey Portal
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.
This article is part of the New York State WikiProject, an attempt to better organize and improve articles related to the U.S. state of New York. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.

Would there be a place where it would be appropriate to discuss the controversy over attempts to change the Islanders' sweater and the subsequent reversion to the sweater of their glory days, or the subject of hockey sweaters in general? --Daniel C. Boyer 15:49 24 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] www.islesinfo.com

It seems that the automatic presumption is that any non-official website posted as an external link must be some fannish swill, but before anyone else does a knee-jerk reversion, go take a look at it first. It is a genuinely outstanding, comprehensive site, and plainly shows a great deal of up-to-date hockey knowledge. I can only presume that those who've been reverting it haven't bothered to peruse it, but if they haven't, they have no business doing reversions on it. Hell, if it gets reverted again, I'm not going to wait for the original poster to put the citation back up, I'll do it myself. RGTraynor 14:29, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Easter Epic

I was surprised there was nothing written about the Easter Epic, as it was probably the single greatest game the Isles were ever involved with ( Stanley Cups aside, of course). I added it and a link to a page that goes into detail about the series and that game. Feedback is always wanted! Thanks.Rkw1111 04:44, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Heh, it's a game worth commemmorating -- I've always regretted caving in at 1 AM myself -- and you didn't overload the main article with it. Looks good to me. RGTraynor 15:26, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Roster and Alternate Captains

Eric Godard and John Erskine are not under contract to the Islanders. Although they're still on the website, there is really no way to say that unrestricted free agents are on the roster. The ESPN link is ludicrously out of date. Additionally, I'm not sure that we can say that Bates, Satan, Zhitnik or York will be alternate captains in the new season. Croctotheface 23:41, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

True enough, however the pratice in the NHL team article(s), is to leave the 'C' and 'A's with the players who wore them through all/most of the previous (in this case 2005-06) NHL season, plus they're contractual expected back in the lineup for next season. In effect Yashin is captain, York & Zhitnik are alternate captains until replaced. In the case of Bates, he was an alternate captain due to the injury/absents from the lineup of Zhitnik. York and Zhitnik were chosen the A's following the departures of Lukowich and Parrish. GoodDay 20:54, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "Black Tuesday" reversion

Unless there emerges some broad-based consensus among journalists and commentators that this should be called "Black Tuesday', there is absolutley no justification to use it in an encyclopedia. It is clearly expressing an opinion, which Wikipedia articles should not. Croctotheface 03:40, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

- Acutally, many fans around message boards are declaring it "Black Tuesday". So yes, it should be included, in which the definition is clearly sighted in this disuccsion: July 18, 2006 is known as "Black Tuesday" in the teams history by many Islander fans. I can show you the countless number of fans that are actually defining this day in team history as this. Thus, a definition of this day in the basis of ISLANDER FANS is defined in this topic. Thus it is clearly justified. Islander fans make up the history of the organization just as much as the guy who sits in the front office of the organization or the news media. Sports in American Society 101. At the same time, you have a media account, Steve Simmons of the Toronto Sun, who stated why it can be known as "Black Tuesday" in the teams history Danes1 19 July 2006 (UTC)

It isONE day later. You are a little ahead of yourself WP:NOT#Wikipedia_is_not_a_crystal_ball Where is the Toronto COMMENTARY: His column today is about the Blue Jays [1] ccwaters 14:33, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
"Many" or "countless" fans? Feel free to give us some links; my personal take on it is that "countless" = a single topic on a single bulletin board called "Black Tuesday" with a couple dozen fans holding forth. Beyond which, this doesn't remotely make sense. GMs get fired all the time, and Smith had just about the shortest tenure as a GM in the entire expansion era. Yashin, Satan and Blake getting wiped out in a car crash would be "Black Tuesday." This isn't remotely it. I'm going to edit that section down to the minimum needful at once. RGTraynor 14:36, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

- go to espn.com and watch his interview on ESPNews...YOU GUYS NEED TO STOP MAKING THE HISTORY SEEM ALL NICE AND PRETTY...THE FACT IS MILBURY, WANG AND YESTERDAY ARE A MAJOR PART OF THIS TEAMS HISTORY...AND ITS A NASTY AND SAD ONE. iT IS REFERRED TO IT BECAUSE MANY FANS BELEIVE THAT THE ORGANIZATION HAS FINALLY, AFTER ALL THESE YEARS, HAVE HIT A NEW LOW...THATS WHY IT IS CONSIDERED A BAD DAY. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 169.226.162.94 (talk • contribs).

