Talk:NHL Winter Classic

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

List of NHL outdoor games[edit]

Edition Name Date Site Home Team Away Team Notes
N/A N/A September 28, 1991 Caesars Palace Los Angeles Kings New York Rangers Pre-season exhibition game
First NHL outdoor game
2003 Heritage Classic November 22, 2003 Commonwealth Stadium Edmonton Oilers Montreal Canadiens First regular season NHL outdoor game
Predecessor to the "Winter Classic"
2008 AMP Energy NHL Winter Classic January 1, 2008 Ralph Wilson Stadium Buffalo Sabres Pittsburgh Penguins First "Winter Classic"
2009 Bridgestone NHL Winter Classic 2009 January 1, 2009 Wrigley Field Chicago Blackhawks Detroit Red Wings This is the first "Classic" to feature two Original Six teams.

This table was excised on Jan 1. 76.66.198.171 (talk) 22:39, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tiger Stadium[edit]

How exactly is Tiger Stadium an option? First, it's not mentioned in either reference. Second, part of Tiger Stadium has already been demolished, so the only hard-hat free outdoor stadium in Detroit is Comerica Park.Mustang6172 (talk) 08:20, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps they mean where the Tigers play. As far as I am concerned, the White Sox play at Comiskey Park. Nobody is paying me any money to mention a corporate name, and even if they did, I would have to say that I have enough integrity to decline, as not everything in life is for sale. Somehow I doubt this is true, but I still hold out hope. 24.12.73.34 (talk) 01:27, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

2010 Speculation[edit]

Much of this article is devoted to speculation on where the next Winter Classic is going to be played and who will participate. Half a dozen teams and venues are "predicted". Since the NHL, and only the NHL, has the authority to select Winter Classic venues and participants, any options which have been put forth by overzealous newspaper editors, team owners (whether NHL or football/baseball), or Wikipedians should be removed from this article. Also, I believe the last line in the table (2010 ; TBD; January 1, 2010; TBA) should be removed. Until the game has been announced by the league and/or is on the official 2010 schedule, it doesn't exist. The cited article from TSN is relevant (though still speculative and not encyclopedic, IMO). The one from the Winnipeg Sun (which is a column, not a news article), is not cite-worthy. Anyone agree or disagree? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sme3 (talk • contribs) 18:26, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No objections in two weeks, so made the change. sme3 (talk) 02:27, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Per WP:CRYSTAL, please wait for official league/club sources to announce the 2010 details before updating the table. Thanks. --Madchester (talk) 22:10, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
User Djsasso stated that the city, though not the venue, was made official and cited this link: [1] from TSN.ca (currently, that article's headline says Fenway but the article does not). Even though TSN.ca is generally a reliable source, I see this as a report based on the Boston Herald article, and believe only the NHL can put out the "official" statement. It's also odd that a city, but not a venue or teams, would be stated. As this is a debatable topic, and I don't want to engage in edit warring, I won't revert and am posting it for discussion here. How do others interpret the article? -Sme3 (talk) 18:04, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Firsts[edit]

The "notes" column of the table is being filled with a bunch of "Firsts" (first win by home team, first win by road team, first with original six teams, first in a baseball stadium, first fight). Clearly, the first game is going to be filled with firsts, as will the next several games. What comes next: first to be played in the central time zone? first in which a goaltender was pulled? first hat trick? Many of these are trivial, and I believe should either be (a) put under a separate heading called "firsts" or (b) removed entirely. Thoughts? Me Three (talk to me) 14:22, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge proposal 2010[edit]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Since the Heritage Classic is going to resume as an annual outdoor game for Canadian teams that is otherwise identical to the Winter Classic, I suggest:

Nothing really to merge, given the state of this article at present. The rename on Heritage Classic to 2003 Heritage Classic and redirecting to this article should happen though. Perhaps then a rename of This article to NHL Heritage and Winter Classics to serve as the catch-all for both? Resolute 19:53, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I would also note that this is all entirely premature, as the NHL has not approved the Calgary game yet. No moves or renames should occur until (unless) it is approved at the June meetings. Resolute 19:54, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I agree nothing should be done until it is official. I also agree if the Calgary game is also call the Heritage classic to rename the Heritage Classic to the 2003 Heritage Classic. However, I disagree with merging both together. I know my logic is a little bit of a Crystal Ball but with the Winter Classic becoming an annual event if the Heritage Classic follows suit and becomes a semi-regular occurrence will only be a matter of time before the page gets to lager and they are once again split. But if the decision is made to merge I agree with Resolute that the name should be changed, either to what was suggested or Outdoor NHL Games with redirects from both. I suggest this in case the naming of one changes or a third outdoor game arises (expedition, preseason, European contest). Also I would like to see the Kings-Rangers exhibition game expanded(if possible, I haven't had the time to find if any information is online and the link in the article is dead.)--Mo Rock...Monstrous (talk) 22:23, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose merging. There is no need to merge anything. Just rename it to 2003 Heritage Classic, turn Heritage Classic into a dab page (2003, 2011, NHL Winter Classic), create a new page for the 2011 Feb 20 game (2011 Heritage Classic) - then rename NHL Winter Classic to NHL Classics, turn NHL Winter Classic into a dab page (each year's game, and the main article) -- expand coverage in the general article to make the 2003 game not an exception, but the first in a series, and add the 2011 edition into it. 76.66.193.224 (talk) 07:49, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yeah, expanding this article is something that has come onto my plate, with much of these same suggestions in mind. Resolute 14:23, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose merging, but Support renaming to 2003 Heritage Classic, as there'll be a 2011 Heritage Classic. GoodDay (talk) 15:13, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - I suggest using NHL in the titles of the new or modified articles. I'll go with 76.66.193.224's suggestions. ʘ alaney2k ʘ (talk) 15:09, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Since the NHL has approved the Calgary game, I have moved Heritage Classic to 2003 Heritage Classic and changed the former to a dab page for the time being. Resolute 01:39, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.


Requested move 2010[edit]

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: no consensus. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 11:20, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]


NHL Winter Classic → NHL Classics — expand topic coverage to cover both the Heritage Classic and the Winter Classic, as it almost does that right now. 64.229.103.57 (talk) 04:23, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Survey[edit]

Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's policy on article titles.
  • Oppose; I would prefer to see separate articles. Powers T 19:56, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support ... sort of.... I would like to see the name changed to "NHL outdoor games". There have only ever been fewer than 10 outdoor games to date, so there is no need for more than one article for all of them. Also, the "Classic" name is what the NHL uses now, but if they should change the name in the future the fact that the games are outdoor special event games is what really matters, and what all these games have in common. So I like there being one article for all outdoor games, just not the proposed name for it. 142 and 99 (talk) 04:12, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Name should be NHL outdoor gamesJmj713 (talk) 17:10, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral. I can see the argument, but given that Toronto and Vancouver are pushing for 2012 and 2013 Heritage Classics, I can very easily see both events becoming annual, each with their own histories. It might make more sense to keep the article separate as the Canadian games and the American games will have their own lore, and if so, I expect that Heritage Classic would be expanded beyond its current disambig status. If it gets merged, that is alright too, though it should then become List of NHL outdoor games or List of NHL Classics, as that is what the merged article would become. Resolute 23:34, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Opposse, as this is what the annual New Year's day event is commonly called. GoodDay (talk) 13:20, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per Resolute. -DJSasso (talk) 13:33, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion[edit]

Any additional comments:

NHL Winter Classic would become a disambiguation page, much as what Heritage Classic became after that article was moved to 2003 Heritage Classic. The rewritten article here would have an origin section with the Detroit-Inmate game and the Las Vegas game. A history section would be created with most of the 2003 paragraph, a 2008 paragraph, and a 2011 Heritage paragraph, with summaries of the other Winters.

More detail would be presented in separated sections for Heritage and Winter, with {{main}} links to the game articles.

