Talk:History of the National Hockey League (1992–2017)/Archive 1

Notes on the article
I thought it'd be a bit more appropriate to have it on the talkpage:

Rough timeline:


 * Background
 * Gary Bettman replaces Gil Stein << Gil Stein scandal? see HHOF page
 * Owners emphasis on southern expansion (went with Bettman's general guidelines instead)


 * Pre-lockout
 * Canadiens 1993 title
 * Rangers 1994 title
 * Sens and Lightning
 * North Stars relocate
 * Ducks and Panthers
 * 1994-95 lockout


 * late 1990s
 * Devils trap to championships
 * World Cup of Hockey
 * NHLers in the Olympics
 * Brett Hull's controversial SC winning goal
 * Gretzky retires
 * Lemieux's battle with cancer/retirement
 * Jets, Nordiques and Whalers relocate
 * Canadian Assistance plan - NHL's first revenue sharing


 * Early 2000s
 * Large-small market disparity
 * Southern teams winning Stanley Cup
 * Flames 2004 run


 * Lockout
 * 2004-05 lockout
 * draft lottery


 * Post-lockout
 * Carolina over Edmonton in small market final<<WHA matchup, mention it in 67-92?
 * Sidney Crosby and Alexander Ovechkin


 * Rules and innovations
 * Trap
 * Overtime format changes in 1999 and 2005
 * Post-lockout rules changes

 Maxim  ( ☎ )  23:57, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Note #2
I've done some math, and based on the size-year ratio at the 67-92 article, this one should be around 20 000 bytes in total, as we're covering a shorter span of time, thus we want the articles balanced.  Maxim  ( ☎ )  21:07, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I think it will come in north of that, but probably in the 25-30k region. I'll be writing a paragraph or two about the 94-95 lockout, then we have your mid 1990s section, then the 2000s, probably focussing on the lead into the 2004-05 lockout. Then the aftermath.   Rules and changes will be larger than usual though.  OTL in 1999 then SOL in 2005, other changes post-lockout.  Resolute 21:55, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
 * It only makes sense that it would come in proportionately larger than the others. The more recent history is much more well-documented, and most of us can remember the recent history better, so it is easier to write about. — Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 22:12, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Beyond the inherent bias towards recent news, there is also 24-30 teams for the entire scope of this article as opposed to 3-10, 6 and 12-24 of the previous articles. More teams, more games, more events. Resolute 22:48, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Couple quick thoughts
Just very briefly scanned the article, as in I haven't acutally read it yet. However, two things jump out at me: There is no mention of the 10 day player strike in 1992. This was quite the thing, showing that the NHLPA was no longer a pawn of Eagleson, and through extension, the NHL. Rather, Goodenow and the players had control of themselves for the first time. For that timeline, what colours should be used for teams that made drastic changes to their colouring. Being a Canucks fan, the orange colouring really stands out as wrong, post-1997. I'll add in LA, Buffalo, Anaheim, Washington and the Islanders, not to mention the Devils have a colour that doesn't suite them at all (green). I'll look over the article in the next few days, and offer a more through review. But for now, this will do. Kaiser matias (talk) 07:50, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Actually there is a paragraph about the strike in the Background section. ;)   As far as the colours go, Several teams have changed uniform colours throughout history, and it breaks continuity to change the colours each time.  I went with colours that represented the team for a significant period of time that also were different than those of the teams immediately around them.   With that in mind, I will have to update the 1917-42 image to change the St. Pats/Leafs all to blue.
 * That was, of course, my comments. Not sure why sinebot didn't pick up that I forgot to sign this. Resolute 04:24, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

