Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ice Hockey/Archive45

NHL team season articles
Is the 2004-05 lockout, counted as an NHL season? I need to know 'cuz there's discrepancies in the numbering on the NHL team season articles. GoodDay (talk) 02:04, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Officially it was a season, but I suspect there will be ambiguities amongst how teams individually treat it. 04-05 was Calgary's 25th season, for instance, but since it was lost, they celebrated their 25th in 05-06.  They celebrated 30 in 09-10, which would include the lockout.  For the 05-06 season, I treated the Flames article as "26th season, 25th of play", but afterwords used the straight count. Resolute 02:19, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I wish we could have something to make them consistant for all the post-lockout seasons. For example, we've got 18th season in the 2010-11 Ottawa Senators season article & 20th season in the 2011-12 Ottawa Senators season article. GoodDay (talk) 02:30, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Easily done. Dolovis is correct that 2011-12 is their 20th Sens season.  Correct 10-11 to be the 19th, and work back to the lockout. Resolute 02:44, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Dolovis is incorrect. It will be Ottawa's 20th year since establishment, but their 19th season. There was no season during the lockout. Here's what a "season" is: "In an organized sports league, a season is the portion of one year in which regulated games of the sport are in session." There were no games. No season. Jmj713 (talk) 14:07, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Ah hah, that's what I was wondering. The going backwards solution. GoodDay (talk) 02:46, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
 * The solution is to look for reliable sources to support any corrections to articles, and then act boldly to fix them. I am relying on the NHL Official Guide and Record Book which explicitly states that the 2010-11 seasons is the Senators' 19th season, and I added that reference to support the change I made. I used the same source to correct the seasons for most of the other teams, and did not face any opposition until GoodDay started to reverse some of my referenced corrections. The seasons should be renumbered as needed, and the change referenced to a reliable source. Previous year versions of the NHL Guide should provide the verification required to support the corrections. Dolovis (talk) 05:28, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

I think this discussion was raised before. A season is a season of play. No team played during the lockout. Pretty cut and dry. It does get confusing, though, because there was still team and league business. For instance the Rangers are not celebrating their 85th season this season, but 85 years since establishment of the franchise. Their 85th season of play will be next season. Jmj713 (talk) 14:00, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
 * The NHL Guide states at page 91 that the 2010-11 season is the Rangers "85th NHL Season". Dolovis (talk) 14:09, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
 * They're wrong. Jmj713 (talk) 14:11, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
 * As Resolute mentions we have avoided this in the past by saying things on the milestone years like "26th season and 25th season of play". Because different teams have handled it differently. The Flames as mentioned have handled it both ways. They did their 25th season celebrations on their 26th season. But did their 30th year celebrations only 4 years later on their 30th season. Basically just tailor the sentence to how the team has promoted the season to avoid issues. -DJSasso (talk) 14:17, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Why don't we all come to consensus, maybe have a vote, I don't know, but decide this in a uniform fashion for all teams so that we don't have these discrepancies of teams having more seasons than they should. This has been a peeve of mine ever since the lockout. I have already stated my position above. I believe it's logical to not count the lockout as a season because there was no season. Jmj713 (talk) 14:22, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
 * If the NHL Official Guide and Record Book is wrong, then please provide a reliable source to verify your assertion. Although no NHL games were played in the in 2004-05, it was still a season (albeit one with no game play). Dolovis (talk) 14:25, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I have to agree with Dolovis here, I personally still consider it a season as the season is more than just the games being played. There are things like drafts and league busines that still happen during that season. All the negotiating etc would all still have been league business that occured during that season of business. -DJSasso (talk) 14:26, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Ditto. Team business happened in 2004-05, even if no games did.  It was a season, and is treated as such.  This year is the Rangers 85th season, and that is remarkably easy to prove.  Even the Rangers themselves say so. Resolute 14:29, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

