Talk:National Hockey League/Archive 2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents

"Highest Number of Ticket buying fans of the four leagues"

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)

Fair enough there. I think that should be made clear though.- icuwoot April 3, 2007

Weird image

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)

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)
Soccer is the template for all sports? Oh that is sad. Orangemarlin 05:08, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Ya, its sad that the worlds most popular sport, the only truly universal sport, is used as the sports template image. Don't get me wrong, I can't stand soccer, but I am not stupid enough to think hockey is anywhere as popular as it. Kaiser matias 08:38, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

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)

HOF wait

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)

Hm, good point. I'll fiddle with it.  RGTraynor  15:04, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Fighting

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)

Hockey rules are probably not within the purview of this article. To take a quick shot at your questions, the principle of not fighting a goalie is mere social convention at most (goalies don't really get into the kind of confrontations that lead to fights). The current rule is that going onto the ice from the bench to join an ongoing fight is at least a 10-game suspension, though before this rule, bench-clearing brawls did happen. There may be a few current players who train for fights to the extent of doing a bit of boxing work in the off-season, but there are not many players left in the game whose primary role is to fight. rcousine 09:24, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Founded column

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)

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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)

Notable Players

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)

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)
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)
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)
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)

In light of having another random IP add Paul Coffey to the list, then having it removed within minutes, I have added a message under the section in an attempt to stop people from adding players. To make it effective, we should have a guideline written up in the section so people don't keep doing this. Kaiser matias 03:00, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

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)
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)

So your criteria is what determines who is notable or not? Coffey is the number 2 all time scoring defenseman. Also why isn't Grant Fuhr on the list? With your knowledge of hockey I think it is safe to say you are Gary Bettman!! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by TWMangrove (talk • contribs).

Please read WP:CIVIL. Resolute 17:49, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
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)

I have removed the paragraph altogether, as it is just a magnet for fans to add their favorite team's players, as the Oilers fan above shows. We'll have to come up with alternative criteria for this section. Resolute 17:49, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

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)
Hmm, 2002 Western Conference Quarter-Finals - Game #3 (Lidstrom scores from the 'center' red line??) GoodDay 22:30, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
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)

Anaheim Ducks

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)

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)

Sellouts after the lockout

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)

Team Pages

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)

NHL "has somewhere around 50 million fans"?

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)

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)

Is it that few? The population of Canada is about 33M, so that only leaves 17M for the rest of the world. --Trovatore 06:09, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

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)

"Teams" section - Conference table inconsistencies

The "founded" column of the Eastern and Western Conference tables is a relatively recent addition. It is important that info in the table be consistent among all the teams. My personal opinion is that "founded" should indicate the historical birth of each team, but there is disagreement among some editors on this point.

Inconsistencies needing to be addressed

Some examples:

1) The Ottawa Senators were first constituted as an active NHL team in 1992, but the origin of the Senators team can be traced back to 1901-1902 (or almost twenty years earlier than that, when looking at its historical birth). The table currently indicates the Senators were "founded" in 1992.

2) The Phoenix Coyotes were not constituted until 1996. Previously they were the Winnipeg Jets. The table indicates that the Coyotes were founded in 1972. This is their historical birth as the Winnipeg Jets of the WHA. However, this wiki page is about the NHL. The Jets did not become an NHL team until 1979. (Same can be said about the Oilers, etc.) Following the opinion that the Senators were founded as an NHL team in 1992, the Coyotes, Oilers, etc. should be listed as founded in 1979.

3) The Montreal Canadiens are listed as founded in 1909; however the NHL was not founded until 1917. If you follow the opinion of the editor who listed the Canadiens as founded in 1909 (in the NHA), then the correct date for the Senators should be 1902.

4) But, if you interpret "founded" to be the earliest known incarnation of a team, then the Ottawa team should be listed as founded in 1884.


Since this is a page about the NHL, I propose that we list each team's earliest date of entry to the NHL. Original founding dates could be listed in footnotes (as I did for the Senators), or in a separate historical table.

