Talk:Colorado Avalanche

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Colorado Avalanche article.
Article policies
Good article Colorado Avalanche has been listed as one of the Everyday life good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can delist it, or ask for a reassessment.

Contents

[edit] Nordiques separate entry?

Is it the best idea to have Quebec Nordiques redirected to the Colorado Avalanche page, and list people like Michel Goulet as Hall of Famers?

I was thinking we could have 2 pages, one for Colorado Avalanche and one for Quebec Nordiques. If there were some Hall of Famers from the Nordiques we could link from here to the Nordiques page.

I guess we could have one page for both, maybe once this page gets longer it will become more clear to me how that will be done. dave 02:51, Mar 31, 2004 (UTC)

I don't see why there should be seperate pages, because I haven't seen a single professional team that has a seperate article for their former locations and/or team names.

It seems the standard practice is to have one page for each team not seperate pages per what city they played in


I feel that the Nordiques warrant a seperate entry. Although one came from the other, the Nordiques played in a different city, a different arena, had different colours, different jerseys, different rivals, a different logo... in short, the Nordiques and Avalanche, although one came from the other, are two different teams with two distinct identities. In the interest of comprehensiveness I think the two articles should be seperate. In any case it seems kind of funny that the great majority of this article actually is the the history of the Nordiques.

The "standard practice" can be wrong. It should be noted that Atlanta Flames and Calgary Flames have seperate articles. I created the seperate article because I felt that redirecting "Quebec Nordiques" to the Colorado Avalanche article just didn't do the team or the topic justice. I also don't support merging Winnipeg Jets and Phoenix Coyotes, Hartford Whalers and Carolina Hurricanes, etc. You could make an analogy of merging the USSR article with the Russia article. --Legalizeit 13:18, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I feel it's a worthwile move to separate both pages. They're the "same" franchise, but they share completely diveregent histories. Just look at their historical rivalries. The Habs-Nordiques provincial rivalry of the 80's never carried over to the Avs. Likewise, all the bad blood between the Avs and Wings in the playoffs is irrelevant to the original Nordiques team. --Madchester 17:18, 2005 Apr 28 (UTC)

[edit] Avalanche/Nordiques

I removed the Nordiques history since it's on Québec Nordiques already and replaced it with Colorado's history since moving to Denver. I'm a Predators fan, so I might have gotten it all gummed up and some of it was from memory, but I think I did pretty good. Kevin Rector 05:13, Apr 8, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] List of Colorado Avalanche players

I have started a List of Colorado Avalanche players. When you add new players to the main Avalanche article, could you also add them to the players list? thanks! Masterhatch 12 August 2005

shoud kids beable to add to this artical

As long as the content you add is worthy of being in the encyclopedia, it doesn't matter how old you are. We have some great contributors who are kids and also some terrible contributors who are adults. Academic Challenger 01:14, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Season-by-season record

While adding a Grand Totals to the season-by-season records I realised that there is an error. The Avalanche have played a total of 820 regular season games in ten seasons, yet the number of W, L, T and OTLs only add up to 819. I haven't actually corrected it yet, since it's a hell of a hazzle to find out where the error is. And since I'm not an Avalanche fan myself I don't want to spend too much of my time on it. But in case one of you Avalanche fans would like to correct the information on the page, www.hockeydb.com would be an excellent place to starts. Cheers! JesperLærke 13:27, 7 June 2006 (UTC)


It looks like there was a simple math error in the OTL column: the total comes out to 30 instead of 29, which accounts for the extra game. --Audee 23:16, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Captain Sylvain Lefevbre?