64.229.103.57 (talk) 04:27, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

"Curse"[edit]

Is it really a curse to reach the Stanley Cup final?

The section is dumb, complicated trivia of no consequence.--207.255.199.12 (talk) 10:57, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]


Requested move 2011[edit]

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: not moved. Kotniski (talk) 09:58, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

NHL Winter Classic → NHL outdoor games — per the move request in December, it was mentioned that it might be better to call it "NHL outdoor games", to cover both the Classics, and other outdoor games as well. Currently this article covers both the Classics, though is called Winter Classic 65.95.14.96 (talk) 00:58, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Survey[edit]

Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's policy on article titles.
  • Oppose as NHL Winter Classic, is the name of the event. GoodDay (talk) 01:04, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment it is only the name of one of the two events that have extensive coverage on this page, not the name of the other event, "Heritage Classic". 65.95.14.96 (talk) 01:09, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose; better give the Heritage Classic its own article. Huon (talk) 01:15, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose The Winter Classic and Heritage Classic are two separate and unique events that are different in their premise and celebration, even though they both are play outdoors. The Winter Classic as noted is the official name of the event that is held yearly, on New Year's Day, where as the Heritage Classic is designed to be a one off celebration of a team's history timed to coincide with a major milestone year of that team. Additionally, the Winter Classic is clearly designed to appeal more to American fans (daytime event, major teams/names, etc.). Ravendrop 01:19, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose The winter classic and heritage classic are two different events. -DJSasso (talk) 20:45, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion[edit]

Any additional comments:

The other solution mentioned in the last discussion is to split the article in two, one on the Winter Classic one on the Heritage Classic, perhaps with an overview article at NHL outdoor games. See the split proposal below. The two proposals are separate. 65.95.14.96 (talk) 01:04, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment This comment: "The Jan. 1 Winter Classic will remain a largely U.S.-exclusive affair, if not in teams than in venues. The U.S. ratings drag by having a Canadian team on NBC is something the NHL wants to avoid. Canada will have its own outdoor game; it might be part of a doubleheader on Jan. 1 or on a different day. Call it the Heritage Classic, let the Winter Classic remain in the U.S. and move on." from here pretty much sums up this debate and explains why a separate Winter Classic and Heritage Classic pages are needed. Ravendrop 02:02, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Split into two or three articles (2011)[edit]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

{{split|NHL Winter Classic|Heritage Classic|NHL outdoor games}}

This article per discussion in the December 2010 requested move, might be better served to be split into two or three articles. One dealing with the Winter Classic, one dealing with the NHL Heritage Classic, and perhaps a parent article called NHL outdoor games. 65.95.14.96 (talk) 01:08, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Survey[edit]

Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons.
  • Neutral as nominator, if this page is moved in the above 2011 February requested move. If this page is not renamed in the above requested move, the Support as nominator. 65.95.14.96 (talk) 01:08, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support a split. GoodDay (talk) 02:14, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose since it already is split. What you should be talking about is expanding the Heritage Classic page. -DJSasso (talk) 20:47, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion[edit]

The location of the Heritage Classic article is also under discussion since we could expand Heritage Classic into an article with hatnotes, or create a NHL Heritage Classic article and link it from the disambiguation page Heritage Classic. 65.95.14.96 (talk) 01:08, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That article should be RM'd to NHL Heritage Classic. An NHL outdoors article can be created as a list of the Winter Classics, Heritage Classics or any other outdoor proffessional hockey games. GoodDay (talk) 02:14, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.