Bottom line for me is I don't really care which way it's done, as long as it's done consistently! Thanks. --- Taroaldo 20:32, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

The only potential inconsistency is with the Senators. The remaining teams are listed by the franchise founding date, not by when the joined the NHL. I reverted the last change of Ottawa's founding date, so obviously I am of the opinion that the Senators were founded in 1992, not 1902 or 1883. The reinstatement angle, imnsho, is just a publicity gimmick allowing the new team to tie into the history of the old. The record books, etc, are separate. However, I am already on the wrong side of consensus with respect to how we treat relocated franchises, and if others agree with a 1902 or 1883 founding date, so be it. I'll add a comment to the Ice hockey project talk page to get more feedback. Resolute 20:50, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
Yup as Resolute said alot of us think the earliest date be used. Me being one of them. I believe you should go by the earliest incarnation of that particular franchise and not just a franchise of the same name. ie I would not use the 1884 date for the Senators because it was not the same Senators, just a team with the same name. This differs from moving a franchise and renaming because the franchise remains consistent in the interim. So the dates listed for all the teams except your Senators example would be correct. I believe at some point in time this was discussed and this was the solution that was arrived at but hopefully more people can come and discuss. Whether the page is about the NHL or WHA is irrelevant as the franchise itself is still the same one. --Djsasso 20:57, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
I know for a fact that they were granted a "certificate of reinstatement" by the NHL, as I live in Ottawa, and follow the Sens a lot. Therefore the date should be adjusted to 1884. Maxim(talk) 21:02, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
Works for me. --- Taroaldo 21:16, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
Except the 1884 version was not the version that entered the NHL the first time. I did agree on the "certificate of reinstatement" however, was totally out !voted when this was last argued.--Djsasso 21:18, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
According to TOTAL HOCKEY, the official encyclopedia of the NHL, the Sens are from 1992. The prior incarnation of the team is a complete separate entity entirely. My opinion is that the founded date should be the date the current franchise started. The only allowable exception that I am aware of is the special circumstance of the Cleveland Browns that "suspended" operations in the NFL. Pparazorback 23:19, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
The Sens were suspended by the league.Alaney2k 20:16, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment: Eh, I'll just rehash my arguments from last time: (1) The "certificate of reinstatement" was a publicity stunt, nothing more, and has been subsequently ignored by the league and the team. (2) The NHL Official Guide and Record Book states the "Franchise Date" of the team as "December 16, 1991." {Unlike many fans, I know exactly where I was when I heard the news, and gave a whoop.} (3) Neither the current franchise nor the NHL credit the current team with the original Senators' Stanley Cup wins. (4) Neither the current franchise nor the NHL acknowledge the records set by the original Senators' players as pertaining to the current team; for instance, Cy Denneny should be 2nd in career goals for any "combined" franchise and Alex Connell credited with being the career shutout leader. (5) Most damningly, the club paid the exact franchise fee as did Tampa Bay. Not one red penny of it went to the estate of Redmond Quain or the legal successors to the Ottawa Hockey Club. Therefore, no legal "reinstatement" took place, because the estates of the original owners were not compensated for the original franchise's revocation. Frankly, upon seeing the current state of the article, I'm astonished at the weight placed on this feelgood okeydoke, and the article should be edited at once to mention this certificate and nothing more.  RGTraynor  23:41, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
Okay, if you have a reference to back up that no money went to Quain, let's put it in. I would be happy to put that in. Alaney2k 20:16, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
Hmm. The more I look, the harder it is to find a consistent story. Given the current management style of the NHL, it wouldn't surprise me if they wanted to overlook early Canadian hockey history, but even Ottawa's NHL site makes direct reference to Sens history: "[s]ome Sens Army members might be surprised to learn that the Ottawa Senators are trying to bring home Ottawa's 12th Stanley Cup..." OK, this doesn't credit the current team with those Cup wins, but it acknowledges that it is part of the team's history. The team's site [1] also has a historical section called "Early Years and Modern Era", going all the way back to 1901. And the Sens' wiki page doesn't add any clarity either. --- Taroaldo 01:02, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
That quote you cite certainly acknowledges that those Cups are part of the history of the city of Ottawa, yes. With just as much justification, the Montreal Canadiens' website could state that there are many fans unaware that the Habs are trying to bring home Montreal's 41st Stanley Cup.  RGTraynor  05:58, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
That's just silly. Alaney2k 20:16, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
RG, what are you trying to accomplish? The campaign was to 'Brink Back The Senators', not 'Bring the NHL to Ottawa' You are fixated on this founding issue and are not being objective. We have discussed this on the Sens talk page. We have for the last few months had it both ways. We mention the Reinstatement, but state that records, etc. are kept separate. These are facts, we should stay with that. Alaney2k 20:13, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment perhaps it the "founded" column should be changed to "entry into the NHL" to avoid inconsistencies and confusion? T Rex | talk 05:38, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
Most of those NHL team 'founded' dates are inaccurate (same problem on most of the 30 NHL team articles). Those dates 'reflect' the franchises 'inaugural season' NOT the 'founding date'. This has been a long-overdue 'inconsistancy'. GoodDay 18:05, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
Ignoring the NHL's attempt at 're-writing' history: The Senators of 1884-1934, re-located as the St. Louis Eagles (in 1934) and folded in 1935 (or if you like, permanently suspended). They're different franchises; if not? the 2 Senators articles would need to be 'merged'. GoodDay 18:15, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
