Talk:Calgary Flames

Featured nomination
This look good. I merged a small paragraph; small paragraphs kinda break the flow of the article. I think it is appropriate to send to FAC, but I still have my reservations on criterion 1a. But I think that's probably me being overly nitpicky. -- Maxim (talk)  00:14, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
 * At this point, the best way to address any problems with 1a is to throw the article at the wolves and see what comes out of it. PR and GA review are done, this is the next logical step. Resolute 05:52, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Go flames go?
I'm suprised to see no mention of the "Go flames go" chant that became the teams tradmark during there 2004 playoff run. I don't know enogh about it to add it in or where it would go but i hope someone else can. Some refs that should be of help     all reports on game from the 2004 playoffs that mention the chant.

Owen Nolan
We're all familiar with the United Kingdom's (IMHO) multiple identity crises. Seeing as in the Current Roster under birthplaces, we don't use Canada & the United States only; Why, is Nolan's birthplace being continously changed from Belfast, United Kingdom to Belfast, Northern Ireland? the last time I checked, Belfast was still in the UK. GoodDay (talk) 18:38, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
 * It's just one of those things that is always going to happen. It should be UK, but I don't get too worked up about it if it changes. -Djsasso (talk) 18:42, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

I sure got a quizzy feeling in my guizzard about this. I'm thinking of the dispute that took place at that NHL statistics leader by country article. GoodDay (talk) 18:50, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
 * That is why I just leave it however it is in articles. Have enough other things needing fixing to worry about that too much. -Djsasso (talk) 18:51, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

I'll keep an eye on it for awhile. If things get intense (edit warring or heated discussion), I'll let the pro-Northern Ireland gang win out. GoodDay (talk) 18:59, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
 * It's a bit of a conundrum, isn't it? You could consider Belfast, Northern Ireland to be a city, province format, as North American players are listed as, but that then breaks the naming convention for European born players.  Honestly, I'm not worried either way, unless it escelates into an edit war. Resolute 19:59, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Northern Ireland is in fact a constituent country of the United Kingdom. It is as much a country as England is, so I don't think there is any problem with Nolans birthplace being Northern Ireland. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.231.72.15 (talk) 20:12, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
 * It's Minnesota's problem now, anyway. ;o)  Resolute 20:17, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Where's Warrener??
Rhett Warrener has been placed on waivers; but he hasn't been claimed (yet). He's still a Calgary Flame. GoodDay (talk) 23:07, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
 * No prob, he's back. GoodDay (talk) 23:15, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

ARE/IS
"The Calgary Flames are a professional" rather jumped out at me. This may be a cross channel grammar difference, but it just looks and sounds wrong. "is" works better for me.

Congrats on the FA. WillE (talk) 07:10, 5 September 2008 (UTC)


 * This is proper Canadian grammar. You're the weird ones to us ;-).-Wafulz (talk) 12:26, 5 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks! And I have to agree with Wafulz.  "The Calgary Flames is..." feels gramattically awkward.  Maybe it has something to do with the standard of plural nicknames.  "The Calgary Flames are..." vs. "The Melbourne Cricket Club is..." and "Manchester United is..." all three seem more correct to me than the alternatives. Resolute 14:26, 5 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Until now I don't think I ever realized we tend to pluralize our nicknames in most cases, whereas british soccer clubs don't. (ie Flames vs. United) -Djsasso (talk) 14:52, 5 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm curious - if the team was just called "Calgary", would you say "Calgary plays at" or Calgary play at"? WillE (talk) 22:23, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I'd likely say "Calgary plays at..." Resolute 22:36, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Me too. "Calgary plays at..." or "The Flames play at...".  Black  ngold29   22:38, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
 * If its Calgary I would say "Calgary plays at". If you are going by team name "the flames play at". -Djsasso (talk) 03:15, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Review
Calgary Flames has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fasach Nua (talk • contribs)
 * Wow, didn't even attempt to address his issues on the talk page before taking it to review. -Djsasso (talk) 14:29, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Indeed. Fasash seems to prefer wasting everyone's time than discussing issues. Resolute 14:30, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Charming.   Ravenswing  15:17, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

As a note, since I mentioned it in the review, I have been wanting to eliminate some of the non-free images anyway, but was waiting on the start of the season to do so. There's only one image on commons using the new jersey, as an example, and it isn't from a good angle. This concern is one that will be dealt with in a couple weeks, at most. Resolute 15:35, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

New Review
Calgary Flames has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here. Fasach Nua (talk) 10:35, 9 September 2008 (UTC)