For the last few weeks, i've been involved in an edit conflect with anon user 72.174.2.93. The anon user, continues to post Lefevbre in the Team Captains section, however he/she provide no verifiable evidence. Yes Lefevbre did fill in as captain for an injured Sakic, but every Avalanche offical media guides that I've seen, listed only Sakic as captain. Who is correct, can someone please resolve this dispute? GoodDay 19:47, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

I was wrong, the Avalanche media guide fot the 1997-98 NHL season apprantly lists Lefebvre as captain. Oh well, excuse me while I eat crow. GoodDay 23:49, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Incorrect Info

Yo, I was looking at the roster, and I saw that Peter Budaj's birthplace was somewhere in Czechoslavakia (I don't know how to spell that word), but when I put the cursor over his nationality flag (which I noticed wasn't the same flag as listed beside other Czech players), a little bar popped up that listed the flag as that of Slovakia. Can someone please fix this?Ohyeh 23:42, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

According to the article on Banská Bystrica, it is in the center of Slovakia, so I changed the info to say Slovakia instead of Czechoslovakia. The thing is, when he was born, it was part of Czechoslovakia, and became Slovakia in 1993. His place of birth is in Slovakia, currently, but should the article go by current name or the name at the time? --Audee 20:55, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

The name at the time, which is universal practice for encyclopedias in general, as well as that of Wikipedia and the WikiHockey project. Czechoslovakia is quite correct. RGTraynor 21:00, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Good to know; changed it back to Czechoslovakia and changed the flag also. --Audee 02:50, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wojtek Woski

I did't know that Wojtek plays for Team Canada. Should we make that a foot note. I was about to edit his flag until I saw the note in the edit page. We should have a foot note to make regular browers aware of this. And where is your proof?

Acid0057 01:46, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Proof be here. And also, footnotes shouldn't be necessary, since a lot of other players are on the same boat. However, I don't see the harm in making footnotes -- it might actually help in this case, since people are constantly assuming Wolski retained his Polish citizenship (or assuming Poland has jus soli law) and changing his flag to Poland. -→Buchanan-Hermit™/?! 02:51, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for those links Buchanan-Hermit. I didn't know about jus soli. I have made the footnote. Acid0057 04:48, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Diacritics on NHL team pages

We seemed to have a disruptive user (86.198.206.162), who claims to not know of the consensus against diacritics on Team pages. GoodDay 23:57, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Recommend a Auto-Revert for this page, against diacritics on the 'current roster' section, of this English Wikipedia article. Maybe a block against anon-users (for now). GoodDay 21:39, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
Constant vandalism by anon-users on this page, might lead to the page being blocked (for now). GoodDay 22:28, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

To diacritc or not to diacritc

Now that a temporary block has been placed, a discussion in earnest can begin here. My reasons for opposing the diacritics are not anti-foreign bigotry, my arguement is simply that the NHL websites & guides (which citate this and the other 29 NHL team pages), don't have diacritics on their euro-players jerseys? Furthermore, euro-players in the NHL have consented to the anglonization of their names (on NHL jerseys). If they (the euro-NHL players) have consented, whay can't pro-diacritics & their supporters do the same?GoodDay 22:45, 29 December 2006 (UTC)


I think all parties involved need to simmer down, take a step back and realize that this topic has been an ongoing discussion on Wikipedia for quite some time now and edit warring and debating it on each others talk pages and even here is not going to accomplish much, except maybe get some good-intentioned users blocked. So far all that's been accomplished by edit warring is getting a the page locked for all users, which looks especially ridiculous because now some players have diacritics that "need" them, and others like Šťastný (who's American with a Slovak last name - so figure that one out) and Laperrière don't have them, when (if one of you is correct) they should. There is already a recent discussion here [1], that would be a good place to start. You can also review the proposed policy talk page here [2]. Also Good Bye Day (talk · contribs), I would suggest that as an act of good faith (and that of a mature individual), that you register a user name that does not bait another editor in this debate. Thanks. Yankees76 23:02, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. GoodDay 23:11, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
It's been four days since this page was blocked, so far we've not heard from any pro-diacritic editors (no reasons, for keeping diacritics). Only myself & Yankees76, have posted in this discussion (both of us are pro-English lettering). Isn't this a consensus of 2 to 0 (in favor of deleting diacritics)? Perhaps, the Page should be unlocked. Perhaps the lack of participation (by pro-diacritic editors), is a sign of consenting to leave out diacritics? GoodDay 00:47, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Give it some more time. It's been only 5 days so far. Wait at least another 5 days before coming back to me and requesting unprotection. Nishkid64 01:14, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Agreed, 'til January 8th then. Thanks. GoodDay 01:18, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Well I have been fighting a losing battle so far and since the majority has consense I will not fight it (well I never had "fight" it since I havn't been in any edit wars). I can understand the argument that since the NHL teams doesn't use diacritics on their official web pages but why does that mean that Wikipedia shouldn't? Is an official NHL team web page a better source then a birth certificate? I just don't understand why so many editor want them gone. --Krm500 01:39, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