Yes that is what I am saying, remove the founding and replace it with a "entry into the NHL" and remove the founding completely. T Rex | talk 22:56, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment I think it has to be pointed out in the case of the Senators, that their history transcends that of the NHL. They existed well before. In fact the Senators were members of the AHAC, CAHL, FAHL, NHA, NHL, OCHL and QSHL. It seems to me that people are fixated on the NHL when it seems pretty clear in terms of history, that the club was founded in 1893 or earlier, and the NHL version was reinstated, that is the franchise was 'restored'. As for Total Hockey, I would argue that you cannot read one book. If you wanted to write the 'founded' date for the Sens, well, it is impossible. So the authors write the date of the current franchise. As for why certain wikipedians do not want that fact on the Sens page, let them say so, but they are not being objective. Alaney2k 19:58, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
    • Now you are blurring things even more. The OCHL/QCHL club was not the same as the previous NHL club, nor is it the same as the new NHL club. Unless, of course, you want to argue that the franchise was playing both pro in St. Louis, and senior in Ottawa at the same time in 1934-35. As far as not reading one book goes, if official NHL publications treat them as separate franchises, that is a pretty strong indication that they are separate franchises. Resolute 20:44, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
    • I do, in fact say that. The OCHL Sens became a kind of 'farm' club for the NHL and filled space in the old Auditorium. Eddie Finnigan played for both the Sens and the Eagles that year. My point about the NHL book, is that it is not an objective source of history about the NHL, and certainly not about ice hockey history. No doubt it is a separate organization, but the clubs are linked in a way that kind of transcends the NHL, you know? Why does that link has to be suppressed, I wonder? What set off RG was me putting successor on the Sens page, and he erased the sentence "only the sens have been reinstated', which I think is a harmless positive note to have there. Alaney2k 21:31, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
  • So they were the same franchise playing at the same time because the senior Sens became a sort of farm team, and a player played for both? By that logic, since David Moss played for both the Omaha Ak-Sar-Ben Knights and Calgary Flames last season, they must be the same franchise. The clubs are linked by name only. Much like how the Edmonton Oil Kings name is being resurrected for the third time this year. But it clearly is not the same franchise, no matter how hard the Oilers are selling the history of the name.
  • If publications the NHL puts out are not considered valid because of a lack of objectivity, then throw out the certificate the NHL put out announcing the resurrection of the team for the same reasons. All that is then left is the argument that because two teams have the same name, they must be the same franchise. Hardly ironclad. Resolute 23:07, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Whoa. The essays in Total Hockey and the NHL Guide -cannot- be considered completely objective (or even perfectly accurate IMHO), I doubt anyone would think the stats are not, though. Hey, the NHL doesn't like to play up the strife in the past, whether it's Stanley Cup challenges it ignored, or players it blacklisted, etc, etc. (Look, the article on the NHL site (hockey for dummies excerpt) places the end of the rover position after the NHL started!) You can't rely on one source. For one thing, typos happen. But the certificate was presented publicly in front of 10,449 people. Anyway, since the Sens' history is so much more than the NHL, you cannot tie it down to only its participation in the NHL, not like today. (Same goes for the Canadiens) The Sens were originally a senior-level amateur team. Also, the years are consecutive. The rink is the same. The owners are the same. (It's almost like the team split -- name one way, pro players the other.) Anyway, I think it's enough to mention it along with the facts about the records being kept separately. It's an explanation. Alaney2k 23:27, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
  • I love how you are trivializing one thing the NHL does while trying to talk up another. When an official NHL publication argues that the original Senators and the modern Senators are distinct franchises, that speaks volumes. As does everything else djsasso mentioned - which has not been refuted. You are moving well into the realm of conspiracy theory to defend your point, which is inherently WP:POV. You are absolutely correct in one instance, however: The Original Senators history transcends the NHL, and should not be minimized. We are not, however, discussing the original Senators. We are discussing the modern Senators, who have no history outside of the NHL. Resolute 01:09, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
  • I don't have an explanation for the NHL Guide and Total Hockey saying one thing, and the NHL giving out a reinstation certificate. It's just not the whole story, by itself. Not a trivialization. You guys have an opinion that the Guide is right and the certificate is wrong, backed by the books. I say the reinstation certificate was presented, and its not been rescinded or explained officially that it was marketing only. Like I've said elsewhere, it was 'Bring Back the Senators', that's what Firestone was doing, and a reinstation is consistent with that. But, I am not harboring any illusions. It's a different club, same franchise. That's enough to keep the articles separate. Alaney2k 03:28, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment I think the founded date should go with the club. Franchises, league affiliations, personnel and owners change. It is appropriate for Montreal to have 1909, as that is when Les Canadiens were founded. The link is clear. We should not fixate on the NHL only. Alaney2k 20:13, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
I agree, 1893? for the first Ottawa Senators franchise & 1991 for the current Ottawa Senators franchise. GoodDay 21:15, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
That's fine with me. Alaney2k 21:33, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
Actually, that brings up a point. The organization started in 1989, franchise conditional in 1990, unconditional in 1991, started play in 1992. Does the NHL record book date match the date of the Ottawa Hockey Club Limited Partnership? I think it is the date of the final payment -- the unconditional date. Maybe 1992 is the best year to list in the founding part of the box. Alaney2k 23:31, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
I've started a similar discussion at Wikipedia talk: WikiProject Ice Hockey (concerning 'founding dates' & 'inaugural season dates'). GoodDay 23:37, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
The NHL "founding date" refers to the date the franchise was awarded. I just verified that out of Coleman; the date the NHL Official Guide gives for the Bruins' founding date is November 1st, 1924, and sure enough, Coleman reports that at the annual meeting of the NHL on 11/1/24 ... etc.  RGTraynor  01:12, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