An outdoor NHL game in 1925?[edit]

While researching information for an article I'd like to write on the 1991 Kings–Rangers outdoor game in Las Vegas, I stumbled upon this piece of information on Google News Archive: "The first outdoor National Hockey League game since 1925 will take place Sept 27 in Las Vegas when the Los Angeles Kings meet the New York Rangers in an ..." And that's where the article breaks off, and you have to purchase it. Another article says: "An outdoor arena at Caesars Palace in Las Vegas? On Sept. 27, the Los Angeles Kings and the New York Rangers will play the NHL's first outdoor game since..." And again it breaks off there, probably also talking about this mythic 1925 outdoor NHL game. I haven't been able to find anything yet. Is anyone aware of an NHL outdoor game in 1925? Jmj713 (talk) 03:06, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've not been able to find any information regarding an organized NHL game played outdoors in 1925. Because at the time the NHL teams were still playing teams from other leagues, its entirely possible that one of them played another team from another league outdoors. Most references I can find regarding "outside" are about the first NHL game played by two teams from 'outside of canada' Boston Bruins being added in 1924, but did not have any American opponents until 1925 when Pittsburgh Pirates and New York Americans were added to the league. Also, while the Rangers - Kings game was played outdoors, it was a Pre-Season game. --Saranis1 (talk) 01:21, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for paying this question some attention. That link I gave before seems to be outdated, so here's a better version. The two articles clearly talk about some NHL event outdoors in 1925. Jmj713 (talk) 01:31, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
In 1954 the Detroit Red Wings played a game against Marquette Prisoners in Michigan, Other than vague references that don't offer any information or sources, I still cannot find anything on the 1925 game. In a 1924-25 game between the Canadiens and St. Patricks they were unable to produce Ice at the Canadiens Arena, it was moved but only over to the Montreal Forum. I think the Marquette game renders all those references of it being the first time since 1925 incorrect. I would imagine that any outdoor game in 1925 would have occurred in the 1924-25 season, the 1925-26 season didn't begin until mid December. In 1925 Toronto also had a outdoor PRACTICE rink located at Ravina Gardens. I suppose its possible they played a game there. I can confirm that in the 1925-26 season there was a game between the Toronto St.Patricks and New York Rangers at that location that occurred in 1926. I'll continue looking, but I've found two events between the date of the Rangers-Kings game and the supposed last prior NHL event to be held outdoors so I'm starting to feel like reporter incompetence is to blame. --Saranis1 (talk) 02:12, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Good info. Please keep looking, if you can. I am always very interested in any unusual NHL games and events, so this would be great to discover. If, indeed, true. Jmj713 (talk) 02:20, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Future sites[edit]

