Talk:Philadelphia Phantoms

Official - Glens Falls
The only issue is they haven't revealed whether they will be called the Adirondack Phantoms or the Glens Falls Phantoms. --scottieISmad (talk) 21:33, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
 * They will be called the Adirondack Phantoms. Someone went ahead and created the page for it already, but should there be to separate articles for Philly and Adirondack? --scottieISmad (talk) 23:38, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
 * The articles should be separate as both the ownership and the "new" club's home venue have changed. The only ongoing connection between the two in 2009-2010 will be the nickname and current affiliation. (Centpacrr (talk) 17:56, 1 May 2009 (UTC))

There's no separate page for the Philadelphia Athletics, for example. It redirects to the Oakland page. The nickname, logo, players, and current affiliation are the same. That should be enough to keep them as the same team. Other teams change owners, name, or city and are still considered the same team. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.248.26.127 (talk) 00:10, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
 * That is, however, not the practice for hockey pages. The Minnesota North Stars and the Dallas Stars have different pages, as do the Hartford Whalers / Carolina Hurricanes, Winnipeg Jets / Phoenix Coyotes, Quebec Nordiques / Colorado Avalanche, and so on.  On the minor league level, the same holds true; the Springfield Indians, Worcester Ice Cats and Peoria Rivermen have been the same AHL franchise and have different articles, the current Hamilton Bulldogs have their own article as do the franchise's previous stops in Quebec City (the Citadelles), Fredericton (the Canadiens), Sherbrooke (ditto) and Halifax (the Nova Scotia Voyageurs), and so on.  How the baseball WikiProject handles matters is, of course, their own business.    Ravenswing  07:30, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Previous AHL teams section
Two notes about this section.

First, the article used as reference should not be placed in the section header, as it is poor style. To that end, I added a brief introductory sentence so the reference could be attached to it.

The second is a general questioning of the section's value as a whole. It is not about the Phantoms at all, really. It covers the history of the AHL in the city, and describes the predecessor teams in detail. Those descriptions should be reserved for the articles on those teams. Also, the section uses a few too many peacock terms for my liking, largely mirroring the article that it used as a source for the section. Indeed, reading through that article, both the source article and the section of this article read very similarly. Too similarly for my tastes. It's good material, but I think it would need a major re-write to give it a more encyclopedic tone and to avoid possible concerns regarding plagarism.

Considering the fact that it really covers teams that are distinct and separate from the Phantoms, it may just be best to strike the section completely, and incorporate the material from the source into the respective articles for the predecessor teams, with only a short blurb here about the fact that the Phantoms were the fourth AHL team to call Philadelphia home.oknazevad (talk) 03:26, 1 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I wrote both, have worked in and/or covered hockey professionally in Philadelphia for forty years (including more than 2,000 Flyers and Phantoms games), and am in the process of updating the Phantoms' article to reflect the end of its 13 season run and departure for Glens Falls. The section on the history of the three AHL predecessors in Philadelphia is actually only five short sentences and is included to show how successful the Phantoms and their two Cup titles were in contrast to the the AHL's first three tries in Philadelphia.


 * My update should be done in a few days, if not sooner. (Centpacrr (talk) 05:13, 1 May 2009 (UTC))


 * I look forward to seeing it. I would, if I were you, make sure to make that intended contrast between the Phantoms and their predecessors more explicit, so as to not (re)create (my) confusion. The tone is still a bit off for an encyclopedia article, as well. Also, I'm not sure of the policy, but I believe there may be a problem with referencing your own self-published work.


 * (P.S. It's not 5 sentences, its 5 paragraphs.)oknazevad (talk) 16:43, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
 * While my own article now appears on a hockey history site that I own, if you look at the top of the page on which it appears there you will see that it was originally written for publication at and in conjunction with the 1999 AHL All Star Game played in Philadelphia in January of that year. (I later expanded and updated it in 2006 for posting on the internet. It will be updated again there in the near future.)


 * The material describing the previous teams is actually only the five sentences in a paragraph-and-a-half beginning with "When the Canadian-American Hockey League (1926–36)...." and ending with "...at five on a record of 5–52–7.)" which is followed by "The AHL's dismal record in the city all changed, however, with the establishment in 1996 ..." to show the contrast between these three earlier relatively unsuccessful teams and the far more successful Phantoms. (Centpacrr (talk) 17:32, 1 May 2009 (UTC))

An article similar to Ice hockey in Calgary might be a good idea. --24.102.232.53 (talk) 02:51, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I have no particular problem with that (I have in fact written such an article published in 1999), but the five sentences relating to the three AHL predecessors should remain as they establish the background to the history of the Phantoms. (Centpacrr (talk) 02:57, 3 May 2009 (UTC))


 * Cleanup looks good. Short, to the point, and with just the right amount of detail. The section breaks are placed well, too, allowing a reader to set off the background information from the beginning of the Phantoms' history easily. Well done, sir.oknazevad (talk) 13:00, 3 May 2009 (UTC)