 * The first review is closed and the second review has been deleted. It is disruptive to renominate an article literally minutes after it has been kept. (Just as, for instance, it would be disruptive to renominate at AFD immediately after a closing.) It is clear from the review that editors here are perfectly willing to discuss image issues and to replace things if the need arises. And it is also clear that editors are extremely exasperated by your editing without discussion, Fasach. I suggest that you list your image issues and allow for reasonable discussion. Marskell (talk) 11:24, 9 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Seriously dude. Enough with trying to make a WP:POINT.  You finally explained what your issues are in the first review.  I have already explained what my plans are to address them.  Walk away from this article for a month, then take a look.  If you still have issues, please bring them up up this talk page, and we will attempt to address them. Resolute 14:21, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Non-free images
Since this is the point of some of these review noms, maybe some discussion here on just that topic is warranted. The quality of the article is not the issue. Correct me if I am wrong, but it seems impossible to meet both the FA standards for non-free images, and have articles with illustrations of corporate logos. Anyway, what is a good plan on how to proceed? Would it be to move the old logos to a "History of/Logos of" article? We certainly should be able to find a photo (if not now, soon) of the current jerseys. I made the image of the current jerseys from the NHL's web site, but that was before the 07-08 season. Would a photo of the Calgary Flames display at the HHOF be free, although it would have a logo in it? Alaney2k (talk) 00:52, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Really there is no issue, only one user has had a issue with this particular page, and part of me feels there is a WP:POINT behind his arguements. This many logo pictures on a page is quite common and I think Resolute's plans are more than adequate to deal with the situation. -Djsasso (talk) 00:55, 10 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Basically, one user is attempting to pass his opinion off as policy, and is not all that happy that this misconception is not supported in reality. Once we get into the exhibition season in a couple weeks, I'll be grabbing a couple pictures of the Flames in action, and will be able to replace the current jersey image with a free use replacement.  I should be able to replace the original jersey set as well, since that is part of the NHL's vintage line.  In the meantime, the article is fine the way it is, as the non-free images are relevant to the sections discussing them.  Resolute 04:43, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Agreed. IMHO, there are a lot of anti-image cowboys on Wikipedia with a threadbare handle on copyright law who just yearn to chop down anything anytime the policy language shifts; just to pick on the worst offender, if I was Jimbo, I would've shut down Betacommandbot a long time before it actually was.    Ravenswing  05:30, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Without any reasonable discussion or contribution from Fasach, it's impossible to be truly constructive. IMHO, after looking at the article, I think the usage of non-free images is okay. I will take a look at the furs for the non-free images and see if it is all in order according to the templates Fasach is attaching. (I know, I know, it has passed FA.) I don't have a significant role in editing this article so I hope my comments will be acceptable. A lame edit war is lame. Alaney2k (talk) 14:20, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
 * No, by all means uninvolved editors are more than welcome and appreciated. -Djsasso (talk) 14:22, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Indeed. No article is perfect, even a FA.  Constructive comments are always welcome. Resolute 14:37, 10 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, to be fair to the anti-image cowboys, Wikipedia policy on fair use images is much stricter than either US or Canadian copyright laws. In this case, I agree with the consensus that the number of FU images in this article is not in violation of NFCC, but at the same time, I do agree that some of the images can be replaced.  This will be done as soon as it is feasable. Resolute 14:27, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Ok, here are my suggestions after reviewing the furs and non-free images. I don't think there should be any problem with the use of the jerseys ones at all. They contribute significantly to the understanding of the topic and are definitely encyclopedic. The nhluniforms.com images do a complete rendering of all parts of the uniform, from helmets to stockings. The current jersey could be replaced with a photo from a game, but that may not be an improvement. Keep it around until you get a good one from the game. As for the 'original' logo, the difference from the current one is very small. In fact, you might say it's just how it is rendered, i.e. with an outline. So, I could consider its use to be debatable. Ok, but debatable, because it does reference a fact about it. That said, consider its removal, because it is not a big fact. The "horse-head logo" is more interesting and should, I think be discussed more than it is currently. I suppose it honors the connection to the Stampede/Corral, etc.? I put the FUR in for the image, and I stated it was for commentary, because it doesn't really identify the organization. I suggest more commentary? There is only the image caption and one sentence noting its retirement. With the photo separate from the logo section it is less helpful in understanding its usage. Hopefully this is helpful. Alaney2k (talk) 16:05, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Great comments, I would probably agree with most if not all of this. I was going back an forth on the original logo vs the current logo and the only difference being the black line. That being said, the new logo is an all black C isn't it? So isn't the logo we have in the infobox incorrect? If that is the case I would keep the original and the new black C. -Djsasso (talk) 16:34, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, Calgary is somewhat unique in that the home and road logos are different. The red C is on the road jersies, while the black C is on the home.  