You need to stop speculating about the long term effects of an event that happened a day ago. Its nothing to shout about. ccwaters 15:40, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "A Relatively Minor Deal"

I'm not comfortable with the automatic paring down of content on the grounds that it is minor or somehow not notable by definition. If the information is accurate, from a neutral point of view, and sourced, I think it clearly merits inclusion. It is especially notable considering the management follies surrounding the team for the past 10 years. I would not be opposed to creating a new article about the last 10 years and including a more detailed account there. Croctotheface 18:39, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

It certainly is included; it's mentioned, which is all the incident warrants. To inflate the section -- as it had been -- to dwarf the amount of space given to discussing all the Islanders' Cup-winning seasons combined is just another symptom of the tendency of many Wikipedia editors to worship the Now and give short shrift, at best, to anything that happened in the past. Lots of teams fire GMs, several every season, and there's often ephemeral controversy over it. Only two other franchises have ever won four straight Cups, and one would think that's the part of Islanders' history in which Isles fans have the most pride. While I'm on the topic, by the way, what's up with the current events tag? This is hardly a "breaking news" incident. RGTraynor 20:27, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
I was referring to the information you cut as being worthy of inclusion. The standard should not be what gives Islander fans the most pride, but what is or is not notable enough to include. Your judgment as to what the "incident warrants" is the opinion of one editor. The article could merely say, "In July 2006, the Islanders fired GM Neil Smith and replaced him with Garth Snow." Would that be too brief? It's a "mention," after all. As you point out above, this may be the shortest GM tenure since expansion; that's certainly notable. As to your judgment that this will no longer be notable in time or that it is merely "ephemeral controversy" akin to any GM firing is to intentionally downplay the event. Other GM firings are not the talk of the hockey world the way this one is. The previous section was fine as it was and did not merit being reduced. Croctotheface 21:22, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
While the whole incident is rather bizarre, in order to justify giving three paragraphs over to a single event, however odd, in the thirty-plus year history of the franchise, the Dynasty years alone would have to be on the order of a small book. I'm willing to bet that Wikipedia is not intended to be that book, instead focusing on each noteworthy event in a concise but informative matter. A short paragraph is sufficient, barring significant further developments. Doogie2K (talk) 22:54, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
The "board of directors" plan is notable. The current article makes no mention of it. It mentions the "difference in philosophy" but does not explain what that difference is. I'm not married to a certain length or mass of information. If the paragraph in question were more informative, I would have no objections. As for the dynasty years, I agree that they should figure more prominently in the article. I'm also pretty sure that there is some amount of content in between a few paragraphs and a book (of which there are several on the dynasty) that would serve to be both concise and informative. If there is not enough content about one topic, other notable topics should not be reduced proportionally. Croctotheface 23:27, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
Agreed, there is a big difference. I'm talking about relative scale. Three paragraphs for even the oddest GM firing is a lot. An extra sentence outlining the BoD situation certainly wouldn't be out of order, but what was there originally was way too much. Doogie2K (talk) 16:45, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
"Other GM firings are not the talk of the hockey world the way this one is." Err? How do you figure? Certainly it's the talk of the hockey world on Long Island, for the moment, but it's only fifth on the Toronto Star website (underneath the thrilling Dominic Moore-Adam Hall trade), it's not listed at all on the Boston Globe or Chicago Tribune websites, the Detroit Free Press notes it in passing only in a team-by-team roundup column. RGTraynor 07:14, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] What's the deal with changing all the forwards positions?

It's true that forwards will often play more than one forward position. That does not mean that they should all be listed as such. I'd be in favor of reverting most of those edits. Croctotheface 22:13, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Redundancy

someone keeps adding a second mention of Overtime in this sentence:

In game 6 of the Stanley Cup Finals, Bobby Nystrom scored at 7:11 of overtime to defeat the Flyers and bring Long Island its first Stanley Cup.

Then asking for the redundancy to be removed. Stop. there is no redundancy in the sentence as shown above and as is currently in the article.

As I wrote on your talk page, I wasn't paying enough attention. I thought I was removing the redundancy when I was in fact adding it. When you wrote the edit summary, I realized what was happening. Thanks for getting it right. Croctotheface 20:02, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
Just checking. Thanks!Ucscottb4u 20:06, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wade Dubielewicz

Wade does appear to be the backup. The market for a more established backup has really thinned out and with the new contract he got immediately after Garth moved to GM does seem to back that theory up.Ucscottb4u 20:44, 14 August 2006 (UTC) –If Wade Isnt the Backup Who is?

I imagine we'll find out after training camp. RGTraynor 04:18, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Concerns with recent edits

I'm concerned about GM11's recent edits to the article. My first instinct was to revert most or all of them, but since I believe they were all undertaken with good faith, I want to post here first. I'm going to revert the changes, then go back and restore the handful that I think were helpful. The ones I will revert are either style issues (by convention, we use American spelling for American teams), POV issues, or indiscriminate or irrelevant information. If anyone thinks I've gone too far, we can discuss it here. Croctotheface 19:29, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Dispute over sub-sub headers