They are wrong, and we shouldn't propagate incorrect information, even if it's coming from an official source. Take a look at 2004–05 NHL lockout: "The 2004–05 NHL lockout was a lockout that resulted in the cancellation of what would have been the 88th season of the National Hockey League" - is this wrong? The season was cancelled. Here are some reliable sources that state it was CANCELLED: USA Today, NPR, Daily Mail, Washington Post... they all state the season was cancelled, thus no play took place, thus you can't count it as a season. To do otherwise is illogical and wrong, even if the NHL's Guide book says the opposite. Jmj713 (talk) 14:35, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
 * The season of play was cancelled, but that wasn't the only season. The years 2004-05 didn't magically disappear, the business entities still operated and still had to file taxes for that business season. A season isn't just games. Our article on the lockout should say that it would have been the 88th season of play. -DJSasso (talk) 14:37, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, I don't dispute that, but a season in sports is a season of play, not a season of time. Jmj713 (talk) 14:40, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
 * But clearly it isn't, the league and the teams don't think so. -DJSasso (talk) 14:41, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
 * So they can't be wrong? How can the Senators celebrate 20 seasons in the NHL next season if they only played 19? Jmj713 (talk) 14:44, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Not that they can't be wrong, but that they can decide what they consider a season for their league. They are the ones who call the shots when it comes to their league. They could declare 1 game to be a season if they wanted to. The NHL decided that even though no games were played that that constitutes a season. Whether we like it or not, it is within their power to decide that. -DJSasso (talk) 14:47, 14 April 2011 (UTC)


 * It really is semantics, imo. A season of existence and a season of play aren't necessarily the same thing.  The Sens will be entering their 20th season as an organization next year, even if it will only be the 19th that they have played. Resolute 14:52, 14 April 2011 (UTC)


 * In that case I propose for each season after the lockout we state it's the team's, say, "95th season in the NHL, and the 94th season of play". Otherwise it creates confusion and incorrect information. Jmj713 (talk) 14:50, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I disagree. Other than immediately following the lockout, the fact that one season wasn't played becomes less and less relevant.  I think the current convention, once corrected, is sufficient. Resolute 14:56, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
 * How can facts be relevant or irrelevant? Counting it is not convenient nor sufficient. It's wrong. Jmj713 (talk) 15:00, 14 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Yes, the 87th season was played, the 88th was cancelled, the 89th was played. Resolute 14:39, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Much better way to explain it than my bumbling attempt. -DJSasso (talk) 14:41, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Additionally, counting the lockout as a season creates other numbering problems aside from team seasons. What about a number of season the team has missed the playoffs? And other such statistics? We remember now, because it was so recent, that there was no season of play. If we continue numbering seasons as though the lockout was a season of play, down the road it will mess up a lot of numbering for a wide variety of NHL articles. Jmj713 (talk) 14:58, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Which is it gonna be folks? Do we count 2004-05 or not? I wish to note, if we do count 2004-05, that'll change the captain sections in the team articles. Examples would be Shawn MacEachern with the Thrashers & Scott Stevens with the Devils (not to mention their respective player pages). GoodDay (talk) 15:11, 14 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Also, if we have 2004-05 as being an NHL season, we'll have to make numbering changes to the post-lockout NHL season articles. GoodDay (talk) 15:21, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
 * It's a headache that the lockout has created. We don't need to make it worse. The lockout SHOULD NOT count as a season, because it wasn't. The NHL cancelled it. No teams played. All numbers got held back one year. It's actually pretty simple, but it just needs to be standardized and set. Jmj713 (talk) 15:24, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
 * This much I'm certain, Dolovis' reverting of my changes to the 2010-11 & 2011-12 team season articles numbering, has caused descrepancy between the 2009-10 & 2010-11 team season articles. For example: We've got 2009-10 Montreal Canadiens season as the their 92nd NHL season & 2010-11 Montreal Canadiens season as their 94th season. GoodDay (talk) 15:28, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Finally, I find this wording quite compelling for the argument that the season was cancelled outright and should not count:

"The 2004–05 NHL season would have been the 88th regular season of the National Hockey League (NHL). The entire 1,230-game schedule, that was to begin in October, was officially canceled on February 16, 2005 due to an unresolved lockout that began on September 16, 2004. The loss of the 2004–05 season made the NHL the first North American professional sports league to lose an entire season because of a labor dispute." — 2004–05 NHL season Jmj713 (talk) 15:43, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
