Talk:St. Louis Blues (hockey)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	This article is within the scope of the 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). Edit this message Ice hockey Portal
B	This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject St. Louis (Sports), a project to build and improve articles related to St. Louis and the surrounding metropolitan area. We invite you to join the project and contribute to the discussion.
	B	This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
	High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the importance scale.

Gretzky played for the Blues in 1995-96 a trade deadline acquisition.

[1]

Check those facts before submitting =) vudu 03:24, 14 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Contents 1 St. Louis Blues vs. The St. Louis Blues 2 Current Stars 3 List of St. Louis Blues players 4 Hall of Fame listings 5 Uniform colors 6 Chicago influence 7 Young, Tkachuk & ?? 8 General query: What is a single member of the St. Louis Blues called? 9 Cursed? 10 Hall of Fame 11 Alternate Captains 12 the current last paragraph about the "we was robbed" 13 Tampering 14 Linking to fan sites 15 Requested move 15.1 Survey 15.2 Discussion 16 Blues make roster changes (www.cbc.ca) 17 Dallas Drake 18 Uniform section 19 Blues captains 19.1 Blues alternate captains, 2007-08 20 Davidson and Pleau 21 California Seals 22 Move to St. Louis Blues (ice hockey)?

[edit] St. Louis Blues vs. The St. Louis Blues

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)

I agree it is awkward to have the National Hockey League team at St. Louis Blues and the tune at 'Saint Louis Blues'. However, to be fair and consistent with other professional sports teams e.g. National Hockey League, they are listed as geographic location followed by nickname.

One possibility might be to use The St. Louis Blues for 'Saint Louis Blues' per Image:ColumbiaLabelBSmith.jpg.

St. Louis blues uses a footnote for 'Saint Louis Blues'.

24.217.219.69 04:28, 21 Mar 2004 (UTC)

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)

I've made the moves and turned Saint Louis Blues into a disambiguation page. I've fixed the majority of the links already, and am getting the rest bit by bit (help in this is welcome). -- Infrogmation 21:22, 23 Mar 2004 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

There are better ways to disambiguate. See Wikipedia:Disambiguation#The disambiguation page.
24.217.211.99 14:52, 8 Apr 2004 (UTC)

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)

Exactly. "St. Louis Blues" is the name of more than one famous thing. -- Infrogmation 22:28, 8 Apr 2004 (UTC)

As a compromise Saint Louis Blues already is a disambiguation page, and St. Louis Blues disambiguates with Saint Louis Blues (music) as Wikipedia:Disambiguation#The disambiguation page. -- 24.217.211.99 19:10, 8 Apr 2004 (UTC)

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)

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)

Okay, I've started a poll at Talk:St. Louis Blues, which is where the request on Wikipedia:Requests for comment was linked to. I also, I hope, made the request for comment language more neutral. (If someone else, preferably someone not involved in the dispute previously, can do a better job of it I encourage them to do so). Anon, please make your case for what you wish to do on the talk page, not at the request for comment. Cheers, -- Infrogmation 22:25, 8 Apr 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Current Stars

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)

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)

[edit] List of St. Louis Blues players

I have started a List of St. Louis Blues players. It would be a great help if when adding players to the main Blues page, that the same player be added to the list. Thanks Masterhatch 14 August 2005

[edit] Hall of Fame listings

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. RGTraynor 08:28, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

You're kinda slow, aren't you? ---burgz. 08:10, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Uniform colors

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)

The Blues wore the ugly Blue/Yellow/Red jerseys from the shortened 1995 season to the 97-98 season when the current jersey was introduced as the third jersey, only to be adopted as the main jersey in the 98-99 season. Check out NHLUniforms.com. sseagle 10:34, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Chicago influence

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. RGTraynor 20:46, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

eh, the eagles is actually a fairly significant team for many reason, i've no problem with a minor mention of them. they were an original tenant of the arena which is the same building the Wertz family ended up with which got the BLues the franchise. But in addition to that, the Eagles provided proof of a St. Louis fan base that was attempted to be used by a group to get the Maroons in town (assuming a little of the real problem-- travel costs and schedualing) could be fixed. The NHL decided instead to give the rights to the Maroon's to that Flyer's town, and shut them down- later events created a financial situation where the Maroons were never restarted. there is no infomation on st. louis hockey. it is a shame that the encyclopedia knowledge contained in the existence of the St. Louis Blues as the 6th team selected for the first expansion is not provided to anyone who doesnt already know it. Childhoodtrauma 23:26, 24 March 2007 (UTC)childhoodtrauma

[edit] Young, Tkachuk & ??