I pretty much agree with Resolute in this discussion. The current incarnation of the Ottawa Senators is different from the original one, and thus the founding column should be the date the new franchise was founded. Regards, -- Jeff3000 04:15, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

  • Comment See the Vancouver Canucks page. It has a founding date of 1945. That should go if we are NHL only. And there should be a Vancouver Canucks (original) separate article. Alaney2k 13:33, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Reply: Actually, those cases have been extensively discussed in the past. Since the articles are about the Vancouver Canucks and the Edmonton Oilers (for instance) as opposed to the "NHL Vancouver Canucks" or the "NHL Edmonton Oilers," it makes far more sense to date from the founding of their respective organizations. There are six NHL teams with proven organizational provenance before they joined the league.  RGTraynor  13:48, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
The Vancouver example is interesting. The Vancouver club was in the minor pro Western Hockey League, the Ottawa Senators were in the minor pro Quebec Hockey League. Alaney2k 18:57, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
The Vancouver club (like with the Habs and the ex-WHA teams) had complete continuity of ownership, management and even some players. The Quebec League team folded in 1955, yes?  RGTraynor  19:45, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
The QHL continued until '57 or '59, something like that and merged into the Eastern League. Just try to untangle some of those teams! Anyway, my point was that it seems to be valid to have a founding date that is not NHL, and can be a 'minor' league, so then it can be valid to have minor league history included. More to the point the Ottawa Senators (senior hockey) article could be merged with the (original) article, because I can show continuity. Is your point simply the continuity? Then, the same applies to the Senior Sens. Alaney2k 20:19, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
I've added the 'NHL founding dates' of the franchises (since this article is about the NHL) - Example the NHL-Montreal Canadiens were founded in 1917 (thus a founding franchise of the NHL), the NHL-Hartford Whalers/Carolina Hurricanes were founded in 1979. See, what I mean? GoodDay 21:21, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
You know that it is impractical to apply the Sens approach to all teams. There are 3 Sens club articles. Are people going to agree to two for the Canadiens, three for the Leafs, three for the Canucks, etc. etc. etc. These are articles title Edmonton Oilers, not Edmonton Oilers (NHL)... Alaney2k 17:38, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
Ottawa Senators article, is about the 1992-present franchise (only). Example: if many people have the 'exact' same name, does that mean they're the exact same person? GoodDay 21:24, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Possible expansion teams

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)

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)
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)
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)
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)
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)

Higher ticket prices and more affluent fans

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)

Removed comment about "fan base is also the most affluent and well educated of the four."

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)

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)
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)
Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.