 * A couple of things regarding that quote - it is unsourced (except for the part about being the first league to lose a season), and it could just as easily be changed to "The 2004-05 NHL season (88th NHL season) did not see any regular season games played. The NHL draft and free agency were conducted on a modified time scale."  Your compelling wording should come from a reliable source, not another Wikipedia article.  I agree that the lockout should count as a season.  Canada Hky (talk) 15:48, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Why is the article called 2004-05 NHL season? when the article content says that season didn't exist? If we counte 2004-05 as an NHL season, it's gonna have a ripple effect across all the NHL related articles, concerning post-lockout info. GoodDay (talk) 15:49, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Right. There's not a ton of info that both the so-called season and the lockout articles should be merged. Jmj713 (talk) 15:52, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
 * The article doesn't say the season didn't exist. It said it was cancelled. Very big difference. -DJSasso (talk) 16:16, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Djsasso, when we had a similar discussion not too long ago (Talk:List of NHL seasons), you seemed to agree with the fact that the lockout should not be counted as a season. Jmj713 (talk) 16:22, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Not sure what you mean. I almost say litterally word for word the same thing that I said here...that 2004-05 didn't disappear. -DJSasso (talk) 16:27, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I mean that you said you were "fine" and had "no problem" with not counting the lockout as a season. Jmj713 (talk) 16:32, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
 * That was prior to finding out the league and to use your New York example the team consider it a season, and as I said they are the ones who ultimately get to decide if it was a season or not. However most of my comments in that discussion do mostly say that I was leaning towards this way already. -DJSasso (talk) 16:35, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
 * They don't consider it a season. They just can't be bothered to count. Jmj713 (talk) 16:39, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Lets be real here, do you not think the NHL is aware they didn't play games that year? This clearly was a concious decision they made and not just a mistake. Assuming that last years NHL guidebook is consistant with this years and this wasn't a one year glitch. -DJSasso (talk) 16:43, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
 * If so then that's even worse, and we'd be propagating false information here. What our articles should reflect is not some corporate idea of how many seasons there were, and pretending there was no lockout, but our job instead is to present facts. And the fact is the 88th season of the NHL was 2005-06. To say otherwise would be factually incorrect, and we are an encyclopedia. Jmj713 (talk) 16:47, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I guess we will have to agree to disagree. Because in my opinon it would be original reseach and factually incorrect if we were not to follow the numbering the league uses. The 88th season was cancelled. But the 89th was played the next year. Just like if you cancel a birthday party, doesn't mean you suddenly didn't age a year. -DJSasso (talk) 16:51, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Again, a sports season is not a season of time but play. What if the lockout, God forbid, lasted two years? Three? Four? Jmj713 (talk) 16:55, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
 * And I do believe it is a season of time. But we are getting nowhere so I will leave it alone and let others have their go. -DJSasso (talk) 16:59, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Then you believe wrong, sorry: season: "6.Sports a.a period with reference to the total number of games to be played by a team". Jmj713 (talk) 17:03, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't disagree with that definition. But that definition doesn't mean that the other can't exist as well. These season pages are the seasons of the franchise itself, not just the team. The team didn't play a season in 2004-05. But the franchise did have a season that year. (or the league itself) -DJSasso (talk) 17:06, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
 * No, they didn't have a season. They just existed. Having a season means playing games. Jmj713 (talk) 17:09, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Whatever you want. -DJSasso (talk) 17:10, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
 * So 2004-05 NHL season was the NHL's 88th season & we should renumber the following seasons? I need to know, so I can begin my corrections. GoodDay (talk) 16:30, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
 * It would have been. But it wasn't. The 88th NHL season was the 05-06. Jmj713 (talk) 16:32, 14 April 2011 (UTC)


 * GoodDay you need to relax...this is far from an emergency. Discussions typically last 7 days....it hasn't even been a few hours. Go have a drink or something and chill. -DJSasso (talk) 16:33, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Just so ya'll know, if we decide that 2004-05 is a season. It'll effect all the NHL related articles, for example Stevens tenure as the Devils captain will be changed from 1992-2004 over to 1992-2005. GoodDay (talk) 17:09, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
