Talk:National Hockey League/Archive 1

Two Capitals
Could we find some sort of verification that the NHL might be one of the few professional sports leagues that includes teams playing in the capitals of two separate countries? I might just be a naive American but I don't know if that's too common, and if it isn't it might be noteworthy.
 * It's desperately UNcommon at best; ten minutes of research hasn't uncovered another such league in any sport. Very few professional leagues are supranational.  RGTraynor 18:22, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Haha you made me have to look that up. :P I know that the English Premier League or the second tier has (I think) a team in Scotland but other than that nothing comes to mind. 141.158.151.206 12:49, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
 * No. Edinburgh has 2 clubs in the Scottish Premier League. Scotland isn't a sovereign state either.
 * Here you go: Hurricanes (Super rugby franchise) of Wellington, New Zealand, Brumbies Rugby of Canberra, Australia, and Lions (rugby franchise) of Johannesburg, South Africa all play in the Super 14. That might qualify. ccwaters 13:59, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Isn't that more of a champion's league deal? I'm going to put in that of the four North American major leagues (widely considered baseball MLB, basketball NBA, football NFL, and hockey NHL, the NHL is the only two-capital league. I think that's a safe bet. 67.46.0.13 06:24, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Mm, I just went over the Super 14 article and a few of the representative teams, and CC's right; its constituent teams don't play in national or regional leagues (as is the case with the Champions' League in European soccer), so it would definitely qualify. RGTraynor 07:26, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
 * As some one that lives in Wellington, NZ, the Super 14 is not like the Champions League. In Australia, the teams are aligned states, while in New Zealand and South Africa, the teams take their best players from teams in the tier below them. Ie for the Hurricanes, they have players from the Wellington union, Taranaki union and about 4 other smaller unions. It's kinda like the NHL (in my understanding) in that teams like the Vancouver Canucks select players from the Vancouver Giants and alike teams. It is certianly no Champions League.-- HamedogTalk|@ 00:44, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, Cardiff (in Wales) play in the English professional football (soccer) leagues. As does another team from wales, though I can't remember which. Similarly, Berwick-upon-Tweed (in England, but very close to the border) play in the Scottish football leagues. Thats due to the high cost of travel, the welsh teams due to the higher standard of the English leagues as opposed to the welsh ones. Loonitreefrog 17:42, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

GA
Congradulations, National Hockey League is now a GA. False Prophet 19:41, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Leadership
I think it might be wise to have something about the institutional aspects of the NHL: where its main offices are, who the Commissioner and principle secondary officers are, the members of the Board of Governors and its chairman, and so forth.


 * Makes eminent sense to me. Write it up!  RGTraynor 18:57, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
 * I personally cannot because I don't know enough of the information; just Bettman and that the office is in New York. That's stuff people can find anywhere on the Net; the real contribution would be the other items I mentioned, which are not as easy to find.

How it works
Could somebody who knows this stuff please add an explanation of the structure of the league, in the sense of who plays who how many times per season and where, how points and play-off places are awarded, how the draw for the play-offs is determined etc etc etc. Thanks! Cambyses 21:42, 21 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Not to be forgotten
Can anyone tell me what the deal is with this phrase? A search for it (in quotes) shows that it appears in every single sports team page, and virtually no where else in the Wikipedia. Is it an actual Encycplodeic convention, or is it just something someone stuck in to a template at some time or another? It strikes me as too folksy and vaguely inappropriate. Wouldn't "Other Notable Players" or something like that be better? I changed it on the Steeler's page before noticing it's in every sports team page, and I'm torn between changing it back to make it fit the sports team model, or keeping the change. Charles 16:26, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Vandalism
I removed the following from the article: ", and it's more likely that the NHL will file under Chapter 11 bankruptcy, due to poor ticket sales during the 2003-04 season." Looking at the user who put this (68.88.14.94) (long history of vandalism, adding nonsense and changing things around) I've decided that this is more vandalism. Admittedly, I'm not a big fan of the NHL, but I've never heard of the remote possibility that it's going to be in Chapter 11. Of course, I could be wrong. If I am, could someone correct me, cite the source, and put it back on! Thanks! Flcelloguy 23:17, 28 May 2005 (UTC)


 * There's not been a whiff of it out of league or media sources, and the owners had put together a well-publicized $300 million warchest.
 * I could live with it. Trekphiler 04:24, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
 * It's true you guys! I read that the league is filing for bankuptcy on CBS last night. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 142.167.168.100 (talk) 21:39, 17 February 2007 (UTC).

New Structure for the page
I think this page is quite disorganized and it's hard to find what you're looking for. I recommend we restructure this page, which each section being short and to the point, with a link to another page that has much more information something like the playoff section in the NBA article.

I suggest the following breakdown where each of the subsections are short and to the point. The reader, if wanting more info can go to the more information link if he wants for each section

Top section, which is ok as it is, but we could make it somewhat longer and interesting.


 * History
 * (see NHL History for more information)
 * Original Six
 * Expansion
 * Labour Issues


 * NHL Teams
 * (see NHL Teams for more information)
 * Current Teams (organized in divisions)
 * Defunct Teams (a short listing here, more information would be found in the seperate article)


 * Organization
 * (see NHL Organization for more information)
 * Regular Season
 * Playoffs
 * Stanley Cup


 * Rules
 * (See NHL Rules for more information)
 * Time
 * Scoring
 * Winning
 * Offside
 * Icing
 * Penalties


 * Seasons
 * Current Season
 * Listing of the links to all the other seasons


 * NHL People
 * (see NHL people for more information)
 * NHL players (here we link to a short list of the great players)
 * NHL coaches
 * NHL beaurocrats


 * Awards
 * (see NHL awards for more information)
 * Hart Trophy
 * Art Ross Trophy
 * some more major trophies

What do people think? I can start making the new pages, and moving content to them, and then we can start working to make this page better? -- Jeff3000 19:00, July 25, 2005 (UTC)


 * Also the Evolution of Hockey template would appear in the History part of the section, where I believe it makes the most sense. -- Jeff3000 20:04, July 25, 2005 (UTC)


 * I've started the re-org with the shortening of the history section, which has been moved to it's own article. Hopefully I'll get to the others in the coming days. -- Jeff3000 15:51, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

"The Pearson Award is the only award named after a politician." The Stanley Cup (governor general), the O'Brien Trophy (senator) and arguably the Lady Byng (GG's wife) are all named after polticians as well.