We must consider also, that the euro-NHL players have consented to their names being anglonized (at least I've haven't heard any objections by them) on their NHL jerseys. If the euro-NHLers consent, why can't others? GoodDay 01:50, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Yea I know about the jerseys but I don't see that as a reason not to use diacritics on Wikipedia. Even my favourite team here in Sweden doesn't have diacritics on Martin Cibak's jersey but that doesn't mean that his name shouldn't be correctly spelled on the roster located here on Wikipedia. Diacritics are not on jerseys since it would be harder to print them in team shops. I want to know the reason why editors here on Wikipedia doesn't want diacritics. --Krm500 02:07, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
My interest is only the NHL pages, not the whole English Wikipedia. Just curious though, does the Euro-Wikipedias have any Japanese names in Japanese letters? Please understand, this isn't bigotry against diacritics. Oh by the way, the consensus Now, seems to be 2 to 1 (delete diacritics). Just curious; have you edited NHL team pages frequently (in the past), or just recently. GoodDay 02:25, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
You'd go against the euro-NHLers? GoodDay 02:32, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
I don't know why you want to know but I mostly edit player pages. And I'm not going for or against anything. My opinion is just that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and should spell names correctly. And you don't have much of a case on the japanese language, russian language and so on since they use another writing system. English and Swedish are both part of the germanic language and use the same writing system. --Krm500 02:51, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Instead of arguing (until our faces turn blue), let's seek a compromise. 1- On NHL euro-player bio-pages, how about 'title' name in English only (rest of article- name has diacritics) 2- On NHL team pages (to respect euro-players consenting to non-diacritics), let euro-names be free of diacritcs. PS- why anyway, should foreign letters, be FORCED on the English Language. GoodDay 03:09, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

You don't have much of a case, for allowing diacritics on English Wikipedia either. If Japanese letters shouldn't be on Euro-Wikipedias, Then diacritics shouldn't be on the English Wikipedia. Ya can't have it both ways. GoodDay 03:12, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Suggest we move this argument to the Wikipedia Naming Conventions discussion. GoodDay 03:28, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
I apologize for not adding my two cents sooner. Also I'd like to point out that some of the reversions to the article 4 days ago were done by a wikistalker who actually has zero interest in the discussion and is just disrupting Wikipedia (admitting so on GoodDay's talk page).
Regarding the task at hand I'm 100% in favor of having diacritics on the players personal pages as I think a biographical article should have their names spelled in their native language. However the NHL team pages are articles (biographies if you will) of that particular team, and therfore spelling should match what is actually used by the team - and by the media that covers the team. The players names are technically brands (or brand names) under contract by that team and therefore should be spelled as the team spells it. It's just the same as removing the umlaut from Mötley Crüe because it's technically not correct. Plus adding diacritics makes for verifiability problems when Wikipedia readers attempt to look up a player (or a Wikipedia editor for that matter). What is to stop vandals from incorrectly adding diacritics to players? How can an English editor verify changes? Will this require sources posted for each players European name? These are just my thoughts, and as I mentioned above is an ongoing debate this is bigger than just this one article. The article should be left in the form that the original editor who first added the names to the article untill a site-wide format is settled upon. Yankees76 04:32, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
I'll sign under that. So basically right now we settle for 1. No diacritics on NHL team articles. 2. Diacritics on player bios. Back to square 1 :) --Krm500 17:19, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
I whole-heartedly agree to the compromise, 1-NHL team articles (no diacritics) 2-NHL player bios (yes diacritics). GoodDay 22:35, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
I have supported the same for the couple years such debates have been ongoing. That being said, if there's anyone out there who doesn't "understand" why a great many of us are against the use of diacriticals on the English Wikipedia, it can only be because those still confused aren't paying attention, because we've explained our position exhaustively. You may not like our reasons, you may not agree with them, but sheer bewilderment is just plain off base. RGTraynor 01:55, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
We'll have to be on our toes (when this article, is unprotected again), to uphold the Consensus (to leave diacritics off the 30 NHL team pages). GoodDay 02:06, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
What happens if a team starts using diacritics on their web page? Diacritics added to only that teams article? --Krm500 04:03, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Let's wait until it happens. GoodDay 19:55, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
The central stance here is that diacriticals aren't called for here because they are not used in the English language, and moreover not by the NHL, by the individual teams or by the media. Should that change generally, it should change here. I wouldn't myself hold my breath. RGTraynor 22:49, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Yes, there's really not much more I can say about this. My challenge from a over year ago still stands: Show a pattern of Finnish hockey publications spelling Czech players names in Czech, and Czech hockey publications spelling Finnish players names in Finnish AND I will concede. ccwaters 17:06, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