 * No it wouldn't. Because there are no captains when the teams are not playing, that is something that is decided at the start of playing season. Since he didn't play that year he wasn't captain that year. -DJSasso (talk) 17:16, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
 * If that's so, then at the Montreal Canadiens article (for example), we'd need to have Saku Koivu's tenure as 1999-2004, 2005-09. GoodDay (talk) 17:17, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
 * There is a point where you have to use common sense GoodDay. The time off is no different than as if it was an extended off season for players that remained captains before and after. -DJSasso (talk) 17:19, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Also there's Stevens #4 retirement banner, which has him as a Devil from 1991 to 2005. GoodDay (talk) 17:21, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Which conforms to the league counting that as a season. Or they are basing it litterally on when he filed his retirement papers. -DJSasso (talk) 17:23, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Stevens didn't resign the Devils captaincy before '04-05 & the Devils didn't replace him. Therefore, he was the team captain during 2004-05 & likely desribed as such. GoodDay (talk) 17:25, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Then change it to such...it doesn't really matter to me. You are the only one I think on this entire wiki that is obsessed like you are with captains. -DJSasso (talk) 17:28, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I just want it known, that those are the kinda changes that'll need to occur, if we declare 2004-05 to be an NHL season. GoodDay (talk) 17:31, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
 * That change has nothing to do with if we declare it a season or not. Zip Zero Nadda. That change has to do with if you consider the end of his captaincy to be the last game he played or when he actually retired. In most situations for stuff like this we go by when the last game was played. But you have created a weird set of standards by which you deal with captains that are pretty much impossible to understand. :) And thats a completely different issue. -DJSasso (talk) 17:38, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Here's an interesting tidbit. It's a Washington Times article that talks about Detroit making it to the playoffs 20 consecutive seasons, and 19 with Lidstrom. The lockout is obviously not counted. Counting it would only confuse the matters needlessly. Jmj713 (talk) 17:35, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Still haven't disagreed with you that newspapers use the term that way usually to avoid as you says complicated wording. But this is an encyclopedia. The offical count is what the NHL says it is and what should be listed on the page. -DJSasso (talk) 17:38, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
 * But if the so-called official count is wrong, we should abide by incorrect information in an encyclopedia just because it's printed in a book? Lots of false things are printed in books. Jmj713 (talk) 17:41, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
 * But thats the thing as mentioned earlier. The NHL gets to decide what they call a season. It's their league. Technically the news papers are wrong. -DJSasso (talk) 17:45, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

I go with Jmj713. 2004-05 was not a 'season of play'. It would be extremely weird to count it. That doesn't mean we can't have articles on that time period that use the word season in the title. As for Rangers '85' etc., that all is just -marketing-. 85th season? C'mon what is special about 85? Nothing. Lame. The Oilers did something recently about their number of seasons, completely leaving out the WHA years in the count. It's just to sell tickets with some sort of buzz. Lame, frankly. The Senators' and Lightning' franchise date was 91. Was the 91-92 season a season of play for the teams? No way. But the organization existed. Just stick with 'season of play'. The Senators will be celebrating their 20th anniversary, I've not seen it called 20th season of play in news notes from them. The Habs celebrated their 100th anniversary, not the 100th season of play. On and on. Just stick with 'season of play'. &#x0298; alaney2k  &#x0298; ( talk ) 17:42, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
 * It all comes to this: Was 2004-05 the NHL's 88th season or not? GoodDay (talk) 17:44, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Is that the issue? I must have completely missed it.... :P -DJSasso (talk) 17:45, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Now ya know. GoodDay (talk) 17:52, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
 * It was not a season. The 2004-05 "season" article should be merged into the lockout article. No play took place; thus no season. Plainly, there was no such thing as the 2004-05 NHL season.Jmj713 (talk) 17:51, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
 * We can't start dictating what is a season and isn't a season. We don't make the definitions here, we report what other reliable sources say.  There is no "the NHL is wrong, we are right".  There is only, "this is what the NHL says" vs. "this is what the NYT says".  It is overstepping our bounds to make things up on the fly here.  Canada Hky (talk) 19:26, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