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)

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)

[edit] General query: What is a single member of the St. Louis Blues called?

I'm working on the English plural article, specifically the section on Plurals (and singulars) of headless nouns. The question is: What is a lone member of the Blues called? A Blues? A Blue? Or does one write about them so as to avoid ever, ever constructing a sentence in which that comes up? I gather the team name is based on the classic song and not directly on the color, so it might be deemed more "correct" for the singular version to be "Blues" rather than "Blue"; the issue, however, isn't what's grammatically "correct," it's what--if anything--is actually used. Thanks very much. Dan —DCGeist 17:59, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

A "Blue." RGTraynor 19:02, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

A "Blue-Note" Zanter 26 August 2006 (UTC)

A "Blue." A player who used to play for the team is called either "a former Blue," or "a former member of the Blues" because of that exact awkwardness. 128.252.89.243 15:56, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

a hockey player. ccwaters 16:48, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

A "Blue", i.e. Brett Hull will always be a Blue. ---burgz. 08:12, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

the blue-note, or 'note refers to team members or alumni in relation to the uniform they wore. The basic emblem is known as the Blue-Note. I've certainly read (and used) both "former Blue-Note" and just "'Note" [in very unformal settings where the team is already obvious to the reader] In general a single player from the Blues is a Blue. a single alumnus is an ex-Blue or a former Blue. There are ownership issues however, a single Hall of Famer is usually refered to as a possesion of the team: Blues' Hall of Famer Brian Sutter. and increasingly the "'" is omitted: Blues Hall of Famer Brian Sutter. Postions are also usually listed as a possession of the team even for a single palyer, they are generally not referred to as Blue Defensemen Barret Jackman, but rather Blues(') defensman Barrett Jackman. Childhoodtrauma 17:13, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Cursed?

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)

[edit] Hall of Fame

I thought this was settled, Gretzy & Fuhr (for example) don't belong in the sections. GoodDay 22:27, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

• Hmm, since they both played for the Blues and they are in the HHoF, I'd say they need to be listed here. Unless there is some guidline maybe WP:HOCKEY, that players should only be listed on the team page for their "primary" team? Could be too subjective, IMHO. — MrDolomite | Talk 01:54, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

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)

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)

I've removed the guideline & put back the previous guideline (which backs the removal of Gretzky & Fuhr). My reason for reverting the guideline? I'm not a member of WikiProject Ice Hockey. GoodDay 22:55, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Gretzky belongs on the list because he was a Blues captain. Fuhr being the the Blues for four seasons is a long ass time. You call that debatable? You must be joking. ---burgz. 08:14, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Alternate Captains

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)

I guess it's 3 alternates, been watching a few Blues games lately. GoodDay 18:16, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

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)

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)

[edit] the current last paragraph about the "we was robbed"

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)childhoodtrauma

the game was dubbed the worst reffing of any nhl game in the 2006/07 season, PLUS theres a lot of controversy with Mick McGeough after this game, and the oilers game.  [`.Thirty Thr33]  ^(Talk)  20:46, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

making it a nhl officiating controversy or a mick mcgeough issue (who is habitually ranked amoung the worse nhl refs) is this mentioned on the senators link? nope. why saddle the blues with it? if the answer to that is because the blues came up on the short side of a rather meaningless game, i do not think it is an appropriate use of space for the BLUES. perhaps mr mcgeough deserves his own listing, but other than the blues, his only claims to wiki fame is being jim mcgeough's brother, and ticking off the easily ticked off craig mactavish. I would like to point out that mick's other notable screw up this season is NOT on the oilers page. it is on MACTAVISH's page, and actually might warrent inclusion there (but never on the oilers page) since it resulted in disaplinary actions...

someone going to muddy up the oilers with some anti mcgeough stuff?