 * Ambrose O'Brien became a senator long after he donated the trophy (which has been retired for over fifty years anyhow), and Lady Byng wasn't a politician any more than Laura Bush or Shiela Martin is. Now the Cup is, of course, another matter.  (grins)  RGTraynor 08:58, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

Family Ties
Would anyone object, to a article about NHL family ties? In the Site ,we could have sections like: Brothers ,Father-Son(s) ,Uncles-Nephews etc. Mightberight/wrong 26 October 2005 **Before we start this article, I propose we have the Wikipedia Community take a vote. We should get a census GoodDay 23:15, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
 * That's an awesome idea...I just learned that Martin Biron has a brother...let's get started in Notable Families in the NHL.
 * YES: I support the creation of the article Notable Families in the NHL. The NHL has many family relations (that should be noted), further more, I'd recommend merging it with the article National Hockey League. GoodDay 23:43, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
 * I think it would be a neat idea to have an article about families, but merging it with the National Hockey League article? That just doesn't make sense. Masterhatch 00:13, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
 * The families article would make a good "daughter" article for the National Hockey League. --Aude 00:22, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Yes "females" should be included as well & I agree with "Masterhatch" ,this article can stand alone (no merger). I'll start adding to the new article. GoodDay 00:45, 7 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Yes. Could also do/link to a family/dynasty page in other sports, notably Petty (& Allison, & Jarret, &...) in NASCAR, Andretti in Champ cars, Hill (& Schumacher & Villeneuve) in F1. Trekphiler 04:26, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
 * The more sports Families dynasty/ties, the better. If you create a Nascar Families ties or other Sports families, you got my support. Formerly Mightberight/wrong now GoodDay 15:15, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Oh, just something to add to everyone. Let's move this discussion to Notable families in the NHL "Discussion" page. GoodDay 15:30, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Stuff
Found a factoid about Billy Taylor, who has no page; anybody doing one might use it: set a record 7 assists in 1 game, with Detroit, against Chicago, 16 March 1947. (According to Guinness, which also credited Phil Espo with 7x100point seasons, so maybe, check its accuracy...) Trekphiler 04:30, 9 December 2005 (UTC)


 * It's accurate. For anyone who wants to use it, it was also matched by Gretzky on three occasions:  2/15/80 against Washington, 12/11/85 against Chicago and 2/14/86 against Quebec.  RGTraynor 06:03, 9 December 2005 (UTC) RGTraynor 06:03, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

The section
Hey guys, I started a new section called "NHL: A International League." What do you think of it? Chaldean 08:56, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

How about calling it "NHL: An International League." That way people don't make fun of your bad grammar.

Lore
I am also an avid football fan and I found the NFL Lore website to be interesting. An NHL version of this would be awesome.


 * Any suggestions? The Buffalo-Dallas "No-Goal" comes to mind :) ccwaters 04:15, 9 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Great Idea! There are definitely tons that come to mind. Darryl Sittler's 10-point game, Rocket Richard being named all three stars in a game, Toronto's comeback from a 3-0 deficit in the 1942 Stanley Cup Finals, Montreal Canadiens and the Red Army's 3-3 tie in the 70's considered by many the greatest game ever played (I disagree), Steve Smith putting the puck in his own net to knock the Oilers out of the 86 playoffs, just tons that could be done. [[Image:Flag of Croatia.svg|25px]] Croat Canuck [[Image:Flag of Canada.svg|25px]] 04:31, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Didn't Gretzky get all three stars in his last all star game? or am i am dreaming again? Masterhatch 04:35, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
 * You could be dreaming, i can't recall that happening, but I could be wrong. Richard's was important though cuz he absolutely destroyed my Leafs with 5 goals. [[Image:Flag of Croatia.svg|25px]] Croat Canuck  [[Image:Flag of Canada.svg|25px]] 05:17, 9 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Gretzky got all three stars in his last game, yes. All-Star Game, I've no idea. RGTraynor 06:21, 9 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Yeah but Richard's was for his actual achievement in the game, Gretzky's was more a lifetime tribute thing etc... so thus Richard's is a bit more memorable, as well as for a variety of other reasons. [[Image:Flag of Croatia.svg|25px]] Croat Canuck [[Image:Flag of Canada.svg|25px]] 06:39, 9 February 2006 (UTC)


 * If I may quote Tony the Tiger "Greeeat!" Yes, the NHL Lore article is a brillant idea. Patrick Roy winking confidently at a LA Kings player during the 1993 Finals comes to mind. GoodDay 14:47, 9 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Bobby Baun scoring the Cup winner on a broken leg, as well as the Bill Barilko goal / death saga come to mind from this Leaf fan's perspective. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Hevato (talk • contribs) 09:24, 10 December 2006 (UTC).

Source of TV Timeout Info
I saw it in an article by John Buccigross, as part of his mailbag, a couple of months back, and sure enough, it's panned out whenever I make note of such things. Unfortunately, that article is now ESPN Insider only. Is there another source that might be able to verify that information? 70.72.76.224 10:23, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

New NHL Rink Diagram
I took the rink in the NHL rulebook, which has the new markings. Any complaints if I replace the diagram in this article? It'll be a new filename, so hockeyrink.png will still exist for other leagues that don't use the trapezoids. scsgoal31 19:29, 2 April 2006 (UTC)


 * IMO it would be easier to read if it were rotated 90o. The names of the benches and penalty boxes are hard to read. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Toll booth (talk • contribs) 14:58, 30 March 2007 (UTC).

Logos?
What happened to the logos in the "Current Organization" section? Were those removed for a reason, or is it just an error? Doogie2K 05:33, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

OTL
Is anyone else here pissed about the Overtime Loss rule? Why should a team be "awarded" a point for losing in overtime? This stupid rule recently cost the Vancouver Canucks a playoff spot because 8th placed Edmonton has won less games than the Canucks yet they get 8th place simply because they earned a lot of overtime losses. What's your opinion?