 * The NHL believes a season to have been registered, and more to the point, all the extant player contracts ticked off another year.  Ravenswing  20:25, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
 * So the league recognizes 2005-06 NHL season as the 89th season? GoodDay (talk) 20:39, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
 * If the NHL wishes to 'fly in the face of reality', why must Wikipedia do so also? That's not common sense. We can always say 'season of play', in any event. &#x0298; alaney2k  &#x0298; ( talk ) 20:42, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Absolutely agree. I believe what we should do is have each post-lockout team season state it's the team's "Nth season of play", not season. Pre-lockout seasons can obviously simply state "Nth season" as they do now. Jmj713 (talk) 21:02, 14 April 2011 (UTC)


 * But what is 2005-06? the NHL 88th or 89th season? If we could establish which, then the succeeding seasons & related articles can fall into place. GoodDay (talk) 20:56, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Definitely 88th season of play. You could call it the 89th 'NHL season' (aka as defined by the NHL). The NHL calls it 89th, possibly for the sake of the CBA, etc., or just for marketing, or to just forget the lockout. But only 87 seasons of play had occurred prior to that. The NHL uses dotted lines for 04-05 in the Official Guide 2011 for year-by-year records. There was a release of Windows called Windows Vista, the next was Windows 7. But was Windows 7, the seventh release of Windows? No. (I have no idea how many, but far more than seven). &#x0298; alaney2k  &#x0298; ( talk ) 22:35, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
 * The software engineer in me had to cry out on this one. It's called Windows 7 because its Windows version 7.0. In software language it is the 7th major release. But there have been more if you count the minor releases (different instances of the same version).....Vista was 6.0 so not really the best example...or maybe it is....ignore this....lol -DJSasso (talk) 22:42, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Since the NHL is retroactively considering 2004-05 to be an NHL season, then 2005-06 NHL season should be labelled the 89th. Furthermore, I can re-number the post-lockout seasons articles accordingly, among other related articles. GoodDay (talk) 22:44, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
 * That would be the worst thing you can do. I wish we could come to some compromise. Logically there was no 2004-05 season, and the 2005-06 season may be rewritten to state it was the 89th season, but the 88th season of play. Saying just that it was the 89th season is incorrect. A season is a season of games played. I'm for going by logic. If not, then a compromise solution like this may be used. But simply counting the lockout as a season is absurd. Jmj713 (talk) 22:53, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
 * But how could the NHL cancel a season, if there was none to cancel? GoodDay (talk) 22:57, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Exactly, there had to be a season to cancel if you are saying the season was cancelled. Just because it didn't get to the point of games being played doesn't mean it didn't exist at some point. Otherwise it could not have been cancelled. -DJSasso (talk) 22:59, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Once more, there have to be games played for it to be a season. That's what a sports season is. There could have been a season, like in 1995, but it was cancelled. Thus, no season. Jmj713 (talk) 23:02, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Exactly...so the 88th season never played because it was cancelled....But the next season the 89th season did play. The 88th season wasn't postponed. It was cancelled. ie Never to happen. -DJSasso (talk) 23:05, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
 * No. The league postponed the season. The last season that was played was 2003-04. That was the 87th season of the NHL. The next season the NHL played was 2005-06. It was the 88th. I can't believe this is controversial... Jmj713 (talk) 23:11, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I would be extremely shocked if you could find a source showing that the NHL said they were postponing the season as opposed to cancelling it. -DJSasso (talk) 23:14, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
 * But that's what they did. Use any word you like. As of right now, 2010-11, there have been 93 season played in the NHL. By your count there would have to be 94. But that's not true. Jmj713 (talk) 23:16, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
 * No by my count there were 93 seasons played and 1 cancelled season for a total of 94. Just like if you have 10 bus tickets and you use 9 of them and one you decide to cancel by ripping up. You still had 10 bus tickets even though you only used 9 of them. -DJSasso (talk) 23:20, 14 April 2011 (UTC)


 * As a practical manner, it will be an ongoing maintenance headache to choose a season numbering convention that differs from the NHL. I am sympathetic though to the linguistic difficulties posed by a cancelled season. For example, " Saku Koivu Joe Cool was Canadiens Yellow Birds captain for ten [NHL] seasons, surpassing Jean Beliveau Woody Woodson, but tied with him with nine seasons of play." [edited to use fake names instead of real ones; it's only an illustration] isaacl (talk) 22:49, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