ultimately it is COMMENTARY and NOT ABOUT THE BLUES

nor does it have naything to do with luck, the opposite opinion has been voiced in which the blues earned that type of officiating by being a bottom dwelling team, and as much as i'd like to find out to what degree the bottom NHL officials are assigned to teh bottom dwelling teams, it is a bit hard to doChildhoodtrauma 03:29, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

meaningless game? listen to doug weights comments about the game. this game WAS NOT meaningless, mick mcgeough basically screwed the blues out of the playoffs, if they woulda won that game like they should, it would of gave them hope, and they could of made the playoffs. now, they know they can't make it, and basically the season is done because of one game. MAYBE it should be on the mick mcgeough page, a new section with each team hes ruined. Heres one mans opinion on it. [2]  [`.Thirty Thr33]  ^(Talk)  22:53, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

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)

I agree - Zanter 21:36, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

They're almost above .500... thats a pretty good team... Also,Mick McGeough might not return to reffing because of what happened here and in edmonton. He already said hes not going to ref in the playoffs (thank god), so that pretty much means hes done.  [`.Thirty Thr33]  ^(Talk)  22:05, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Tampering

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

[edit] Linking to fan sites

Seeing as fan sites and forums are a valuable asset to fans of a sports team, , I believe they should be able to added to the 'External Links' section. The site I am referring to specifically is www.est1967.com, which is a St. Louis Blues fan news/forum site, which is not for profit, and is designed to further the knowledge of Blues fans. Cboballgames 07:18, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree that established and popular fan sites should be considered to be listed here. They are an invaluable resource for fans. But the Blues official site removed the link to est1967.com from their site...so that should tell you something. The spots for fan sites listed here should be reserved for the most popular and most established fan sites...not ones that have only been around for one month like est1967.com.
--Cprice12 07:57, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

The link to the Blues fan forum, letsgoblues.com in the external links section, was recently removed. It wasn't spam. With thousands of registered members, LetsGoBlues.com has been the most popular Blues fan discussion forum for St. Louis Blues hockey since 2001 and is linked on the Blues official site, stlouisblues.com. I recommend putting the link back. During the NHL season, thousands of people (many from other countries) visit the site daily for St. Louis Blues information and discussion. LetsGoBlues.com is non-profit, with no ad banners or anything. It is an invaluable free resource that is run by the fans, for the fans...always has been.

Some other NHL team sites on Wikipedia, Detroit Red Wings for example, have the top fan forum listed in the external links section. LetsGoBlues.com is the top fan forum for Blues hockey and has been for quite some time. --Cprice12 07:28, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Please see WP:External_links#Links_normally_to_be_avoided; discussion forums generally don't qualify. This site is indeed linked on the Blues' official website ... along with six other fan sites.  RGTraynor  14:06, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Large membership or not, Wikipedia frowns on including social networking sites in the EL section. External links are generally only for sites directly related to the article - ie, the official website. There is no guarantee of factual accuracy with a fan site/social networking site, nor do they offer anything you can't already find on the official site. In this case, it seems that people can get to the fan sites through the Blues website. There is no need to link such sites here. Resolute 15:39, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

As far as est1967.com goes, it offers hockey news and commentary, as well as a forum. It is for this that I believe it qualifies as a linkable site. Cboballgames 16:53, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Errrr, no. What it has are headlines and commentary wholly written by one of the sysops, and the news tidbits are nothing not taken off the newswires. Investigative journalism this isn't.  RGTraynor  17:11, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

LetsGoBlues.com offers unique commentary through it's affiliate and partner, the Blue Note Blog. This commentary is based on inside information from sources inside the Blues organization. That information usually CANNOT be obtained at the Blues official site, or anywhere else. Many times, information is available on LetsGoBlues.com before it is announced on the official site...if it is announced on their site at all. This therefore makes LetsGoBlues.com a breaking Blues (and hockey in general) news site and discussion forum, which is why LetsGoBlues.com should be added. If LetsGoWings.com is allowed to be listed on the Detroit Red Wings page, then the Blues should have a forum representative as well...and as a matte of fact, the Pittsburgh Penguins also have their most popular fan forum listed in the EL section...if a lot of team hockey sites have these links, then LetsGoBlues.com should be added. LGB is also an actively moderated forum so people aren't posting junk information or lies. The same cannot be said for est1967.com, in which they state on their main page that you can say and post whatever you want, just as long as it doesn't break the law.
--Cprice12 17:18, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for noticing those. I will remove the links straight away. Resolute 18:06, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunatly LetsGoBlues.com cannot be considered a fan site, if you do not donate money or activly pursue friendship with the site proprietor, then your opinions are quickly deleted. This site could hardly be considered the #1 site for Blues hockey since there are atleast 3 other sites with equal numbers of active participation. The oldest site in operation would easily be STLTODAY.com. It appears that Cprice12 ( the proprietor of LGB.com) has decided to carry some grudge match he has with a competing site on to the wikipedia.Wolf Mother 18:25, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