It would be ideal if an early-80s picture could be had showing off the original logo could be had for that section.  I was able to replace the image of the Atlanta Flames logo with a similar solution previously.  I did send an email to the Flames, but never got a response.  As far as the flaming horse goes, it was introduced in 1999 to celebrate the Year of the Cowboy in Calgary.  I'll look to add more on that. Resolute 17:00, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Other teams change the color of the logo, e.g. Rangers. This was more common in the past, e.g. Stars. I had not really noticed that about the Calgary logo. The design is the same, just colouring. I guess use the one most often used to identify the organization (letterhead?). Alaney2k (talk) 18:17, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
 * That is true, but not many do. At any rate, the IfD's were unsuccessful, however as promised, I have begun to replace the FU images where I can.  I was able to get several good shots of players in the current uniform design last night, and so have replaced that image with a free equivalent. Resolute 16:02, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Requests for comment/Fasach Nua 2
Apparently he's been kicking up dust over on the soccer Wikiproject too ...  Ravenswing  03:57, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Yup, probably should have linked them here. I linked them at the project page but they probably got lost in all the talk that went on at that page today. -Djsasso (talk) 04:14, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Flames Central
My understanding was that Flames Central was owned by the Concord Entertainment Group and that they just paid the Calgary Flames a royalty for use of the Flames branding. If there is an ownership in the bar & restaurant by the hockey team, it was inconsequential. Concord owns a bunch of other places like The Whiskey, Mercury, Bass Bros, etc. I did a quick search, and I can't find anything to back this up (or prove otherwise). --Farmerman (talk) 19:42, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
 * It is very definitely a joint venture, as per their own press releases:. This information is already cited in the article.  Resolute 21:05, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
 * But that press release does not state the terms of the venture. It could be 100% owned by Concord with them paying a hefty royalty to the Flames, with joint responsibility for marketing.  Yes, both companies are involved in Flames Central, but the details of the rights and responsibilities of each party do not appear to be public.  Actually, while we are discussing that paragraph, why would ownership in another hockey team need to be preceded by the phrase, "Off the ice"?  The Hitmen also play their games on ice.  --Farmerman (talk) 21:33, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes they play their games on ice, but its not the players on the ice that own the hitmen. Its the ownership group off the ice that owns the Hitmen. -Djsasso (talk)
 * So, everything talking about ownership in the article should be prefaced with "Off the ice" because the ownership group is not the players? --Farmerman (talk) 06:29, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
 * The phrase does not need to be preceded with "Off the ice", however I added it to indicate a transition from the on-ice details of the Flames history and the off-ice details of the business of the team, as everything in that paragraph is beyond the on-ice aspect of the Flames. As far as Flames Central goes, I personally think it is fine for the lead, however if you wish, we can add the info that it is a joint venture with Concord Entertainment in the paragraph discussing Flames Central.  Would that be a viable compromise? Resolute 06:44, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I think a change in the wording to include Concord is appropriate. Although it is clear that the Flames have some type of interest, the current wording implies more ownership than can be verified.  --Farmerman (talk) 15:08, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Work needed
Hello everyone! This article currently appears near the top of the cleanup listing for featured articles, with several cleanup tags. Cleanup work needs to be completed on this article, or a featured article review may be in order. Please contact me on my talk page if you have any questions. Thank you! Dana boomer (talk) 16:24, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Not exactly sure what you think should be cleaned up. All that is on the list is dead external links, but thats not a reason to de-feature an article. -DJSasso (talk) 16:25, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, you edit conflicted over me, heh. I've replaced the non-newspaper dead links with live references. Resolute 17:22, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Um...what's up with the first setence? -Guest 3/12/11 9:16 PM EST —Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.18.242.235 (talk) 02:15, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Division titles
Could everyone please leave the infobox be for a bit and start explaining here their rationale why it should be what? This will turn into a revert slugfest otherwise. Once we have consensus what it should be we can change it if necessary (or perhaps the consensus is already there and some editors just need to be notified of it, so please do it).--Fogeltje (talk) 20:15, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Agreed, and a discussion has already been started at WT:HOCKEY. Resolute 20:40, 17 March 2011 (UTC)