My rvs
I believe it unbalances the article; I don't believe the Rangers' win is so important that it deserves that it will take up such a big portion of the article.  Maxim (talk)  11:31, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree with you, as soon as we let one team add specific information, the rest will want to follow. The great thing is that all teams are notable enough to have their own history written; on their main team article if not a specific team history article.  Black  ngold29   13:48, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Agreed as well. The information is good, but too detailed for this article.  Resolute 14:18, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
 * You have to understand that this was NHL's most-watched game. The Rangers' win was hockey's greatest moment since the Miracle on Ice, according to The Globe and Mail. I wanted to make those points clear. Because ice hockey is Canada's sport and it was NHL's most-watched game, the news of the Rangers' win was common headlines appearing on every newsstand and every newspaper in Canada. -- SNIyer12, (talk), 21:46, 9 October, 2008 (UTC)
 * I saw your recent edit; I think that is an acceptable compromise. The previous versions were completely unbalancing the article IMO (see WP:Summary Style), but this adds an important fact without unbalancing the article.  Maxim (talk)  21:55, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Isn't every Stanley Cup win in virtually all Canadian newspapers? — Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 22:29, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Not all Stanley Cup wins have been on the front page on all Canadian newspapers, but they are. The Rangers' win was a special case because it captured the hearts and minds of Canadians as they followed their sport like never before as it became NHL's most-watched game. Unlike other Stanley Cup wins, the Rangers winning was on the front page of every newspaper in Canada the morning after the win, not just the major ones. Some of them had not just a photo caption, but also an article accompany it. The Canadian broadsheets, including The Toronto Star, The Globe and Mail, The Vancouver Sun, The Ottawa Citizen, and The Calgary Herald, had the news of the Rangers' win on the top half of their front pages. -- SNIyer12 (talk), -- 01:02, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Obviously the Rangers 94 win was a great piece of hockey lore, but frankly, it is nowhere near the most significant moment in the history of a league that dates back nearly a century. And frankly, I don't think an editorial by the Globe and Mail is all that important.  Especially when it comes to a ridiculously dubious claim on the Rangers capturing the hearts and minds of Canadians when the Rangers faced a Canadian team.  Also, the Stanley Cup winner is on the front page of every Canadian newspaper every year.  I have to say, I believe you are making a very big deal out of something that is not a very big deal.  I'm very proud of the Flames run to the finals 04, which was also a huge international story, but in the grand scheme of things, it just isn't so notable relative to the rest of the history that it deserves  a far more prominent place in the article than it has. Resolute 02:42, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Timeline
Within the image chart in the Timeline I've used image-mapping to make each teams row link to the teams article. Couple questions: Do we like this? Should it go to a different article other than the team article (i.e.: the list of seasons article)? Should the 'SC' boxes link to the leagues article for that season? And lastly, should I go ahead and add these to the other history articles? - Rjd0060 (talk) 01:40, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Just a note I've went ahead and did this to all the history articles. - Rjd0060 (talk) 03:18, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I'd say that's quite useful Resolute 03:33, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

I'd like to note here that the timeline is wrong from the very beginning. The Pittsburgh Penguins won in 1992, not the Canadians. Also needs updated for the times. Perhaps someone can create a editable table rather than an image file. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.236.11.140 (talk) 12:38, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
 * It'd be great if someone could create an editable image, actually. The timeline itself is not wrong, however.  The number shown is the starting year for each season, so 1992 corresponds to 1992-93, not 1991-92. And yeah, I will at the very least look to update the image. Resolute 16:29, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Comment
There is no explanation in the lead as to why this era is referred to as the "Bettman era". Dabomb87 (talk) 02:01, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I think I just put that in the template for something. It may make more sense to change the template to say "modern era", for lack of a better term.  Resolute 05:19, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Comments
Hello - I'm doing a copyedit and informal peer review of this article at the request of User:Resolute. A bunch of random comments follow. More later. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 01:19, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
 * My recollection is that the Minnesota/Dallas franchise was actually called the Minnesota Stars (not the North Stars) for its last year before moving. Am I completely out to lunch on this?
 * "Four franchises (roughly: hockey management teams) have relocated during this time." I don't understand the parenthetical at all.
 * "Today's NHL is identified by arguably its two biggest young stars..." I don't think "identified by" is the best wording; I'll ruminate on this.
 * "At the 2002 Winter Olympics, Canada won its first Olympic gold medal in 50 years." I removed this, as I don't think it has much to do with the NHL (besides the fact that Canada did this with NHL players; so did the Czech Republic in 1998, though). It also doesn't seem to be mentioned elsewhere in the article, which probably makes it unsuitable for the lead anyway.
 * "...and modernizing the views of the "old-guard" within the ownership ranks." I'm not clear on what this means, and I'm probably approximately as knowledgeable on the subject of the NHL's business affairs as the typical reader of this article would be. What were these views, and who was it who charged Bettman with changing them?
 * "...first woman to sign a professional contract..." I presume this refers to hockey, in which case that word should be inserted.
 * "One year later, the Mighty Ducks of Anaheim and Florida Panthers began play as the NHL's 25th and 26th franchises respectively." If they started playing the same year, how do we know which is the 25th and which the 26th franchise?
 * "The Rangers' winning the Stanley Cup was considered the final hurrah for the great Edmonton team of the 1980s as "New York's Oilers Beat Canucks"." If this is going to be included (as an Oilers fan I obviously want to think it should be, but I'm not quite sold), it needs to be explained (Messier, Graves, Anderson, Tikkanen, Lowe, Beukeboom, MacTavish...am I missing anyone?).
 * "The owners wanted to control salary growth to aid small market teams." This strikes me as a little simplistic; the owners wanted to control salary growth because salaries made up a good portion of their expenditures and, as businessmen, they wanted to keep costs down. It's certainly true that the stakes were higher for the small market teams, but I don't think the Rangers and Leafs and whoever else were motivated solely or even primarily by a desire to help out Edmonton and Calgary.
 * "...the union instead proposed a luxury tax system." This should probably be explained a little bit better.
 * "...with Chris Chelios famously issuing a veiled threat against Bettman..." Did Chelios have an official position with the NHLPA at the time? If so, it should probably be mentioned.
 * "the union agreed to a cap on rookie contracts, changes to arbitration..." So did arbitration exist before the lockout? Because earlier the article seem to suggests that the owners wanted to create salary arbitration.
 * Wow, that was quick. Thanks!  To quickly address the first point, the Minnesota franchise was always the North Stars, but their final season in Minneapolis saw them with their new jersey design (much like what Dallas continues to use) that just said Stars.  It's much the same with the Toronto Blue Jays and the jerseys that only say Jays. Resolute 01:31, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
 * That makes sense; glad to know I'm only largely out to lunch. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 04:54, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