General Note: To those visiting from LetsGoBlues.com and est1967.com, while we welcome reasonable discussion about why you feel your sites should be exempted from Wikipedia guidelines disallowing discussion forums as external links, a pissing match as to whose site sucks worse violates WP:CIVIL as well as other policies. Neither it nor the dueling vandalism of one another's comments are all appropriate on Wikipedia. That being said, fan sites, generally employing anonymous handles and without independent, reliable fact-checking, seldom pass WP:WEB and almost never pass WP:V. Further, Wikipedia is not a publisher of first instance - it is an encyclopedia, and is not a proper venue for breaking news in advance of verifiable, published, reliable third-party sources.  RGTraynor  18:39, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. This pissing match demonstrates a clear lack of professionalism on both sides, certantly making me less willing to support either of your positions. Resolute 18:57, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Understood...and I respect the decision. However, I still do feel that certain fan sites can be extremely important in following a team and getting information about that team. Hopefully in the future, you reconsider. And as far as WolfMother's comments above, they are obviously not true. It's a shame that they are using this venue for that purpose. Question: What would a fan site have to contain, to be eligible for inclusion in the external links section? (if anything). Thanks.
--Cprice12 21:16, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Do not agree

Fan forums are a unique aspect of professional sports teams, which allow the fan base to communicate. The fact that the St Louis Blues have four sites with thousands of members collectivly would indicate the relevance to the subject. Not having these forums listed robs wiki users of the opportunity to understand the community which supports each individual franchise. Wolf Mother 21:37, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

This is not an article about the community, it is an article about the team. The community aspect of sports fandom goes beyond the scope of this article. Resolute 22:16, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

I haven't looked at either site, but if they are just forums or blogs, then they explicitly are not candidates for wiki link inclusion per Wp:el#Links_normally_to_be_avoided #10 and #11. This was previously pointed out. ccwaters 00:32, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

No, not listing these fan forums "robs" no one of the opportunity of "understanding" the fannish community, although I suppose I'm missing the part where an online bulletin board confers insights into the fannish psyche one can't find in a sports bar, a tailgate party or around a TV set watching the game. What it does do is not provide free advertising to these forums on Wikipedia. Nothing prevents folks interested in doing so from seeking out the hundreds of bulletin boards out there which discuss hockey in general or the Blues in particular, whether through the Blues' website, the sites for ESPN, SI, the local St. Louis newspapers or on Google.  RGTraynor  05:19, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

the only nhl central team (and they are the only teams i looked at before writing this) to have any site listed as a link other than its commercial site is the red wings, they tie the Blues with 2 external links, and the wings second link is to dmoz. Interestingly the blues dmoz based fan page listing (which might be a viable external link and way to get to fan pages et al from a wiki page, assuming the red wings are following standards) would be this: http://dmoz.org/Sports/Hockey/Ice_Hockey/Leagues/National_Hockey_League/Teams/St._Louis_Blues/Fan_Pages/ none of the major players in this discussion are on that list. unless there is a collected, organized, free, and externally monitored collection of all viable external Blues resources (dmoz or make your own) it is unlikely to pass mustard. i, perhaps, should point out that i am a participate in a competing organization, game time (son of game night review) and the cardinal version "the first pitch", which are primarily print driven (and the first pitch is completely ad paid, the hockey version still has a cost involved to acquire, so we have free and commercial versions). I'd see no reason to force a linkage to any of that anywhere on wiki. i would suspect that adding such a link would create a situation in which other sites would want linkage, and i would predict a lockdown and removal of all similar links to be the result. qed. even links like dmoz (and read up on the bed and breakfast conversation about attempting to link to an external list of b&b's to realize this is a wiki wide issue that many people take very seriously) or any we would agree to create, maintain, and confirm the neutrality of would be borderline acceptable at best. St. louis fandom is certainly a special thing, can produce valuable insights, and represents far more opinions than any neutral encyclopedic tomb like wiki will ever be able to. That does not mean the two communities must, or can in an effective way, be bound by excessive linage and accrediation by wiki persons of the validity of non wiki sites.