 * I weren't looking to stir an edit-war. I assumed by clarifying the 'regular season' & 'playoff' difference was required. GoodDay (talk) 21:39, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Peacock terms/Lead section
For the most part, I think UrbanNerd's claims of "peackock terms" are unfounded. Certainly the cited fact that the Prime Minister described the Flames as "Canada's Team" in 2004 is hardly such. And stating the Red mile was "nationally famous" and received "widespread coverage" are both, likewise, accurate statements. As such, I tend to reject his arguments. That being said, while that information might have been beneficial in the lead in 2007 when I added the passage, four years later, the 04 playoff run is falling well back into history. It seems to me that the proper solution is not to lazily take an axe to a lead section, but to update it. That is something I will do shortly, but am open to suggestions as to what other aspects of the team's history are important enough for mention in the lead. Resolute 15:55, 19 March 2011 (UTC)


 * For starters statements like the the 04' playoff run "captured the imaginations of Canadians", and the red mile "became nationally famous" while you claim are accurate statements are uncited, POV, and peacock terms. They must be removed. UrbanNerd (talk) 16:39, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, you kind of said that immediately below, and as is typical, failed to even read what I wrote before you responded. Resolute 20:29, 19 March 2011 (UTC)


 * I reverted some fluff per WP:Peacock. Some of the fluff was referenced by CTV Calgary, but that doesn't make it fact. The article mentions Paul Martin who was on a campaign stop saying '"I guarantee you are Canada's team"', but politicians say this all the time, including the Canucks. Similar claims have been made for the Leafs, Habs, Sens, and Oilers. The revert also included uncited claims like the 04' playoff run '"captured the imaginations of Canadians"', and the red mile '"became nationally famous"'. These kind of peacock terms should be avoided to keep the articles tone informative, and not promotional. UrbanNerd (talk) 15:56, 19 March 2011 (UTC)


 * The fact it is said about other Canadian teams doesn't make it untrue. It's said, it was in the article before and now is sourced, whether it was actually meant by heart is impossible to tell and irrelevant. The fact that you don't LIKE it is certainly irrelevant. I don't like certain other teams, but that doesn't mean I ignore good or positive things that are being said about them. Rather than just reverting you could have taken out the things you don't agree with OR take it to the talk page, not blatantly revert something that was SOURCED. Although I'll admit that I maybe should have only restored the section I found a reference for and throw up the rest for discussion on the talk page. So we are both in error in terms of behaviour. I do wonder one thing. This article was extensively reviewed for becoming a featured article and the reviewer at the time had no objection to those passages. And I'm sure FA candidates are thoroughly screened for unsourced POV. Which of course doesn't mean it should stay by definition. Perhaps we could get the reviewer's opinion about these passages.--Fogeltje (talk) 21:52, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
 * As far as the lead goes, it's a moot argument. I don't think the wording used was peacock by any stretch of the imagination, bit it was seven years ago, so in terms of history, is not as important today as it was four years ago.  As such, I've reworked the lead. Resolute 22:31, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

True C of Red History?
The C of Red dates back to at least 1985 versus the Jets in the playoffs, and possibly before that.Its origins were certainly not in 1986. I would be curious to see if any fan could provide a reference to the C of Red pre-1985, but I am certain it existed before 1986.
 * Nope. The C of Red dates to the 1986 playoffs against the Edmonton Oilers. (See the final paragraph of the 1985–86 Calgary Flames season article for another source).  It's origins have nothing to do with the old Jets, though Winnipeg's white-out was created in 1987 as a response to the C of Red.  You are possibly confused because some sources mistakenly claim the white-out was created in 1985 against Calgary.  But the timelines in this article are quite correct. Resolute 03:07, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

Soviet Union?
Could have put this on any team page, but why are Russia, Ukraine and other former Soviet countries' players listed as Soviet Union? Shouldn't these be changed to their individual countries since there is no Soviet Union anymore? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Levendis99 (talk • contribs) 03:01, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
 * A person's birthplace is the country as it was when they were born. Changing it to reflect modern changes in borders or political divisions introduces errors as it is anacrhonistic to change.  You will note, however, that the nationality field of the roster template uses their current nationalities. Resolute 03:10, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Also, expect this to become a major point of confusion for the next several years, as kids who were born after the breakup of the Soviet Union and Czechoslovakia are starting to turn pro. We're going to have cases where Soviet Union will be used for one player, and Russia for another. Resolute 03:14, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for clearing that up. It makes sense now. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Levendis99 (talk • contribs) 04:58, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Calgary Flames
OTRS received an email noting that Miikka Kiprusoff should be included on the roster. I don't feel comfortable editing the roster myself, so I am posting here, and to one of the editors.-- SPhilbrick (Talk)  19:02, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
 * He was on the roster. Looks like someone edited the roster incorrectly and it was commented out. Surprised someone went to OTRS to have that added. -DJSasso (talk) 19:11, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Trivia
MacGyver is a fan of the Calgary Flames and is seen wearing a Cap with a flaming C in some episodes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.202.208.89 (talk) 21:50, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Calgary Flames. Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:
 * Attempted to fix sourcing for http://hhof.com/htmlInduct/ind07MacInnis.shtml