More later. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 04:54, 6 March 2009 (UTC) Overall, though, an excellent article; I have no doubt that it will join its brethren in FA-hood in the not too distant future. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 06:50, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
 * "Pre-lockout" is an odd section heading to have follow "1995-95 lockout". Is there a better name?
 * "The tournament was marred by U.S. Olympic team's trashing of their rooms in the Olympic Village after their loss." While I think the Olympics themselves belong here, and the talk of the Czech team segues nicely into discussion of Hasek (who clearly deserves coverage in the article), I'm not really sure if this belongs.
 * "...the second NHL franchise in Ohio after the Cleveland Barons, who moved from Oakland in 1976, only to fold two years later." Your love of the arcana of NHL history is showing; I'm not sure this adds a lot to the article about the history since 1992. It's also a little awkwardly-worded right now; I could fix that, but I'd rather delete it.
 * "...an unprecedented comeback in professional sports..." What made it unprecedented? Because the first name that came to mind for me was Michael Jordan, though he could certainly be distinguished from the athlete at bar by a few factors.
 * "He and the Washington Capitals' Alex Ovechkin, the 2004 first overall pick, were expected to become the faces of the NHL as the league entered a new era." This probably needs a cite, possibly more than one.
 * "...in a single game tournament." Can a single game be a tournament?
 * "The shootout has proven controversial; critics have called it a "gimmick", and opposed any suggestion of using it to decide playoff games..." This gives the impression that introducing the shootout to the playoffs has received serious consideration, which as far as I know it has not. Am I mistaken?
 * I'm not sure the bit about the obstruction crack-down is NPOV; as far as I know, there is some considerable support for the NHL on this point, isn't there?
 * "This represented the highest increase in offence since 1929–30." I'm a little fuzzy on this: do you mean the highest single season increase?
 * This is generally an excellent article, but it seems a little short to me. I wonder if it might be worth briefly examining the dominant teams of the era and their players, as was done in the expansion era article (the three that come to mind would be, in descending order of dominance, the Yzerman-Bowman Wings, the Brodeur-Lemaire Devils, and the Sakic-Roy-Forsberg Avalanche).  The Devils could be integrated into the bit about the bid to increase offense.  Your call, though; I wouldn't oppose at FAC over this.
 * From the lead: "Mario Lemieux overcame non-Hodgkin lymphoma to finish his NHL career with more than 1,700 points and two championships..." Most of this isn't substantiated in the article (no mention of lymphoma or his statistical totals).
 * The World Cup is mentioned in the lead, but the only mention in the article is about its presumed return in 2011.
 * The lead mentions teams playing in Japan, but there's no mention of this in the article.
 * One more thing that it occurs to me might merit some description: the controversy over video review. In my memory, it was a big topic for a few seasons (I haven't consulted any reliable sources on the subject, though - that's your job), and here it's only touched on with regards to the Hull goal. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 20:12, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Some great feedback, thanks! I agree with most of what you have suggested here, and have changed most. I had changed the middle section to "pre-lockout" mostly because I couldn't think of anything better; I didn't even consider the confusion that creates given that it also followed a lockout period.  I agree that some more focus can be put on some teams.  I had put a bit in on the 97-98 Red Wings already, but you've given me some idea on how to expand.  Thanks again for the review. Resolute 23:49, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