p.s. GO BLUES!!!!!!!!!!Childhoodtrauma 17:35, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, but what is it you're trying to say? ccwaters 19:01, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

that linkage is advertising. that advertising is against the spirit of wiki. that only a moderated resource page (a semi-neutral page linking to many fansites, datasites, and more) might be allowable, and that anyone who didnt expect a link war hasn't been reading much wiki. (also that i need a dictionary and prefer verbosity, but i'm not sure that was your intended question).Childhoodtrauma 20:19, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

No: linking is not purely advertising. Link between resources is the very essence of the web. Wikipedia has guidelines to determine whether a particular site in tune to the goals of wikipedia: WP:EL, WP:SPAM, WP:NOT#LINK, WP:VAIN, WP:COI, etc. We see edit wars of this all the time. Typically its someone affiliated with the site in question who is unaware of these guidelines. They usually get it, but sometimes the stubborn ones need a little prodding. That's all. ccwaters 19:49, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

bloody heck i can't be concise AND accurate!! pick one!! lol. all linkage contains the element known as advertising. not all of the parasitic relationship IS advertising-- that i will certainly agree with! on THIS discusion (fan site linkages) and using your supplied wiki criteria, how can ANY mentioned site be externally linked? how are any of them going to meet neutrality, reliability and fairness doctrines? how is finding ONE and allowing it linkage not going to induce others to want inclusion? I've suggested and supplied the dmoz linkage to the blues fan sites which are expressly permitted and notated that a similar such resource page would be likely allowed. but individual links to non offical, non neutral, non verified sites ???

wiki policy cc linked to above states: Where editors have not reached consensus on an appropriate list of links, a link to a well chosen web directory category could be used until such consensus can be reached. The Open Directory Project is often a neutral candidate, and may be added using the St. Louis Blues (hockey) at the Open Directory Project template. Sites which fail to meet criteria for reliable sources yet still contain information about the subject of the article from knowledgeable sources.

my suggestions follow wiki policy too :) and allow INSTANT connection between reader and the fanbase of the blues... every one above can get two step link via the dmoz general linkage and the world would be a better place, assuming dmoz is a positive thing :)

Ok, I'm not saying this to be mean in any way: I'm not sure what you are arguing. You need to learn to express your thoughts in a coherent manner. ccwaters 12:48, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

It's not mean; I was thinking the same thing. That being said, Childhoodtrauma, if you disagree with Wikipedia policy on linking external sites, I recommend the talk page at Wikipedia_talk:External_links. Debating the policy, or expressing your views as to what you think the policy should be, isn't appropriate here.  RGTraynor  15:30, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

umm i don't disagree with wiki's policy. As i said, when linking to external sites causes discussion, controversy, et al (which i would suggest this entire section demonstrates that it has) the WIKI solution is to link to a set of sites with a single external link-definitionally 'a resource page'. dmoz is specifically mentioned in the WIKI standards that i posted a chunk of above and ccwaters is listing as defining WIKI policy. again. im not sure how much more clear than that anyone can be. if linkning to a fan site causes issues, link instead to a resource page that lists MULTIPLE fan sites and other resources PER WIKI. the WIKI suggested dmoz linkage/format i also supplied (in part)showing that those fan sites in this discussion requesting information on how to get linked here are not yet part of that WIKI ACCEPTED resorce link. so the discussion on the bottom end of this section is about wether or not to have someone elected to select an external site on personal criteria, have multiple external sites be allowed via anyone who can edit this page who will then,maybe, discuss validity, or link to a single resorce page. i am on the "resource linkage" side. as far as i know none of those 3 options is specifically anti-WIKI. but some can RESULT in anti-wiki entriesChildhoodtrauma 19:37, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Requested move

It was requested that this article be renamed but there was no consensus for it be moved. --Stemonitis 05:56, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Blues make roster changes (www.cbc.ca)

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)

[edit] Dallas Drake

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)

Drake is now off the roster. [3] ^{Erryday I'm} 05:48, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Yep, he's gone. GoodDay 22:53, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Uniform section