Is this section really necessary? It's just a list of speculated sites it doesn't add anything to the article IMHO. --Mo Rock...Monstrous (leech44) 04:19, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I tend to agree with this, especially after last night's edits where an anonymous user threw in whatever speculative garbage he could think of without citing anything (in particular, look at the edit summaries: "Molson Stadium looks perfect"?). There are a few speculative sites that are at least semi-interesting in terms of mention, such as the Mall in DC (a site Ted Leonsis has debunked thoroughly for various reasons) or the Rose Bowl (which, as mentioned in the footnote, will never host a Winter Classic because of a little matter of hosting a well-known football game at New Year's). This article is suffering in general from edits made by overeager type who hear "Report: Sources say Flyers to host Winter Classic" and who then rush here to revise this article even though there's no confirmation from the NHL yet. I'm somewhat inclined to leave a few of the "potential future sites" in here simply because if they're removed it will be a constant edit war with people who want to lard it up with a lot of speculative crap. But really, some of the sites people have added are just stupid. The anonymous user last night added Tropicana Field, which happens to be the old home of the Lightning before their current arena was built. Why would an OUTDOOR game be played in a domed stadium with an immovable roof? I mean, seriously. 1995hoo (talk) 13:59, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Prior to the IP's happy spree, all the mentioned venues were cited from various speculations in media. I know because I added them. While it's true that they are based on little more than wishful thinking, I think this section is as valuable as our article on Potential National Hockey League expansion; that is, it serves the purpose of collecting any mentions in the media of a possible Winter Classic, which is useful for a historical overview of what were or are considered possible locations. Since the league itself won't speculate on future locations, this is the next best thing, in my opinion. It does, however, need to be cited, and not just made up. Jmj713 (talk) 14:57, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That's reasonable in my opinion. For what it's worth, by the way, I took out the sentence about playing the Winter Classic in cold-weather climates. The fact of the exhibition game in Las Vegas proves that temperature isn't really the issue because the refrigeration truck allows them to maintain a sheet of ice in quite warm weather. The real issues with warm-weather cities are two-fold: (a) possibility of rain (although as we saw this past January, they can still play in some level of rain—I was at the game and it wasn't raining as hard during the game as the TV people made it sound); and (b) the problem of the sun glare off the ice. At last fall's Capitals Convention I specifically asked Bill Daly about the warm-weather cities issue in view of the Las Vegas exhibition. He seemed rather impressed that people remember that game and he noted that the biggest concern is the sun glare. For TV scheduling reasons they're reluctant to schedule the game for prime time as that leaves almost no wiggle room in case they have to postpone, so that means dealing with the problem of sun glare. In the colder-weather cities apparently the light tends to be somewhat flatter. (Recall that they banned tinted visors after Martin Brodeur complained about Ovechkin wearing one.) Of course I can't offer a citation because this is simply something Daly said at a seminar at the Caps Convention in response to my question, so it's not something I can add to the article.
But anyway, you do make a valid point about keeping a list of stadiums that have been kicked around as future possible sites. There's another interesting wrinkle that's not addressed in this article and I'm not sure how it could be done in an effective manner. Specifically, the issue has to do with time zones. As a practical matter, as long as the NHL and NBC want to keep the game as a 1:00 PM Eastern start time, it rules out any city in the Pacific or Mountain Time Zones because the game would start too early in the morning local time. I suppose it's not too unusual to have an 11:30 AM Central Time puck drop in Chicago if a game is on NBC on Sunday, but I've never heard of the NHL being willing to start a game any earlier than that (and the NHLPA would likely oppose it as well). I wouldn't mind addressing this issue in the article as a way to try to cut down on some of the speculation-happy stuff people throw in, but I can't offer a hard source other than plain obviousness. 1995hoo (talk) 15:26, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Split off non-Winter Classics into a separate article (2013)[edit]

No objection after five months and the content clearly exceeded the article's scope. There is room to expand and write comprehensive articles about the Heritage and Winter Classics, as well as the Stadium Series individually, and an overarching article seems warranted. Both articles will require cleanup and expansion, where appropriate. Resolute 01:10, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

I suggest that NHL outdoor games be created out of this article, and then expanded to overview all these NHL outdoor games. We have the Stadium Series now to consider, not just the three exhibition games or various Heritage Classics. So the history should be mostly in another article, and a {{main}} can link to that article. Further, we can examine the antecedants in the NHA as well, and the predecessors from the teams that became the NHA/NHL. -- 65.94.79.6 (talk) 04:59, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support split The NHL is greatly expanding on outdoor games to the point that it should be split. The Winter Classic focuses on the history and tradition of hockey in a general sense, while the Heritage Classic focuses on Canadian teams. The Stadium Series is just that: outdoor games. It's quickly becoming a non-novelty anymore. Jgera5 (talk) 04:25, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support split—I'm of two minds to a degree. One side says we might wait until we see whether the Stadium Series becomes a more permanent thing or whether it's a one-time publicity stunt coming out of yet another labor dispute. The other side says this article is becoming confusing to the casual reader as it has to distinguish between all these outdoor games. I think the latter consideration is more important because it's the casual reader at whom this sort of thing is really aimed. Most serious NHL fans understand the distinction (though I must say every time I see people editing Wikipedia I'm surprised at the level of misinformation out there!). It kind of comes down to the same principle as "every square is a rectangle, but not every rectangle is a square." Every Winter Classic is an outdoor game, but not every outdoor game is a Winter Classic. Moving the information about other games to a bigger article would be a good solution, although I think some of the history that relates directly to the Winter Classic should obviously remain in this article. 1995hoo (talk) 14:03, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support One alternative would be to move the existing article to NHL outdoor games and have Winter Classic and Heritage Classic as sections. The problem with that is Winter Classic would dwarf everything else. The obvious solution is to leave a summary of Winter Classic in the new article, but it leaves open the question of what to do with NHL Heritage Classic. It is not a very long article and could be merged into the new one, or we could assume it will be expanded. I'm not sure what the best way to handle that is, but I'll leave it to the rest of you. -Rrius (talk) 19:57, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Cancelled game in the table[edit]