 * My opinion is that it's a discussion better suited for a bulletin board or a hockey blog, neither of which Wikipedia is. RGTraynor 20:45, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Headquarters
The article mentions that the League was founded in Montreal. Is this still the headquarters of the NHL? The article doesn't say. Fishhead64 05:16, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I believe it's in Toronto now. -- Jeff3000 13:29, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
 * NHL is headquartered in NYC. The NHLPA and Hall of Fame are in Toronto. --Skeezix1000 15:55, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
 * 1251 Avenue of the Americas, 47th Floor New York, NY 10020 ccwaters 16:04, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Failed GA
This article only has one reference and it is in a dire need of a cleanup. JAbeach 03:26, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Spelling
Wikipedia policy on national varities of English is stated in WP:MoS. Importantly, they state "Articles should use the same dialect throughout." and "If an article is predominantly written in one type of English, aim to conform to that type rather than provoking conflict by changing to another." This page consistently uses Canadian English spelling. The NHL currently is both an American and Canadian sport, and it came out of Canada. Thus the statement "If an article's subject has a strong tie to a specific region/dialect, it should use that dialect." does not immediatly apply, both american and canadian spelling would be acceptable, but since the article has consistently used canadian spelling it should remain with that spelling. -- Jeff3000 18:34, 13 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I totally agree. Masterhatch 02:39, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Operation Slapshot
Why is this not mentioned in the article? Given the detial to the NHL history, one might wonder why this isn't mentioned.--Hellogoodsir 17:57, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Because it has nothing to do with the NHL as a league or an organization, but instead certain individuals who play or coach in the NHL. -- Jeff3000 18:00, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes true, although Rick Tochet is an ex hockey player, and its Wayne Gretzky's wife involved is it not? Max.pwnage 04:25, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Rankings
Does anyone believe they should go back to the 1-16 rankings instead of two divisions of 1-8 for the playoffs? Would this make the playoffs more fun with larger upsets and make it really cup "crazy". Max.pwnage 04:22, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Possibly this might make an interesting discussion on a bulletin board or a blog, which Wikipedia isn't. Good luck with the discussion when you take it to a more appropriate site.  RGTraynor 12:50, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Logos
Do you think there should be logos with each team under the Current Organization headline? I think it would look good, but I don't know if there are any specific rules regarding pictures on the website. Also, the regular season tie-braking procedures still need to be added. Unless someone beats me to it I will do it within a couple of days. Oh, and under the NHL: And international league headline there are some source numbers that look wrong. They are bigger than source numbers usually are. I would change it but I don't know how since I'm new to this system. Could someone do that please? - JesperLærke 19:41, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
 * The logos cannot be added legally because they are copyrighted and do not pass fair use criteria in this article. See Fair use.  The current numbers in the international league section have a verifiable source, if you can find a better/newer source please go an update them, and give the source on the page.  Everything that is added has to be verifiable and have reliable sources. -- Jeff3000 19:46, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I didn't mean that the links were wrong, only that footnotes are usually written in raised numbers. It's simply a matter of wikifying the section's appearance. I don't know how to raise the numbers, that's all. JesperLærke 20:14, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
 * The raised format for the citation using a notes section is a different style of citation (See WP:FOOT). This page uses a different format of just inline citations. Both are acceptable in the Wikipedia Manual of Style. -- Jeff3000 20:53, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Making this article better
I'm going to be starting to make this article better over the next couple weeks to try to get it to featured article status. Of course this is not an instant process and requires not only making the article better, but also going to peer review, and so forth. So I just wanted to give notice to everyone, and hopefully engage others to also help make the article better.

What I think is required is the following:
 * Bring the article into summary style (shorten some sections, more to the point, details in subarticles, very few subheadings)
 * Choose to be discerning, delete some stuff, expand on others
 * Convert some of the lists to prose
 * Find references for the page, including having inline references
 * Add some other sections, maybe on viewership, attendence, etc, etc.

Suggestions are welcome. -- Jeff3000 15:26, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Ok, I've worked on the season structure, and teams sections. The following sections are still left to work on:
 * Trophies: Make daughter article, and summarize most important trophies here
 * Rules: Now that the daughter article has been made, shorten this section significantly to the most important rules. done
 * History: This will require a lot of work, needs to be shortened. Basically done, but needs references for statements. Will need to find McFarlane's History of hockey.
 * Labour section: Needs references
 * Probably need a people section for players, coaches, commissioners


 * Also any suggestions for sections that we should have are welcomed. -- Jeff3000 01:36, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Dominated by Canadians?
Do we really need the intro saying currently the nhl is still dominated by canadians with over 50% of the players being canadians? Do you think the NBA page would have "currently the nba is dominated by african-americans?"

-Duhon June 8 20006
 * You could, I daresay. In any event, I'm sure the basketball-oriented editors can tend to their own knitting.  Here, the statement's accurate and it's not only a notable fact, but one mirrored in the Brittanica.  RGTraynor 22:16, 10 June 2006 (UTC)


 * A parallel statement in the NBA would be "currently the nba is dominated by Americans?" Given the number of American teams, this is not out of the ordinary.  When most teams are not in Canada and Canadians make up a sizeable number of players, it becomes relevant. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 65.92.22.51 (talk • contribs).

Featured
Hello everyone,

I want to apply for featured article status for this article. It's gone through peer review and I've addressed the concerns that were brought up. The article is referenced quite well, has prose, fair use images, and so I think it passes the featured article criteria. Does have any suggestions, before I go ahead? Thanks -- Jeff3000 03:34, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I think it looks pretty good right now. One thing i don't like is the God-awful colours used in the current organisation section. Less "bright" colours woudl do the job better, in my humble opinion. But that is being nitpicky. The article is actually really good (a hell of a lot better than when i first came to wikipedai over a year ago) Masterhatch 04:04, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
 * done, less bright colours used. -- Jeff3000 04:20, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
 * LOL thanks;) Masterhatch 04:34, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Citation spot check
As part of this project, I've performed a check on the accuracy of several citations in this article. Results were as follows:
 * 1) Footnote 2(a). "After a series of disputes in the Canadian National Hockey Association (NHA) between the owner of the Toronto Blueshirts and the owners of other teams, all the owners met at the Windsor Hotel in Montreal to talk about the NHA's future"
 * 2) *Problems:
 * 3) *#The book title is listed as Brian McFarlane's History of Hockey, but the ISBN leads to 100 years of hockey history. Publication date and location would seem to indicate that this is the desired book, although another book, Brian McFarlane's World of Hockey, has a name similar to that indicated.  Clarification needed.
 * 4) *#No page numbers given for book. Impossible to check citations.
 * 5) Footnote 17. "Starting in the 2005–2006 season, after testing in the American Hockey League, a trapezoid area behind each goal net has been introduced. The goaltender can only play the puck within that area or in front of the goal line;"
 * 6) *Problem. From website: "(NEW for 2005-06) A restricted trapezoid shaped area behind the goal will be laid out as follows: Five feet (5') outside of each goal crease (six feet (6') from each goal post), a two inch (2") red line shall be painted extending from the goal line to a point on the end of the rink ten feet (10') from the goal crease (eleven feet (11') from the goal post) and continuing vertically up the kick plate. (Paint code PMS 186)."
 * 7) **No mention at this site of the limitation on where the goaltender can play the puck.
 * 8) Footnote 25 (a and b). "In the past, however, if a player was deemed significant enough, the pending period would be waived; only 10 individuals have been honoured in this manner. In 1999, Wayne Gretzky became the last player to have the three-year restriction waived..."
 * 9) *Checks out. From website: "On November 22, 1999 -- seven months after his retirement -- Gretzky was inducted into the Hockey Hall of Fame in Toronto, Canada, becoming the tenth and final player in Hockey Hall of Fame history to have the mandatory three-year waiting period for enshrinement waived by the Hall’s board of directors."
 * 10) Footnote 11 (b, c, and d).
 * 11) *11b: "The NHL received record attendance in the 2005–06 season. 20,854,169 fans, an average of 16,955 per game, was a 1.2% increase over the previous mark held in the 2001–02 season."
 * 12) **Checks out. From website: "According to the league, it set new records for total and average attendance - 20,854,169 fans overall and a per-game average of 16,955 - an increase of 2.4 per cent from the 2003-04 season and 1.2 per cent higher than the old records set during the 2001-02 season."
 * 13) *11c: "Also, the Montreal Canadiens and Colorado Avalanche sold out all of their home games and all six Canadian teams played to 98% capacity or better at all home games."
 * 14) **Checks out. From website: "The Montreal Canadiens played before sellout crowds of 21,273 for each of their 41 home games... All six Canadian NHL teams - the Montreal Canadiens, Toronto Maple Leafs, Calgary Flames, Edmonton Oilers, Ottawa Senators and Vancouver Canucks - played to 98 per cent capacity or better during the season... Like Montreal, the Colorado Avalanche sold out each of their 41 home games..."
 * 15) *11d: "Twenty-four of the thirty clubs finished even or ahead of their 2003–04 mark. The Pittsburgh Penguins had the highest increase at 33%, probably because of Canadian phenom Sidney Crosby."
 * 16) **Checks out. From website:Twenty-four of the NHL teams finished even or ahead of their 2003-04 attendance numbers. The biggest jump in attendance was in Pittsburgh (33 per cent), no doubt thanks to the arrival of No. 1 draft pick Sidney Crosby."