Article needs a section specific to the team jerseys, complete with photos and info. Also, the team mascot, or lack thereof, needs to be mentioned. Love each other, or perish. ~Auden 05:03, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Well I guess you can consider the Towel Guy the teams mascot. ^{Erryday I'm} 03:24, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

well they will now have "ice girls" hopefully that will fail. towel boy is and is not a mascot. certianly a source of some fan adorment and some fan derision. he is, howevera specific blues character and nationally "known" as he had a piece in the NEW YORK TIMES (huh?) and was brought out by SCOTTRADE at the frozen four. at the frozen four, the st louis-ness of him caused a complete bombing of his routine. however, do we REAALLY want to start mentioning fans? i mean we can add the cottoneye joe guy, the horn guy, and the fat guy (the fat guy was actually in a commercial at least!). lol. realistically the fan cues that are significant and historic are mostly musical in nature , not a mascot, "the blues(saints) go marching in", "the st louis blues song" (obviously)etc. these traditions are not in the article and PERHAPS deserve some mention. not having a clown in a suit may become relevant only because a lot of wiki sports teams' info boxes (for some inane reason) feel the need to list a mascot or LACK of one. and if not having one is a lack, i'm not sure how... the history of the uniform could be somewhat interesting, the horrid red thing would be the only significant variation though. the blue note has changed, but not a lot, over the blues history. the uniforms have had a consistant (although different) feel to them through all the "non-red" eras. and that trumpet patch that was in vogue during the red days could be shown. the avs wiki entry shows "the big foot" i believe, for an example.. and Hull (debatably the greatest blues ever) was a red era Blues...

I dunno about mascot (or lack of info), but I would also be interested in seeing a section on the uniforms, particularly since they've got a new version this year, whose main difference from previous years seems to be that the color bands along the bottom of the old jersey (particularly noticeable in the white 'road' jersey) are gone. Granted, it's variations on a theme, but definitely enough variation between this year's and last year's I would think to at least merit a mention. --Umrguy42 05:49, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Blues captains

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)

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)

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)

The NHL Media Guide says, and I quote: "Al Arbour, 1967-68 to 1969-70; Red Berenson and Barclay Plager , 1970-71; Barclay Plager, 1971-72 to 1975-76; no captain, 1976-77; Red Berenson, 1977-78; Barry Gibbs, 1978-79 ..." The citation is in the style the book uses for a mid-season trade. As far as 1976 goes, that was the season Barclay Plager was turfed off to be player-coach of the Blues' Kansas City farm team during the point when management felt that the Plager Bros. had an unhealthy influence on the locker room and wished to break that. Garry Unger never was the Blues' captain.  RGTraynor  04:29, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

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)

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)

To go along with verifiability, I have the NHL Offical Guide & Record Book 2006 which on page 118 has the exact same captains' history information that RGTraynor quoted above. As such, GoodDay's assertions about the Blues' captains are correct. -Pparazorback (talk) 04:30, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Somebody has inserted Roberts & Unger again. GoodDay (talk) 20:18, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

So revert it...Well I did this time, but when you see it revert it. -Djsasso (talk) 20:20, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

: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)

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)

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)

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

[edit] Blues alternate captains, 2007-08

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)

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

Does anybody know? what's going on with the Blues alternate captains? The Blues official website doesn't help (I think someone's asleep at the switch there; unless they're just as confused). Can somebody put a call in to 'Andy Murray'? GoodDay (talk) 17:20, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Wow that was fast! - Murray has named Brewer captain & Kariya, Jackman, Tkachuck alternate captains. GoodDay (talk) 21:58, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Davidson and Pleau

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)

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)

What's Larry Pleau's job. GoodDay (talk) 21:55, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Then we'd need a footnote for all 30 NHL team articles. GoodDay (talk) 02:29, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Agree with the consensus. The line states "General Manager." Larry Pleau is the GM. Davidson is not. Our goal isn't editorializing over who has the real say; our goal is to repeat factual, verifiable information.  RGTraynor  14:17, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

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)

[edit] California Seals

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)

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)

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)

Not really the Sharks were an official demerging of the two franchises. -Djsasso (talk) 17:27, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

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.  RGTraynor  17:56, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Move to St. Louis Blues (ice hockey)?

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)

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)