This edit removed the 2013 cancelled game from the table with the rational "there's no need to list something in the table that never took place". However, the point of the table is to summarize the information presented in the article in an easy to read way. While the game did not take place, it was scheduled and all the details were announced. These details are presented in the article so I fail to see why we should deprive readers of this info in the table. (Many or even most readers will never actually read the whole article.) It is standard practice to include details of things that "never took place" due to the lockout on other NHL tables, ie List of NHL seasons, National Hockey League All-Star Game, List of Stanley Cup champions, Hart Memorial Trophy. What do others think? TDL (talk) 16:45, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Why not put an asterisk next to the 2014 game (either the year or somewhere else) and then preface the note below the table with an asterisk? I think most readers are used to seeing notes of that sort. 1995hoo (talk) 17:08, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Even that isn't necessary. It should all be there in the prose. Resolute 19:25, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, all of the details of all of the games should be in the prose. The table is just a summary of the prose. If we are going to provide a summary, it is best to make it complete. TDL (talk) 00:18, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This has been a problem since September 2013. A few select people continue to edit out the canceled game from the table despite providing no good reason for the contrary and against majority opinion from the community that it should be kept in. Something's gotta give. Our job is to provide accurate information, not to tailor articles to one's own subjective preference. MN.Gruber06 (talk) 19:16, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure there's any basis for citing a "majority opinion" one way or the other, as I don't think the issue's been discussed before. I don't think it's all that important an issue either way, frankly. 1995hoo (talk) 19:35, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Given that the game has been scheduled regularly since 2008, I think it is reasonable to show the scheduled 2013 game in the table, with a note specifying that it was cancelled due to the work stoppage. As mentioned in the original post, doing so in the Stanley Cup champions table and other tables help readers understand why the gap exists. In a similar manner, I think explaining the absence of the scheduled Winter Classic would serve readers well in the table within this article. isaacl (talk) 23:20, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Future games[edit]

I've deleted the 2016 game from the table because it hasn't been confirmed by the NHL. Yes, there have been multiple reports saying the Bruins will host Montreal in Foxboro. However, there were also multiple reports from ESPN and elsewhere that the 2015 game would feature the Capitals against the Flyers. Some Wikipedia users rushed to add those reports to this site as though they were fact. Obviously, those reports were incorrect because the opponent turned out to be Chicago. Consistent with WP:CRYSTAL, WP:NOTNEWS, and various other things I'm probably forgetting, the 2016 game should not be listed until the NHL confirms it. While it is verifiable that ESPN has reported it'll be in Foxboro, that is not the same thing as being verifiable that the game WILL take place there. 1995hoo (talk) 17:05, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

2017?[edit]

One of the notes for the table says: "All games played on New Year's Day (January 1), except for 2012 and 2017 (Monday, January 2 both years)" This sounds as though the 2017 game has already taken place or already been scheduled, but it is not mentioned anywhere else in the article. I therefore recommend that the 2017 game be mentioned somewhere or that the reference to it be removed. 2604:2000:EFC0:2:28C9:9497:C68B:2C0B (talk) 18:06, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved
Thank you! Callmemirela 🍁 {Talk} ♑ 00:30, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on NHL Winter Classic. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 20:54, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Will it Be We Are NHL Winter Classic[edit]

Great study and Info on the Winter Classic, BUT I hope one day in my life that the NHL Winter Classic will come to Penn State University home of college football's REAL America's Team Penn State, sorry Alabama. Its Joeysworld 18:29 28, May 2022 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 35.136.5.50 (talk)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:NHL_Winter_Classic&oldid=1207210531"