Several problems need to be fixed here. --RobthTalk 04:13, 26 June 2006 (UTC)


 * As far as the NHA cite goes, you can just as readily use Charles Coleman's Trail of the Stanley Cup, Vol I, pp 328-330, Kendall/Hunt Publishing Company, ISBN 0-8403-2941-5. RGTraynor 17:56, 26 June 2006 (UTC)


 * For the citation check for Brian McFarlane's book, the ISBN check works for me. See . I no longer have the book to check the page numbers, however.  As for the second comment, the citations have no been fixed. -- Jeff3000 20:38, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Using Amazon's electronic book sight, I have added page numbers to all of the references from McFarlane's book. -- Jeff3000 22:34, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Popularity
I'm looking for some books/websites/etc that refer to the NHL's popularity, historically and how it has evolved. Things like where it is popular, Canada, US, Europe, and how it compares to the other professional leagues in North America. If you have any suggestions, please post them here. It's one of the suggestions in the FAC. Thanks. -- Jeff3000 01:18, 27 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I would also like to see this as well. --Dr. Pizza 03:57, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

From the FAC
Since the FAC is now closed, I'll respond here. From FAC:
 * Object The rules of a sport need not be regurgitated in an article about a competition, unless the rules are specific to that competition. In this case, things like the difference in size between NHL and international rinks are useful distinctions, but things like the objective of the game and icing are common to any ice hockey competition. Oldelpaso 11:54, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment If we look at the different sections that talk about rules/hockey per paragraph:
 * Rules section:
 * 1st paragraph: Just an introductory paragraph saying rules mostly follow IIHF rules except for some, this paragraph is needed.
 * 2nd paragraph: Offside, mostly talks about NHL rule changes which were are specific to how the NHL has/is operated.
 * 3rd paragraph: Icing, while the first few sentence explain Icing, the last sentence gives details as how the NHL rule about no substitions after an Icing which is NHL specific. Also the NHL icing rule is different than the IIHF icing since it is a touch icing. Thus most of the paragrpah is needed to either explain the differences and as background to those differences.  Explaining the icing differences without explaining icing would be confusing to the general reader.
 * 4th paragraph: This paragraph could be shortened, but is still needed in the summary style. Specifically major fighting penalties do not exist in the IIHF.
 * Rink section
 * 1st paragraph: Details the difference in the hockey rink compared to the IIHF rink size
 * 2nd paragraph: Outlines the trapezoid area which does not exist in the IIHF.
 * Game section
 * 1st and 2nd paragraph: These paragraphs could be further shortened, but are needed in the summary style. Explanation of what the NHL plays is crucial to the NHL.
 * 3rd and 4th paragraphs: Decribes specific NHL rules regarding win/losses, and most specifically how ties are handled.
 * So in general, I believe most of the content is warrented as it is NHL specific. I will try shortening the first two paragraphs of the of the Game section and the 4th paragraph of the Rules section. -- Jeff3000 20:57, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment: Ok I've shortened the Game section, and tried to make the Rules section more specific to the NHL, and differences between it, and the IIHF. -- Jeff3000 21:11, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

The Rules section looks better now, though I still see a couple of unnecessary bits. I still think the Game section is redundant, the NHL is a subset of ice hockey, not the other way round, so a summary style section is not needed. Otherwise every article about a sports competition would need to explain the rules of the sport. The NHL specific bits would fit well in the Season structure section. Oldelpaso 13:40, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I've made a couple of changes to the icing paragraph to show what I mean. Oldelpaso 13:49, 1 July 2006 (UTC)


 * The rules section is bettered by your changes. Thanks.  But I respectfully disagree that the Game section needs to go.  I think any description of the NHL needs a short description of the main part of the NHL, which is that they play the game of ice hockey; and as I explained above, I've already shortened the section, and the rest of the section is NHL specifics. -- Jeff3000 14:19, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Total annual broadcasting income?
Is it possible to provide a figure for the NHL's total annual broadcasting income please? At the moment the article only gives a number for what appears to be one of three main deals. Merchbow 06:34, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Teams that sold out all games
It says in the article (under the labour issues header) that "Also, the Montreal Canadiens and Colorado Avalanche sold out all of their home games". While this may be true, I happen to know that the Vancouver Canucks also sold out all their home games. I would also assume (but correct me here if I'm wrong) that the Toronto Maple Leafs accomplished the same feat. If no one objects, I'm going to change that sentence. --Random89 01:03, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Go ahead and add the info, but please reference both additions. -- Jeff3000 01:06, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I couldn't find a reference for the Leafs, but I added the Canucks. I'm new here and I can't get the reference to work properly (if you read it, you'll see what I mean). If anyone has a minute, could they try and fix that. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Random89 (talk • contribs).
 * I've already fixed it. You need to use &lt;ref&gt; tags with the cite web template. -- Jeff3000 01:17, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Officially, ten teams finished at 100% capacity or better last year: Montreal, Detroit, Tampa Bay, Detroit, Philadelphia, Ottawa, Toronto, Calgary, Vancouver, Minnesota and Colorado.  While I can't verify that all of these teams actually sold out every game, perhaps that statement is better worded using capacity and listing the teams that played to 100% or better? Resolute 04:30, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
 * 100% or better? How can it be better than 100%? Either you sell out all your games or you don't. But if you have a source that figure, then list all those teams as sell-outs. But personally I think saying 100% or better is just confusing. Random89 20:03, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
 * It takes some counting, but if you look at ESPN's schedule for the Minnesota Wild for example, you see that there are a few games which go over capacity numbers, while all other games sell out. So for all intents and purposes, the Wild drew in beyond 100% of capacity.  There is, after all, such things as standing room only tickets.-Resident Lune 20:09, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Coaches and GM
The coaches and GMs have been added to the table in this page. I don't think these should be in this page, as it is too specific, and adds cluter to the page. What is the opinion of the other editors? Jeff3000 04:47, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I tend to agree. The Coach and GM should be listed on the team pages, not the league page. Resolute 04:43, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