 * It doesn't have to be complicated or a headache. We just need to agree to disregard the lockout as a numbered season. Then everything is simple, and the articles need to adhere to that numberings scheme (and most already do, actually). Jmj713 (talk) 22:53, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
 * You may recall this now, but how about the new editor who drops in tomorrow to update a team article? Will the participants in this conversation remember the next time they encounter an applicable scenario, maybe months or years from now? How about when the editing group gradually turns over to a new bunch? isaacl (talk) 23:03, 14 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Beliveau was Habs captain for 10 seasons. GoodDay (talk) 22:59, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Except that when teams start having milestone anniversaries that don't match what we have listed we start confusing readers. I think most readers would understand the lockout being counted before they would understand the league having its 100th anniversary and us calling it the 99th season. -DJSasso (talk) 22:55, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Not really. As is done with the current Rangers season, it can say the franchise is celebrating X years since its establishment. The number of seasons played will always be less one. Unless, of course, some teams do like Columbus did with their 10th anniversary season in their 11th year of existence. Respect! :) Jmj713 (talk) 22:58, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
 * That happened this season, as the Sabres celebrated their 40th season, while the NHL Guide lists it as the 41st. Remember the Guide is -not- an encyclopedia, but a product. &#x0298; alaney2k  &#x0298; ( talk ) 23:00, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
 * It's not just a product but the official stance of the NHL. Which is what we have to report. For situations like the Sabres who did differentiate from the NHL listing we should make a note so people going to the page understand as was said waaaaaay up above. But for non-milestone years we should continue to go with the official stance of the league. -DJSasso (talk) 23:03, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
 * It has to be one or the other, to avoid confusion, and since the league is wrong here (or purposefully misleading), we should stick to facts and logic, not make-believe. Teams are celebrating time active, but like I said before, a sports season is not a season of time. Take a look at the original Senators seasons. Alaney2K can speak to this. There were a few seasons in the early years that the Senators were inactive. Doesn't mean those years should count as seasons for them. Jmj713 (talk) 23:08, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I think the problem really comes down to not understanding the different between cancelled and postponed. The season was outright cancelled which means the 88th season did not get played. The season wasn't postponed until the next year. Logically it is still correct to do it the way the NHL is choosing to do it. The 88th season didn't happen but the 89th season did. The league said we are cancelling the season, they didn't say we are postponing the season until next year. As for the Senators that is a different situation because the franchise was inactivated. -DJSasso (talk) 23:12, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Or the problem stems from not understanding what constitutes a season. In the case with the lockout it was not a season. How can there be a season if not a single game is played? For the tenth time, in sports a season is a set period of time during which games are scheduled and played, not just a period of time. Jmj713 (talk) 23:22, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Right there were 93 seasons played and 1 cancelled season. But by calling a season cancelled there had to be one to be cancelled. Which makes the 94th season. You can't cancel something that didn't exist. I agree with you that there were 93 "played" seasons. But the total on those pages aren't the played seasons they are the total seasons. One of which was cancelled. -DJSasso (talk) 23:25, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I would also note the definition you linked to said "a period with reference to the total number of games to be played by a team". (bolding mine). It does not say anywhere that they had to be played. The league did schedule games for that year. They just never happened. So even by the definition on that page there was a season because there was a schedule of games to be played. -DJSasso (talk) 23:28, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm not disputing that the lockout may be considered a season. What I am strongly against is counting it as a season of play. I see that while we've been talking in circles here, Alaney has already corrected the post-lockout NHL seasons to specify "X season of play". That's the right way to go about it. And the only way of of the mess that was created by the lockout and is being made worse by the league by counting it as a season of play. Ridiculous. Jmj713 (talk) 23:34, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
 * But the season articles never claimed they were seasons of play...they just said they were seasons. The league doesn't say they were seasons of play either just seasons. So I am not sure what the issue is here then if you agree it could have been called a season. -DJSasso (talk) 23:36, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