NHLPA use diacritics for their players, there you all have your reliable source. --Krm500 01:03, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

But this is an NHL team page, not an NHLPA page. GoodDay 19:18, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
Furthmore, NHL players with French names (thus diacritics) are shown on their respective bio pages, as well as NHL team pages on the French Wikipedia. GoodDay 22:28, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
Recommend this page be unprotected, Consesus here if 4-users against use of diacritics & 1-user, in favour of diacritics. Consensusu 4 to 1. Also, see my compromise proposal on WikiProject Team page format. GoodDay 00:37, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Red Wings fight in 97

Someone should add a section on the 10-min fight with the Red Wings in 1997... 39 penalties! +sj + 12:45, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Or just put a link to "Red Wings-Avalanche brawl 1997" page71.114.82.53 02:44, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] GA review

I'm a member of the Hockey WikiProject, but I took a look at the article and I'm quite impressed. It needs work before its on the same level as the Devils article, but for the time being, I find it is of GA quality. There are a few minor things, but I'll fix them myself. -- Scorpion 02:23, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks a lot. I did a lot of work over the past few days to find references for the entire text, create new sections on the rivalry, honored members and jerseys and logo and organized the article. Thanks to everyone for the contributions for this article and thank you for considering this is up to GA standards. It's not as good as I'd like it to be, but I don't really know what to do more. The history section on the Avalanche part could be better written. Suggestions would be good.--Serte [ Talk · Contrib ] 13:18, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The Steve Moore incident section

As headline grabbing as the incident was I hardly feel there's any point to include it in a article about the franchise. He was not a star player and they've managed fine without him. Losing Forsberg due to him signing with the Flyers is a much bigger deal. He was a star, Moore is not. Fighting for Justice 05:07, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Agreed; nasty though it was, these incidents happen, and it's strange to give them so much more attention than any other deals in the team's history. Speaking of which, does anyone else find it weird that this "Rivalry With The Red Wings" section is half the size of the entire team history? C'mon, does this really merit anything more than "Many perceive the Detroit Red Wings to be the chief rival of the Avalanche?"  RGTraynor  13:34, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
I disagree with this. Remember that Wikipedia is Not Paper, as well as the fact that this is one of the most highly publicized incidents in hockey history, and one of the few that included an off-ice investigation and a legnthy ban. I think this deserves inclusion into the article, perhaps at a reduced size? Kntrabssi 14:38, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
Wikipedia isn't wastepaper either. It's nowhere remotely close to "one of the most highly publicized incidents in hockey history." It's one of the most publicized on-ice assaults within the last couple seasons. Was it more important than McSorley/Brashear? Richard/Laycoe? Green/Maki? Forbes/Boucha? I agree that a single sentence mentioning it is sensible, but for heaven's sake, the franchise's two Stanley Cup championships have no more than a paragraph apiece.  RGTraynor  16:06, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
But Fighting for Justice removed all mention of it entirely. It deserves to be mentioned because it IS as important as Richard/Laycoe and McSorely/Brashear. It can be included under the 1995-present heading. Also, there is no need to include the "Red Wings rivalry" headline in the article, as it is already present here. Kntrabssi 16:22, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
All right; mention it and give it, at the most, 2 lines. The incident does not merit an entire section of it's own; that's overkill. Personally, I don't think it should mentioned at all considering Moore was only a peripheral player at best. Fighting for Justice 06:18, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Mascot