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 09:34, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

1988-89 captains & alternate captain
See the 1988-89 roster, clearly show MacDonald & Peplinski as captains & Hunter as an alternate captain. GoodDay (talk) 18:45, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Calgary Flames. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101217080720/http://www.nhl.com/cup/formats.html to http://www.nhl.com/cup/formats.html
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.foxnews.com/wires/2008Mar11/0%2C4670%2CHKNBluesFlames%2C00.html
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.faceoff.com/Darryl%2BSutter%2Bresigns%2BFlames%2BBrent%2Bstays/4034306/story.html
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.nhl.com/ice/news.htm?id=532349

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 01:14, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Calgary Flames. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160304030556/http://www.faceoff.com/Darryl%2BSutter%2Bresigns%2BFlames%2BBrent%2Bstays/4034306/story.html to http://www.faceoff.com/Darryl+Sutter+resigns+Flames+Brent+stays/4034306/story.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 09:24, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Calgary Flames. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160304091527/http://www.calgarysun.com/2015/06/29/hockey-hall-of-famer-phil-housley-creative-for-calgary-flames-during-lean-years to http://www.calgarysun.com/2015/06/29/hockey-hall-of-famer-phil-housley-creative-for-calgary-flames-during-lean-years

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 07:26, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

Bill Peters
Will folks please stop deleting Peters as the coach? AFAIK, he hasn't been fired. GoodDay (talk) 17:25, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

Johnny Gaudreau/Sean Monahan era (2014–present) -> Mark Giordano era (2013-2021)
The word era somewhat suggests that a certain distinguishing character or trait marks that time period.

No question that Johnny Gaeudreau and Sean Monahan are core players of the present team. But in the current lineup Elias Lindholm and Mathew Tkachuk are equally important core players. But I would say that the franchise face player that was consistently at the top of the league was Mark Giordano, who became as recognized and respected as a franchise player like Iginla. Giordano was a Norris trophy-winning, Messier Leadership award-winning defenceman, multiple-time NHL All Star, with the team for 15 years, the captain for 8 seasons from 2013-2021 directly following Jarome Iginla...

Emphasized by articles like this one (, the Giordano era began in the wake of the Iginla era, and the Flames are now entering a new era which is loosely defined by its star forwards, but clearly needs time to settle.

I propose to change the heading "Johnny Gaudreau/Sean Monahan era (2014–present)" to "Mark Giordano era (2013-2021)", and maybe reconsider some of the emphasis on the text within

NAZEM KADRI ERA! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.189.94.9 (talk) 19:44, 18 August 2022 (UTC)


 * I'd agree with that over current name. Wondering whether we need "eras" to be defined by player names though. Iginla was a special, special case. But even the cup-winning team isn't named as the "Mcdonald era" for instance. Don't have a great idea right now though. Maybe along the lines of "Rebuild (2013-2021)?" Not like the team saw huge success in that span? Crawdaunt (talk) 18:35, 19 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm not overly enthusiastic about having "era" sections/sub-sections in NHL pages, either. Particularly if it's about players who are not in the HHOF. GoodDay (talk) 19:18, 19 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I'd say Darryl Sutter is as much a marker of the "eras" as any player... He was there from 2002-2010 when they were at one of their peaks, and his return last season brought the team up to 1st in the Pacific (and just their second pass to the 2nd round of the playoffs since Sutter lead them there in 2004). Not to say "Post-Sutter era", just saying that the players being the face doesn't really define the epoch.
 * With that in mind, perhaps remove the "end of Iginla era" part from 2011-2013 and merge the two subsections to something along the lines of "Decade-long rebuild (2011-2021)" ? The team returned to some form finally qualifying for the playoffs in 3 of the past 4 seasons, including two turns atop the Pacific (2019, 2022)? Crawdaunt (talk) 15:26, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 May 2023
Calgary was Division Champs 1988 and 1990 and not 1986 2605:B100:935:90BB:81F1:9B86:647D:2D07 (talk) 10:36, 16 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. AnnaMankad (talk) 06:30, 17 May 2023 (UTC)