The issue is the count of a team's seasons in the NHL that spans the lockout. Which was the original concern. Going forward we should adhere to the template of stating a team's season in the NHL is their Nth season of play, which does not count the lockout as a season played. Jmj713 (talk) 23:39, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I understand thats what you want to change it to. But I don't see where the problem is with what we had already since it never claimed it was the Nth season of play. Anyways I don't think you can list one without listing the other. So I think it should either have both listed (which I think would be unwieldly) or just have the official Nth season by what the NHL calls it. Making sure not to make it sound like its the Nth season of play when its really just the Nth season. -DJSasso (talk) 23:43, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Arbitrary break
The NHL is wrong and is confusing everyone. But they do get it right every once in a while: Kings and Ducks open camps early in preparation of London trip - "A short summer was made even shorter for the defending Stanley Cup champions because of a trip to London, England, to kick off the NHL's 90th season. " Jmj713 (talk) 23:54, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Probably cause that article is written by the Canadian Press. Not the NHL. -DJSasso (talk) 00:07, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
 * It's on NHL.com. I can find many many sources naming 2007-08 season the NHL's 90th. Also, this: NHL Face-Off gets season started in style - "And what better way could there be to kick off the NHL's 93rd season?" So we have established that the NHL and other sources count 2007-08 as the NHL's 90th season, and 2010-11 as the NHL's 93rd. Then let's work backwards: 2006-07 would have to be the 89th, the 2005-06 would have to be 88th... Wait, aren't you saying 2004-05 was the 88th? Jmj713 (talk) 00:11, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I give up....you are just going around in circles again. You have already admitted that the cancelled season can be called a season. The NHL calls it a season. Nowhere did the team season articles or the NHL call it a season of play. So no one was doing anything that you didn't agree with. But yet now you are going back to the beginning and starting over again. No one is disputing that its not a season of play. Not a single person has called it a season of play when it wasn't. We and the NHL called it a season, which you just admitted you agree that it could be called a season. So why are we still going on about it? -DJSasso (talk) 00:16, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't understand what you're exasperated about. Or are you being disingenuous on purpose? The original concern was with the numbering of seasons. That's what I'm concerned with and that's what I'm trying to prove, by saying that the lockout was not a season of play and thus team seasons cannot count it in the number of seasons a team has played. Also, I'm finding a lot of sources naming 2007-8 NHL's 90th season, but not one 91st. Conversely, I can't find one that calls 2006-07 the 90th season. Jmj713 (talk) 00:20, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
 * The thing that is getting me exasperated is that none of the sentences in those season articles I looked at were talking about seasons of play. They were talking about the number of seasons the team had. This is why I don't understand your problem with them. None of them claimed the teams had played an extra season than they actually had. They all just claimed how many seasons the team had. I fully agree with you that they only had 93 seasons of play. None of the season articles that I saw claimed they did. They just said they had 93 seasons. (or however many for that particular team). I didn't look at every page so some are probably numbered differently that should be brought in line. But those season articles aren't and the sentences mentioning how many seasons were not talking about seasons of play. They were talking about seasons of the franchise. Which is why every team has a season page for the lockout season. -DJSasso (talk) 00:40, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Every team does not have a 2004-05 season article. GoodDay (talk) 00:47, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Template:2004–05 NHL season by team. Which ones are redlinks? -DJSasso (talk) 00:50, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
 * If you click on to them, some re-direct to the 2004-05 NHL lockout. -- GoodDay (talk) 00:51, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, make that all teams but 3. Which I will change right now. -DJSasso (talk) 00:54, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I think there's 5. GoodDay (talk) 00:55, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
 * And this little exchange helped how? The point still stands that we did season articles for the teams for the lockout. The fact that some got missed doesn't change the point. Do you have anything constructive to add? -DJSasso (talk) 00:59, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, I'd like to know, does the NHL recognize 2004-05 as their 88th season or not (never mind the 'of play' stuff). GoodDay (talk) 01:08, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Have you not read any of the conversation? Yes the NHL does recognize it. That is what is being argued about. Jmj713 feels that it doesn't matter what the NHL recognizes it. -DJSasso (talk) 01:10, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Not rtue. I have not seen any source that states 2004-05 was NHL's 88th or 2006-07 was NHL's 90th. You would think a 90th season in 2006 would make the news. It didn't Yet 2007-08 was treated as the 90th season, because it was. Jmj713 (talk) 01:36, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