Needs to be mentioned. Love each other, or perish. ~Auden 00:28, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

worse than that, the alt logo image is identified as "howler's" footprint, but who howler is doesn't get mentioned anywhere Childhoodtrauma (talk) 18:58, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Copyedit

A request has been made for this article to be copyedited by the League of Copyeditors. The progress of its reviewers is recorded below. The League is always in need of editors with a good grasp of English to review articles. Visit the Project page if you are interested in helping.
Add comments

[edit] Current Roster

What happened to the 'current roster'? GoodDay (talk) 00:58, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Nevermind, I've restored it to its previous style. GoodDay (talk) 01:06, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

My bad. :) Jmlk17 06:19, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Lock this Article

I'm not even a hockey fan but I've seen this article vandalized several times in 10 minutes. Someone needs to lock this article!!! 70.240.103.159 (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 17:54, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

In general articles don't get locked unless its an ongoing long term vandalism. -Djsasso (talk) 18:16, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
Take a look at the history, Djsasso. ScarianCall me Pat! 18:43, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
Enough vandalism for full protection, IMO. Shouldn't stay fully protected too long though. We'll have to keep an eye on it. - Rjd0060 (talk) 18:54, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
Lol. If there was ever an article that warranted full protection, it was this one. The article was the target of an immense coordinated attack, possibly initiated by a radio station in Detroit. It's going to be unprotected very shortly, as you noticed. Enigma message Review 18:58, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
Oh yeah definately, didn't mean it shouldn't be. Someone just beat me to the punch doing it. :) -Djsasso (talk) 18:59, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

97.1 The Ticket has called for its listeners to vandel the page. [[3]] Chaldean (talk) 03:50, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

I mentioned that at wp:ani, but was unaware of the forum link. thanks Enigma message Review 03:59, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Good job on keeping the vandals out it makes me mad when something like this happens. Like I said, I'm not a hockey fan but a Wiki and net neutral fan. Sadly, though, it does not appear to have been ANY vandalisim on the Red Wings page. 70.240.86.117 (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 05:12, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

I guess Avalanche fans and radio personalities aren't as interested in vandalizing Wikipedia as Red Wings fans. Stay classy, Detroit. Enigma message 05:16, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
They deleted the thread. It was gone when I woke up this morning. They don't want to be held responsible, apparently... Enigma message 15:16, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
The page is once again heavily vandalized as of 4:19 EDT. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 136.165.29.50 (talk) 20:21, 29 April 2008 (UTC)


I have had this emailed to me several times today and there are a lot of pissed off Av's Fans right now. Everyone that I have talked to today is trying to get this page just completely removed and as you may guess they are running into issues. One person was kicked off for having Redwingssucks as a user name. The sexual innuendoes are not appreciated and we as a group want them removed! Beside the fact that they are not correct information they are very insulting!!! Please have this fixed now! Thank you from some peeved Coloradan's. 216.237.83.83 (talk) 20:36, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Keep the "men's" specification out