1994 SCF
I try to make clear that the 1994 Final was the last final to feature a Canadian team until. This is an important fact and it's necessary. -- SNIyer12, (talk), 03:58, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
 * How is this notable within the context of the history of the NHL? Are there reliable, independent sources attesting to this notability? I can see, as a way of adding a bit of colour, mentioning the fact once, in a non-dramatic way (referring to the period as a "drought" between Canadian teams appearing in the final is a bit melodramatic), but I do not believe this is sufficiently notable to keep mentioning multiple times, and not in an overly flamboyant manner. Without sources indicating the significance of this fact to the history of the NHL, the current article text gives it too much undue emphasis. isaacl (talk) 05:20, 5 February 2012 (UTC)


 * This is undue weight, much like the hundreds of other articles you try to put this sort of info into. It is trivial. -DJSasso (talk) 14:30, 5 February 2012 (UTC)


 * I have to agree. It is trivia, and not particularly important.  While there certainly was a little melodrama about it within the Canadian media prior to 2004, it was hardly even a blip in NHL history.  And since the 04, 06, 07 and 11 finals, what little angst did exist has long since faded.  The 94 final is known pretty much exclusively for the Rangers ending Dutton's Curse.  There is no more importance to this than the fact that the Knicks played in their league's championship series at the same time. Resolute 16:35, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
 * In accordance with the above comments, I propose removing the information on a drought between appearances of Canadian teams between 1994 and 2004, such as these edits. isaacl (talk) 04:09, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
 * If there are no further comments, I will implement the proposal. isaacl (talk) 17:38, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Mario Lemieux
Why does he have his own section in this article? -Xcuref1endx (talk) 04:02, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
 * He was an exceptionally dominant player during this part of NHL history, especially the early 90s. The player-owner is also historically notable.  Maxim (talk)  14:08, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Why is there no Gretzky section then? Gretzky is generally noted for being exceptionally dominant during his tenure as well. -Xcuref1endx (talk) 06:50, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Gretzky & Orr have their own sections in the History of the National Hockey League (1967–92) article, by comparison. Gretzky only won one scoring title during this time frame and his coaching career was rather unspectacular. --Mo Rock...Monstrous (leech44) 15:12, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
 * When I initially wrote these articles, I did place small blocks of focus on several people who were specifically called out by the sources I was using. Conn Smythe, Howie Morenz, Rocket Richard, Gretzky, Orr, Lemieux. These were individuals who were regarded by sources as having particular impact on NHL history. Resolute 16:06, 12 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Okay, got it. Disregard my concern. It just seemed odd to me because the section seemed to be more about the person Lemieux over any specific contribution he had to the History of the NHL. -Xcuref1endx (talk) 21:33, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on History of the National Hockey League (1992–present). Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090718120600/http://www.ctvolympics.ca:80/hockey/news/newsid=12893.html to http://www.ctvolympics.ca/hockey/news/newsid=12893.html

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

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 02:59, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 one external links on History of the National Hockey League (1992–present). Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090914055540/http://www.ctvolympics.ca:80/hockey/news/newsid=5330.html to http://www.ctvolympics.ca/hockey/news/newsid=5330.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090218045126/http://www.dallasnews.com:80/sharedcontent/dws/spt/hockey/stars/stories/021109dnspostarslede.3ebd6c7.html to http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/spt/hockey/stars/stories/021109dnspostarslede.3ebd6c7.html

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

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 04:41, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on History of the National Hockey League (1992–present). Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20121014234437/http://www.nydailynews.com/archives/sports/1998/11/10/1998-11-10_turning_to_japan__far_east_e.html to http://www.nydailynews.com/archives/sports/1998/11/10/1998-11-10_turning_to_japan__far_east_e.html

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 22:14, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on History of the National Hockey League (1992–present). 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/20090218163858/http://www.sportingnews.com/yourturn/viewtopic.php?t=517995 to http://www.sportingnews.com/yourturn/viewtopic.php?t=517995

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) 09:46, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

Undefined ref
you added a bunch of refs last year named ":1", but forgot to define it. Was it copied from somewhere? Could you please fill in the source if you remember it?&#32;-- Fyrael (talk) 20:09, 21 May 2021 (UTC)