French Name
Why is it significant to include its French name? RealFerrari 06:34, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Because the NHL as an organization is officially known by two names, the NHL, and the LNH. They are both official designations. -- Jeff3000 06:39, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Ok, I didn't know that. Perhaps it should be clarified in the article? Anyway thanks for answering. RealFerrari 06:45, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Consider how popular the sport is in Quebec, that for decades the Les Habitants ruled the NHL, and that the NHL is technically bilingual, have both names makes sense.OrangeMarlin 19:55, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
 * It's worth mentioning as well that the word "National" (in either language) refers to Canada. 66.183.217.31 18:13, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

On the records
I see a stats leaders by nationality page; what about just stats? Like first 50 in 50, top scorers, top assists, most penalty minutes/season, so forth? For instance, I've heard Mike Bossy had 9 50 goal seasons straight; was it a record? Trekphiler &trade;🇨🇦 05:33, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Economics of NHL
I added a small paragraph in the introductory section about NHL fans (being the richest, smartest and I believe best looking of any sport fans). My comment is somewhat US-oriented, because only in the USA are the MLB, NHL, NBA and NFL the big sports. Maybe a section should be added to build on it to discuss the economics of the NHL. OrangeMarlin 19:52, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
 * A section on Economics would be very interesting, and needed. I moved your comment to another section, as the lead was getting way too long.  Regards, -- Jeff3000 21:28, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

NHL team captains
On all 30 team pages, I've re-listed the captains (listing them by season, instead of by players). Leave you opinon of these edits at Talk: Buffalo Sabres. PS: posted this here, didn't know how else to possibly reach most NHL Wikipedians. GoodDay 20:30, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Canadian players in NHL
Saying the Canadian majority among players in the NHL is "due to its origins in Canada" is very strange. It's not because of something that happened in 1917, it's just that in 2006 there are more hockey players (or more good hockey players) in Canada than in the US. Right? Better change (or remove) that. Piet | Talk 11:00, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Mm, got a point there. Feel free to make the change.  RGTraynor 15:30, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Season structure
So uh... hockey season generally runs from October through April, right? Because that's all I needed to know, but it wasn't here. I had to dig through like four related articles just to find that one damn tidbit...


 * Duely noted, and added to the article. Next time please sign your posts please.  bmitchelf •T 19:59, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Realignment for 2007-8
Nothing set in stone yet, it seems, but I think something worth keeping track of. megarockman 15:19, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Perhaps, but this article should be for what is, not what might be. Certantly an entire section detailing a trial balloon being floated by the NHL is way overboard.  If anything, I think a brief statement about possible changes should be included on 2006-07 NHL season. Resolute 17:31, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
 * How about we wait for the league to make any changes before we worry about mentioning it? We're not investigative journalists here, and we win no prizes for scoops.  There is absolutely no harm in following the mandate of an encyclopedia and report fact, not suppositions.  RGTraynor 07:10, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Old NHL logo
i changed the wording to read use prior to 2005. The "evidence" for it being used from 1917 to 2005 IMO is shakey it consist of two sportlogo websites which provide not proof that the logo was used all the way back to 1917. It seems hard to believe a sport league would create a logo and used from WWI all the way to 2005 which out some changes. So I think wording it used proir to 2005 is a better fit. If someone has proof (ie actual photos, books from the period 1910s )then by all means change it back Smith03 19:50, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

"Highest Number of Ticket buying fans of the four leagues"
I fail to see how hockey is #1. Baseball plays 40 more home games.....and 27 of the 30 MLB teams have higher attendance numbers that the #1 NHL team the Canadians. I'm sure the MLB doesn't give away Tens of Millions of seats, so I'm sure MLB is higher. If someone has a source that says other wise, please post it, I'd like to see it. - icuwoot 3/25/07
 * Might be highest percentage of capacity, which I'd believe. RGTraynor 20:06, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

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

Weird image
So I just noticed at the top of the infobox, there is an image that contains a soccer ball. Not to cast aspersions against those billion people who think soccer is a cool sport, but let's not put a soccer symbol on top of hockey. In hockey, diving is considered bad form and is a penalty. In soccer, diving is considered a part of the game. Oh yeah, I think that Sean Avery could kick David Beckham from here to the next Spice Girls concert. In other words, why is a boring dull sport symbol placed at the top of the greatest most exciting sport on the planet???? Grrrrrrr. Yeah, I hate soccer. Orangemarlin 03:58, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
 * It's the standard wikipedia image and template used for all sports related templates, including the link to the current season for each sport. -- Jeff3000 04:49, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Soccer is the template for all sports? Oh that is sad.  Orangemarlin 05:08, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Ya, its sad that the worlds most popular sport, the only truly universal sport, is used as the sports template image. Don't get me wrong, I can't stand soccer, but I am not stupid enough to think hockey is anywhere as popular as it. Kaiser matias 08:38, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I can't stand soccer for one reason. The fake diving.  I mean they don't even dive real well.  Hasek diving is much more entertaining!  OK, I can't stand soccer because it's not very manly.  It's a girl's sport.  No, because I think women hockey players could take on a soccer team one on one.  Anyways, the sports symbol should be individual for the sport.  But I see your point.  I just don't agree.Orangemarlin 17:35, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

HOF wait
Players cannot enter until three years have passed since their last professional game; this time period, the shortest of any major sport, has led in three cases (Gordie Howe, Guy Lafleur and Mario Lemieux) to Hall of Fame members coming out of retirement to play once more. - This is poorly worded; the 3 year period did not lead to Lemieux playing after being inducted; the practice of waiving the waiting period altogether for him did. Geoffrey Spear 14:48, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Hm, good point. I'll fiddle with it.    RGTraynor  15:04, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Fighting
Could someone add a section about fighting in the NHL? I have a lot of questions about these fights: How come a player is not allowed to beat up a goalie, but the goalies can beat each other up? To fight do you have to be on the ice when the fight starts, or can other guys go onto the ice to join the fight? Do they train for the fights? etc. Ogeez 22:25, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