I removed some of them (not all) in good faith because, as I explained at the time, they needlessly clutter the page and disrupt the flow of the text. I preserved several of them, though, because there were cases where the information could be better organized or there were events, such as the 1993 playoff run, that are notable enough that the article should call attention to them. However, the large number of them originally introduced was too many. Additionally, one reason I dislike the overuse of section breaks is that they are parasitic, in that they immediately call for more breaks. For instance, the break for the 1993 run makes the "Arbour retires" break necessary, despite the fact that, left on its own, there would not be a compelling reason to break for a couple of sentences about Arbour stepping down. GoldDragon. who introduced them in the first place, took the troubling step of reverting my good faith changes, reinstating his exact set of sections. Consequently, I put them back the way they were. I'd appreciate some more comments on the issue to see if there is a consensus for either version. Croctotheface 23:49, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Not really, I don't see the breaks being parasitic at all. Indeed, I feel that the breaks better reflects the history of the team, particularly with regards to the team's performance. Second, my edits are in good faith. GoldDragon 00:10, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

"My version is better, so I'm just going to revert to it" is not good faith editing. I made some changes and explained them. Your response amounted to "I like my version better." My edits made an attempt to keep the best of your changes and eliminate the ones that did not improve the article, which is what wikis are supposed to be all about. You simply reverted back to your edits with no consideration to the idea that your changes may not have been perfect. And the breaks are parasitic, according to the way I defined the term above: introducing one for "Easter Epic" forced you to put in another for "Out of playoffs", which is not the least bit notable. "1993 playoff run" forced "Arbour retires" and then "Healy/Hextall trade", neither of which are particularly deserving of attention versus the rest of the article. It is also factually incorrect to imply that Healy was traded for Hextall. Mark Fitzpatrick was traded for Hextall, and then Healy was not protected in the expansion draft. Croctotheface 01:07, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
Well, if you can think of a better header for after the 1993 Miracle, then I would like to here it. The headers show their value once you are deep in the article, as the 1974-79 section is too long. I don't thick its necessary to have as many 4th tier headers as initially planned but nonetheless the existing version has too few as it is. GoldDragon 04:50, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

I've tried to compromise about this. You, however, simply revert to your original version without making any attempt to have a real discussion or reach a consensus. Your most recent edit summary implied that you made some attempt to compromise and meet in the middle. Instead, you put in the same number of sections and even restored some POV and OR text you had put in a while back. The sections you add call undue attention to things like a few years of missing the playoffs or John Spano and the Milsteins. Seven sentences on Spano, who deserves to be little more than a footnote in the history of the team, does not deserve a section. WP:NPOV#Undue weight is, along with breaking up the flow of the text, my main concern with your changes. I've scaled them back and tweaked some of the sections. If you're still unhappy, please take a step back and consider that maybe, just maybe, you don't have a monopoly on wisdom and that there may be something in what I'm saying. If you can't do that, then I have to question why you would want to work on a collaborative project like Wikipedia. Croctotheface 06:05, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

It is an undisputable fact that the Isles and Rangers are in the same conference and division, while this is not true of NYC's MLB and NFL teams. Maybe you don't necessarily like it in the lead of the article but much of the history of the Isles is their bitter rivalry with the Rangers. Again, I disagree with you trying to eliminate the headers for Easter Epic and the 1993 playoff run, as they are treated as landmark moments in the Isles' history, that is why I used the 4th tier header for the two events, to seperate it out from the neighboring seasons which weren't so eventfull. The Gretzky Oiler header is also another significant moment in their dynasty, perhaps more so to Bossy and co than these outside the team. I'm wiling to compromise on Spano and the Milsteins but their sections shouldn't be reduced. GoldDragon 19:04, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

There are lots of potential original research passages that could be based on "undisputable facts". WP:OR prevents "unpublished analysis or synthesis of published material" from being included in articles. The fact that there is lots of OR all over the place on Wikipedia is what prevented me from just saying, "This is OR; it can't be included." If you do find a reputable source that talks about the rivalry the way your passage did, I'd be fine with finding a spot for it somewhere else in the article. It's inappropriate for the lead because this is an article on a 34-year-old hockey team, not their rivalry with the Rangers. As far as the rest, I'm glad that you're willing to compromise on some of the other matters. If and when the dynasty section is expaded, which is sorely needs to be, I could see breaking it up into smaller sections, one of which would mention the Oilers. I moved mention of the Easter Epic and '93 run up a level on the headers as a compromise as well. This prevents the need for "Out of playoffs" and "Arbour retires" sections. I also left in the "Postseason disappointment" section. Croctotheface 01:13, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sanjay Kumar's Status as Owner

There should be a mention of Sanjay Kumar's status as owner here as he is following the "tradition" of New York Islander owners heading to jail... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 141.202.248.12 (talk • contribs).

It really isn't that relevant to an article on the team. If your motivation is to make some sort of point about the Islanders, I suggest you reread WP:NPOV. Croctotheface 22:41, 20 December 2006 (UTC)


[edit] What does the New York represent

I've always wondered, what does the New York in New York Islanders mean? The city or the state? I personally think it means the state. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.86.122.109 (talk) 00:42, 2 February 2007 (UTC).

The Islanders seem to represent 'Long island' and the Rangers seem to represent 'New York City'. As for the entire state, both franchises represent. I'm guessing of course. GoodDay 22:30, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../n/e/w/Talk%7ENew_York_Islanders_b534.html"