As noted, women can play in the NHL. Plus, the article always just said "professional hockey team" until a vandal entered "women's" and someone changed it to "men's". Leaving the note here instead of hidden in the article. Enigma message Review 20:58, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Yeah if I remember correctly this was debated in the past for all NHL teams and the decision was to remove the men's from them all to be more accurate. -Djsasso (talk) 21:01, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
I had a guy do a GA review on Ottawa Senators. He was a cricket enthusiast from India. He knew nothing about the lockout-- wondered why the season was missing. The point being, that it is a small bit of information for those people who don't know anything about the team. You go for the correctness of the player's native spellings, this seems inconsistent. Alaney2k (talk) 21:19, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
Inconsistant how? It is incorrect to say it's a men's team as women can play on it. If women were barred from playing on the team then it would be a men's team. So again I am going for correctness. -Djsasso (talk) 21:30, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
There is no way with the rules as they are, that a woman will make the team. They would have to find some sort of Hulk. You don't have to come right out and say in the rules that a woman can't play for the league, when the league doesn't play in a way compatible. Alaney2k (talk) 21:54, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
There has already been a woman who played in an NHL game so that point is moot. We can't have all the teams except Tampa Bay say men's. There is no need for the word men's in the article. It doesn't improve it any. Nevermind the fact that never is a very long time. With the new rules in the NHL I think its alot more likely now that a woman will play than ever before. I mean look at how many 160 pound players are in the NHL these days. There are certainly women that size who if they had the skill could play. -Djsasso (talk) 21:56, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
There is also a minimum age level for the league, which would also imply 'men' as opposed to 'youth' or 'boy's'. Alaney2k (talk) 21:59, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
If that is the route you are trying to go then it should be adult's and not men's as again its not just limited to men. It's better off just left out. It just seems odd to me that you suddenly became a rampant supporter of this when you noticed someone removing it. And the article you have been editing for a year never had it. Sometimes it looks like you just love the debate. :) -Djsasso (talk) 22:01, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
We seem to often end up on opposite sides. And I think you often rise to the bait of the debate. I had men's in the Sens article, but I never noticed it was taken out. That's why I put it in. I really doubt we will ever see a women play in the NHL. They need to get the NWHL going again first probably. Alaney2k (talk)
Oh and we should probably say 'senior-level' rather than adult. Putting adult in seems inappropriate for hockey players. :-) Although, like every rule, there are junior-age players in the league. Alaney2k (talk)
(grin) This is where it comes up that its probably just easier to leave it out. I think the fact its labelled as professional is enough to cover the fact its adults. Of course there is the 17 year old exception of Gretz. -Djsasso (talk) 22:16, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

it actually said Men's before the vandal (me) hit the page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 38.105.216.30 (talk) 21:36, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Either way it doesn't matter, it shouldn't be on there. -Djsasso (talk) 21:42, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
What does the vandal think? Have it in out? Alaney2k (talk) 21:54, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
I looked at old versions of the article, and it did not gender-specify for most of the article history. Enigma message Review 22:05, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
Gender specification is not necessary if it's never actually specified by the team.-Wafulz (talk) 22:15, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
Women are eligible to play in the NHL. PS- with the gradual removing of fighting & contact in the NHL? the likelihood of a woman on an NHL regular season roster seems inevitable. GoodDay (talk) 00:39, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
Already happened. Manon Rheaume. Jmlk17 00:40, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
In exhibition games only (and it was purely a publicity stunt by Phil Esposito). GoodDay (talk) 00:42, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, I agree to a point. But until it happens where a woman plays a real game... eh, let's just say I agree per WP:FORUM :). Jmlk17 01:09, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Rivalry with Detroit

Upfront dislaimer: I am a Detroit Red Wings fan. In my opinion, some of the best hockey that I ever saw was the playoff series match-ups between the Avalanche and the Red Wings, running from 1996 thru 2002, no matter which team eventually prevailed.

However, the Avalanche/Red Wings rivalry has probably run its course. As of right now, the teams are not as equal in talent and success as they once were and nearly all of the players who were on both teams during the rivalry have since either retired or moved on to other teams. There are only four Avalanche players (Joe Sakic, Peter Forsberg, Milan Hejduk, Adam Foote) and only six Wings (Nick Lidstrom, Chris Osgood, Tomas Holmstrom, Kris Draper, Kirk Maltby, Darren McCarty) left from that era.

I think that the rivalry as historical information is important, but this article places mention of the rivalry in its opening paragraph. Is the now defunct antagonism still a truly defining attribute of the Avalanche? I'm certain that it's not for the Red Wings. --68.72.250.165 (talk) 17:53, 2 May 2008 (UTC)