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

Founded column
The founded column has been added to the tables again. In the past that column led to much added information (such as the team name when the team was founded) that made the tables too large. I think that such information is already in the text, and does not need to be in the table. What do others think? Regards, -- Jeff3000 01:18, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I, for one, oppose its inclusion, especially given what I feel is the ridiculous falsehood of claiming teams like Calgary were founded in 1972. The Calgary Flames were created in 1980, not 72. The Montreal Canadiens in 1910, not 1909, etc.  The histories of previous markets are not immediately relevent to the current one. While the technical founding dates are accurate, I find them to be little more than a half truth in practical usage.  I would just as soon they were excluded, and the dates, and significance of them, left for the team articles. Resolute 01:38, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
 * The Flames franchise (formerly in Atlanta, now in Calgary) was founded in 1972, however it wouldn't hurt to add 1980 as the 'relocation' date, adding 'extra' dates could be done for the other 'relocated' teams (to avoid confusions & disputes). If not, then delete the column. GoodDay 22:36, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm in favor of their inclusion. Given that "June 6, 1972" is the date given in the NHL Official Guides, it's tough to call it a "ridiculous falsehood."    RGTraynor  00:10, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Because the NHL guide uses the franchise founding date, rather than the team cration date. Regardless of my feelings on that issue, in a chart on the NHL article, someone who does not know a lot about NHL history may look at that and think the Calgary Flames have existed since 1972.  At least in the team article, it is explained that the Atlanta Flames were founded in 1972, and the team moved to Calgary in 1980.  This is information that is not necessary in this chart, or in this article, IMNSHO. Resolute 00:44, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Precisely; the table is used to represent the current teams in the league and their current organization in a quick way, and the founding date is not germane enough to be in the date. I even think that the attendence is not really important either.  By including these two columns, there could be so much more tablecruft that will be added by the passer-by.   The current history of the league includes the founding of the the teams, and so it does not need to be in the table. Regards, -- Jeff3000 05:12, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Errr ... as was said with a similar debate on the Edmonton Oilers article, if people are confused, they can read the article. We put the information there for a reason.    RGTraynor  19:14, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
 * It's already in this article in the prose which removes all sense of confusion. No need for duplication which can lead to further confusion.  The table is used to show the organization of the league, not it's history.  -- Jeff3000 19:25, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Notable Players
I have noticed that in recent times, there has been a slow adding of more players to the notable players section. We need to set a limit of how many players should be listed, before everyone and their dog adds their favourite player and it just becomes a massive list of names. Kaiser matias 23:32, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree the current listing is problematic, because how do we set who should be on the list. In the past I've tried finding a source which gives a list of notable players, which would thus make it hard for others to keep adding their own favourite players as it would be cited list, but I've had difficulties finding such a source.  I do think having a list of notable players is important since without that list, players which are quite important to the league such as Gretkzy or Lemieux would not be mentioned otherwise.  Regards, -- Jeff3000 00:05, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
 * My rule of thumb when gauging a change to the list is this: is the suggested player notably better than those already listed?  Almost uniformly, they're not.  (About the only modern forward whose resume might merit a place is Ron Francis.)  That being said, this is exactly the problem that turned the Not To Be Forgotten sections into giant sucking holes of perpetual editing, so we should either come upon a consensus freezing a set number of players for the list, just pick the top dozen names from THN's list of a few years ago, or go without.    RGTraynor  06:41, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I'd suggest scrapping the 'Notable Players' section, similar sections were scraped in the 30 NHL team pages ('bout a year ago). Just my opinon. GoodDay 22:25, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Yeah, seriously. This list is a huge POV stinkhole and should be scrapped. Maybe we could replace it with a section about NHL records? --Wafulz 16:05, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

In light of having another random IP add Paul Coffey to the list, then having it removed within minutes, I have added a message under the section in an attempt to stop people from adding players. To make it effective, we should have a guideline written up in the section so people don't keep doing this. Kaiser matias 03:00, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
 * It might make sense to simply remove that section altogether while we contemplate a reasonable alternative for it. Resolute 06:13, 21 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Yeah, because I'm going to insist that Dan Cloutier get added!!! But really, notable for you may be a nonentity for me.  BTW, I reverted the anonymous editor who seems to have some man-love for Coffey.  Orangemarlin 17:10, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

So your criteria is what determines who is notable or not? Coffey is the number 2 all time scoring defenseman. Also why isn't Grant Fuhr on the list? With your knowledge of hockey I think it is safe to say you are Gary Bettman!! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by TWMangrove (talk • contribs).
 * Please read WP:CIVIL. Resolute 17:49, 21 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I edit Evolution and Creationism articles. Mangrove's comment barely registered on my personal civility list.  It was more like Sean Avery yapping, vs. a check from George Parros.  Orangemarlin 17:52, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

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


 * Good idea. But please put in a section describing how Dan Cloutier is the world's greatest goalie ever.  Orangemarlin 17:50, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Hmm, 2002 Western Conference Quarter-Finals - Game #3 (Lidstrom scores from the 'center' red line??) GoodDay 22:30, 4 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Our criteria certainly determines whether a player's among the top ten most honored. Comparing a Hasek to the likes of Richter and Vernon, for instance, is absurd ... when there's a goalie who's won a Cup AND an Olympic gold medal AND six Vezinas AND back-to-back MVPs (for most of that stretch facing five shots a game more than Belfour), then he can replace Hasek in that tally.  Fuhr's got a better resume, but no goalie in hockey history's won more awards than Hasek has.  Coffey's fairly defensible, but do you knock Sakic or Hull off that list to include him?    RGTraynor  17:55, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Anaheim Ducks
THe Anaheim Ducks are the current champions. It should be noted on the top of the page, along with the way they won... meaning beating Ottawa in five... it would be like Ottawa didnt do anything if they arent mentioned. TheWikiVigilante 13:05, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
 * It is noted at the top of the page that the Ducks are now the defending champions, see the infobox. The way they won is relevant to  2006-07 NHL season, 2007 Stanley Cup Playoffs, 2006-07 Anaheim Ducks season and 2006-07 Ottawa Senators season.  There is no need to get so detailed in this article. Resolute 13:43, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Sellouts after the lockout
Reading the article, it says that in 2005-06, only the Canucks, Canadiens and Avalanche sold out all their home games. However a quick glance at the 2005-06 Calgary Flames season points out that the Flames sold out every home game, plus their playoff games. And I do recall hearing that the Wild have yet to play before anything less than a sellout. So what is the correct answer, and do we have sources to prove it? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Kaiser matias (talk • contribs).
 * The current source only provides the three teams mentioned above. If you have other sources (other than the Wikipedia articles) go ahead and add the other teams and the reference as well.  Regards, -- Jeff3000 21:45, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Team Pages
On the team pages I know we have a list of every year they've won a title, but I think we should have their total number of titles at the beginning of that. The other leagues all have it and it makes the pages easier to read.

Agree? Disagree? Portlygrub 11:06, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

NHL "has somewhere around 50 million fans"?
I came across this interesting blog post while researching a different topic and thought it was interesting. Perhaps it could be incorporated into this article in some fashion? --4.239.168.103 03:56, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
 * While using blogs as sources is generally frowned upon the article the blog used as its own source, located here, qualifies as an appropriate source. I'm sure it could be worked in somewhere with the right working. Kaiser matias 06:00, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Is it that few? The population of Canada is about 33M, so that only leaves 17M for the rest of the world. --Trovatore 06:09, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
 * This should have been clarified but it is 50 million NHL fans in the United States, not the world. According to the blog there are 8.3 million Americans very interested, 13.5 million Americans somewhat interested, and 27.5 million Americans who are a little bit interested. Also, to suggest all 33 million Canadians are hockey fans, let alone NHL fans, is a bit of a stretch. --4.239.168.19 04:51, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

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

Inconsistencies needing to be addressed

Some examples:

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

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

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

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

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

Bottom line for me is I don't really care which way it's done, as long as it's done consistently! Thanks. --- Taroaldo 20:32, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
 * The only potential inconsistency is with the Senators. The remaining teams are listed by the franchise founding date, not by when the joined the NHL.  I reverted the last change of Ottawa's founding date, so obviously I am of the opinion that the Senators were founded in 1992, not 1902 or 1883.  The reinstatement angle, imnsho, is just a publicity gimmick allowing the new team to tie into the history of the old.  The record books, etc, are separate.  However, I am already on the wrong side of consensus with respect to how we treat relocated franchises, and if others agree with a 1902 or 1883 founding date, so be it.   I'll add a comment to the Ice hockey project talk page to get more feedback. Resolute 20:50, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Yup as Resolute said alot of us think the earliest date be used. Me being one of them. I believe you should go by the earliest incarnation of that particular franchise and not just a franchise of the same name. ie I would not use the 1884 date for the Senators because it was not the same Senators, just a team with the same name. This differs from moving a franchise and renaming because the franchise remains consistent in the interim. So the dates listed for all the teams except your Senators example would be correct. I believe at some point in time this was discussed and this was the solution that was arrived at but hopefully more people can come and discuss. Whether the page is about the NHL or WHA is irrelevant as the franchise itself is still the same one. --Djsasso 20:57, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I know for a fact that they were granted a "certificate of reinstatement" by the NHL, as I live in Ottawa, and follow the Sens a lot. Therefore the date should be adjusted to 1884.  Maxim (talk)  21:02, 27 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Works for me. --- Taroaldo 21:16, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Except the 1884 version was not the version that entered the NHL the first time. I did agree on the "certificate of reinstatement" however, was totally out !voted when this was last argued.--Djsasso 21:18, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
 * According to TOTAL HOCKEY, the official encyclopedia of the NHL, the Sens are from 1992. The prior incarnation of the team is a complete separate entity entirely.  My opinion is that the founded date should be the date the current franchise started.  The only allowable exception that I am aware of is the special circumstance of the Cleveland Browns that "suspended" operations in the NFL.  Pparazorback 23:19, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
 * The Sens were suspended by the league.Alaney2k 20:16, 28 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment: Eh, I'll just rehash my arguments from last time: (1) The "certificate of reinstatement" was a publicity stunt, nothing more, and has been subsequently ignored by the league and the team.  (2)  The NHL Official Guide and Record Book states the "Franchise Date" of the team as "December 16, 1991."  {Unlike many fans, I know exactly where I was when I heard the news, and gave a whoop.}  (3)  Neither the current franchise nor the NHL credit the current team with the original Senators' Stanley Cup wins.  (4)  Neither the current franchise nor the NHL acknowledge the records set by the original Senators' players as pertaining to the current team; for instance, Cy Denneny should be 2nd in career goals for any "combined" franchise and Alex Connell credited with being the career shutout leader.  (5)  Most damningly, the club paid the exact franchise fee as did Tampa Bay.  Not one red penny of it went to the estate of Redmond Quain or the legal successors to the Ottawa Hockey Club.  Therefore, no legal "reinstatement" took place, because the estates of the original owners were not compensated for the original franchise's revocation.  Frankly, upon seeing the current state of the article, I'm astonished at the weight placed on this feelgood okeydoke, and the article should be edited at once to mention this certificate and nothing more.    RGTraynor  23:41, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Okay, if you have a reference to back up that no money went to Quain, let's put it in. I would be happy to put that in. Alaney2k 20:16, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Hmm. The more I look, the harder it is to find a consistent story. Given the current management style of the NHL, it wouldn't surprise me if they wanted to overlook early Canadian hockey history, but even Ottawa's NHL site makes direct reference to Sens history:   "[s]ome Sens Army members might be surprised to learn that the Ottawa Senators are trying to bring home Ottawa's 12th Stanley Cup..."  OK, this doesn't credit the current team with those Cup wins, but it acknowledges that it is part of the team's history.  The team's site  also has a historical section called "Early Years and Modern Era", going all the way back to 1901.  And the Sens' wiki page doesn't add any clarity either. --- Taroaldo 01:02, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
 * That quote you cite certainly acknowledges that those Cups are part of the history of the city of Ottawa, yes. With just as much justification, the Montreal Canadiens' website could state that there are many fans unaware that the Habs are trying to bring home Montreal's 41st Stanley Cup.    RGTraynor  05:58, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
 * That's just silly. Alaney2k 20:16, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
 * RG, what are you trying to accomplish? The campaign was to 'Brink Back The Senators', not 'Bring the NHL to Ottawa' You are fixated on this founding issue and are not being objective. We have discussed this on the Sens talk page. We have for the last few months had it both ways. We mention the Reinstatement, but state that records, etc. are kept separate. These are facts, we should stay with that. Alaney2k 20:13, 28 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment perhaps it the "founded" column should be changed to "entry into the NHL" to avoid inconsistencies and confusion?  T Rex  |  talk  05:38, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Most of those NHL team 'founded' dates are inaccurate (same problem on most of the 30 NHL team articles). Those dates 'reflect' the franchises 'inaugural season' NOT the 'founding date'. This has been a long-overdue 'inconsistancy'. GoodDay 18:05, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Ignoring the NHL's attempt at 're-writing' history: The Senators of 1884-1934, re-located as the St. Louis Eagles (in 1934) and folded in 1935 (or if you like, permanently suspended). They're different franchises; if not? the 2 Senators articles would need to be 'merged'. GoodDay 18:15, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes that is what I am saying, remove the founding and replace it with a "entry into the NHL" and remove the founding completely.  T Rex  | talk  22:56, 28 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment I think it has to be pointed out in the case of the Senators, that their history transcends that of the NHL. They existed well before. In fact the Senators were members of the AHAC, CAHL, FAHL, NHA, NHL, OCHL and QSHL. It seems to me that people are fixated on the NHL when it seems pretty clear in terms of history, that the club was founded in 1893 or earlier, and the NHL version was reinstated, that is the franchise was 'restored'. As for Total Hockey, I would argue that you cannot read one book. If you wanted to write the 'founded' date for the Sens, well, it is impossible. So the authors write the date of the current franchise. As for why certain wikipedians do not want that fact on the Sens page, let them say so, but they are not being objective. Alaney2k 19:58, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Now you are blurring things even more. The OCHL/QCHL club was not the same as the previous NHL club, nor is it the same as the new NHL club.  Unless, of course, you want to argue that the franchise was playing both pro in St. Louis, and senior in Ottawa at the same time in 1934-35.  As far as not reading one book goes, if official NHL publications treat them as separate franchises, that is a pretty strong indication that they are separate franchises. Resolute 20:44, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I do, in fact say that. The OCHL Sens became a kind of 'farm' club for the NHL and filled space in the old Auditorium. Eddie Finnigan played for both the Sens and the Eagles that year. My point about the NHL book, is that it is not an objective source of history about the NHL, and certainly not about ice hockey history. No doubt it is a separate organization, but the clubs are linked in a way that kind of transcends the NHL, you know? Why does that link has to be suppressed, I wonder? What set off RG was me putting successor on the Sens page, and he erased the sentence "only the sens have been reinstated', which I think is a harmless positive note to have there. Alaney2k 21:31, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
 * So they were the same franchise playing at the same time because the senior Sens became a sort of farm team, and a player played for both? By that logic, since David Moss played for both the Omaha Ak-Sar-Ben Knights and Calgary Flames last season, they must be the same franchise.  The clubs are linked by name only.  Much like how the Edmonton Oil Kings name is being resurrected for the third time this year.  But it clearly is not the same franchise, no matter how hard the Oilers are selling the history of the name.


 * If publications the NHL puts out are not considered valid because of a lack of objectivity, then throw out the certificate the NHL put out announcing the resurrection of the team for the same reasons. All that is then left is the argument that because two teams have the same name, they must be the same franchise.  Hardly ironclad. Resolute 23:07, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Whoa. The essays in Total Hockey and the NHL Guide -cannot- be considered completely objective (or even perfectly accurate IMHO), I doubt anyone would think the stats are not, though. Hey, the NHL doesn't like to play up the strife in the past, whether it's Stanley Cup challenges it ignored, or players it blacklisted, etc, etc. (Look, the article on the NHL site (hockey for dummies excerpt) places the end of the rover position after the NHL started!) You can't rely on one source. For one thing, typos happen. But the certificate was presented publicly in front of 10,449 people. Anyway, since the Sens' history is so much more than the NHL, you cannot tie it down to only its participation in the NHL, not like today. (Same goes for the Canadiens) The Sens were originally a senior-level amateur team. Also, the years are consecutive. The rink is the same. The owners are the same. (It's almost like the team split -- name one way, pro players the other.) Anyway, I think it's enough to mention it along with the facts about the records being kept separately. It's an explanation. Alaney2k 23:27, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I love how you are trivializing one thing the NHL does while trying to talk up another. When an official NHL publication argues that the original Senators and the modern Senators are distinct franchises, that speaks volumes.  As does everything else djsasso mentioned - which has not been refuted.  You are moving well into the realm of conspiracy theory to defend your point, which is inherently WP:POV.   You are absolutely correct in one instance, however:  The Original Senators history transcends the NHL, and should not be minimized.  We are not, however, discussing the original Senators.  We are discussing the modern Senators, who have no history outside of the NHL. Resolute 01:09, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't have an explanation for the NHL Guide and Total Hockey saying one thing, and the NHL giving out a reinstation certificate. It's just not the whole story, by itself. Not a trivialization. You guys have an opinion that the Guide is right and the certificate is wrong, backed by the books. I say the reinstation certificate was presented, and its not been rescinded or explained officially that it was marketing only. Like I've said elsewhere, it was 'Bring Back the Senators', that's what Firestone was doing, and a reinstation is consistent with that. But, I am not harboring any illusions. It's a different club, same franchise. That's enough to keep the articles separate. Alaney2k 03:28, 29 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment I think the founded date should go with the club. Franchises, league affiliations, personnel and owners change. It is appropriate for Montreal to have 1909, as that is when Les Canadiens were founded. The link is clear. We should not fixate on the NHL only. Alaney2k 20:13, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree, 1893? for the first Ottawa Senators franchise & 1991 for the current Ottawa Senators franchise. GoodDay 21:15, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
 * That's fine with me. Alaney2k 21:33, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Actually, that brings up a point. The organization started in 1989, franchise conditional in 1990, unconditional in 1991, started play in 1992. Does the NHL record book date match the date of the Ottawa Hockey Club Limited Partnership? I think it is the date of the final payment -- the unconditional date. Maybe 1992 is the best year to list in the founding part of the box. Alaney2k 23:31, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I've started a similar discussion at Wikipedia talk: WikiProject Ice Hockey (concerning 'founding dates' & 'inaugural season dates'). GoodDay 23:37, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
 * The NHL "founding date" refers to the date the franchise was awarded. I just verified that out of Coleman; the date the NHL Official Guide gives for the Bruins' founding date is November 1st, 1924, and sure enough, Coleman reports that at the annual meeting of the NHL on 11/1/24 ... etc.    RGTraynor  01:12, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

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


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

Possible expansion teams
I don't feel such a section or even a couple sections deserves mentions. We can't and shouldn't document every time there are discussions or speculation regarding such expansion, until expansion becomes a reality. Regards, -- Jeff3000 17:59, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree with you somewhat. Expansion and schedules seem to be a never-ending source of interest, though. Is there a place that we could put it? Should there be a separate article? 'Future of the National Hockey League'? :-) Alaney2k 18:17, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
 * So a reporter asks the proverbial question, and gets an acknowledgement that these cities came up in a comment, however briefly it may have been, and suddenly it snowballs into speculated plans for expansion? I really don't think its encyclopaedic to include this just yet. ccwaters 19:40, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I took out the text and put it where it may be relevant -- the 2007-08 NHL season article. It could be relevant there, as well as the schedule discussions, which are going on, but not in the article. That sort of stuff has been in League Business sections for previous seasons. Alaney2k 20:25, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I think that's best for now. Nobody said anything like "we plan on becoming a 32 team league within 5 years and candidates cities are x, y, z." Actually they said no, they discussed it and there are no plans, they have greater concerns at the moment. ccwaters 00:07, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
 * There's definitely a place for discussion of future expansion ... on the many extant hockey forums out there in cyberspace. Obviously Wikipedia isn't it.    RGTraynor  04:16, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Higher ticket prices and more affluent fans
I changed the part saying that Hockey fans are more affluent so the tickets are more expensive than other sports. If you have ever bought tickets to sporting events (like I have) you would know this is not true. I checked the source and it did not source a study and I thought it was just an assumption made. I am sorry for deleting it, but I would be very surprised if it were true. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.69.145.180 (talk) 21:38, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Removed comment about "fan base is also the most affluent and well educated of the four."
It cited a reference, http://www.gsb.stanford.edu/news/bmag/sbsm0408/feature_sports.shtml that states the same thing, but that article doesn't cite any facts to base it's statement on. Citing heresay is still heresay. 66.74.197.175 02:42, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
 * It says right in the article that a study was done. That is enough to cite based on. But I will look for better citations for it. --Djsasso 02:56, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
 * That source is by all wikipedia guidelines and policies considered a reliable source and thus meets Wikipedia's verifiability policy. Please stop removing verifiable information.  Regards, -- Jeff3000 03:30, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Notable Players
Hey...great article! I am enjoying the clear, thorough layout and format of the information as we speak (and I type).

In the 'Notable players' section, do you think it would be nice if the players could be labelled by team, similar to how mentions of congressmen are labelled by their party and state? I think it would shed some light on the respective strengths of the teams as a reflection of their players.  DRosenbach  ( Talk 13:50, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't quite get what you mean, could you give an example? --Krm500 (talk) 14:09, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
 * How about like Joseph Mason (Calgary) scored the most points in the season and Kurt Weisner (Anaheim) had the most assists.  DRosenbach  ( Talk 01:35, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure I like the idea. It makes the text busier; the interested reader can always click on the player's wikilink for more info.  Regards, -- Jeff3000 (talk) 02:44, 14 December 2007 (UTC)