 * He asked what does the NHL recognize, he didn't ask what newspapers call it. The 2010-11 NHL Guide Book recognizes it as the 88th season, that is a source. The article linked to above also calls the season for the Rangers the 85th season. You have argued above that we should ignore what the NHL says. So exactly what part is not true about what I said? -DJSasso (talk) 01:45, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Well then, I'm changing the intro at 2004-05 NHL season to "...was the 88th season..." & thus making the correction to the following seasons. GoodDay (talk) 01:20, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Based on what? Please show me a source identifying 2004-05 as the NHl's 88th season. I've shown several that make it clear it wasn't. Jmj713 (talk) 01:34, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
 * The NHL says it was their 88th season & they've got the final say. GoodDay (talk) 01:56, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't have this end-all Guide, but what I'm seeing in various articles on NHL.com and reputable news organizations (New York Times, MSNBC, USA Today, ESPN, you name it), they do not support the notion that the lockout was the 88th season. If one source does say that, it is simply wrong. The overwhelming majority of sources I'm finding do not support that erroneous and illogical claim. Jmj713 (talk) 02:02, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
 * The NHL is the primary source & the rest are secondary sources. What's WP:V ruling on this? GoodDay (talk) 02:06, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Glad you asked. "Base articles on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." The NHL is not a third-party reputable source. Jmj713 (talk) 02:09, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Dang blasted lockout. GoodDay (talk) 02:17, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Well as mentioned its up the the NHL how they label their own seasons. Primary sources are fine for backing up data like this, they just can't be used to prove notability. If someone says their hair is brown and it is brown and a 1000 newspapers say his hair is black. That doesn't mean that his hair is black. Majority can be wrong. -DJSasso (talk) 02:08, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
 * It's not up to the NHL to reinvent math. 1 + 1 = 2, not 3. Jmj713 (talk) 02:14, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
 * And they aren't saying that. They are saying 93 played + 1 cancelled = 94. Its basic math. You yourself agreed that the lock out year could be called a season. I am still not sure what you are arguing about, no one is claiming, not even the NHL that they played 94 seasons. -DJSasso (talk) 02:17, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I am arguing with calling 2005-06 the 89th season. Or any team's post-lockout season +1 of their actual number. Jmj713 (talk) 02:19, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Which all leads back to 2004-05 NHL season, is it the leagues 88th season or not. If so, we number it & the following season articles as such. If not, we merge it into 2004-05 NHL lockout. -- GoodDay (talk) 02:22, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I say it should be merged. I was always fine with teams having 2004-05 "season" articles because trades happened, the draft happened. But no actual season took place, and they always say "would have been the team's Nth season". Jmj713 (talk) 02:23, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
 * That much I know....you keep repeating that. However, you have said the lock out year could be called a season. so why isn't it the 88th season? You are making absolutely zero sense. Its really quite logical and simple. 87th season was played. 88th season was cancelled. 89th season was played. Not a single person in this discussion, not even the NHL have claimed they played the 88th season. Not a single person has claimed they played a season they didn't actually play. You keep arguing against something that no one is actually claiming. -DJSasso (talk) 02:25, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
 * How can you play 87 seasons, and then the next time you play you're playing the 89th season? Where the logic? Jmj713 (talk) 02:27, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Its really simple, the 88th season was cancelled. It was created, it was scheduled, games were announced, and it existed for a short period of time and then it was cancelled. This all complies with the definition of a season that you pointed to. The definition of season does not require a single game to actually have been played. -DJSasso (talk) 02:30, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Say you bought three slices of pizza. For some reason you numbered them. You threw away the slice #2 and ate slices #1 and #3. How many slices did you eat? Jmj713 (talk) 02:33, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Say you bought three slices of pizza. For some reason you numbered them. You threw away the slice #2 and ate slices #1 and #3. How many slices did you have? No one is claiming they ate (played) 3. They are claiming they had 3. -DJSasso (talk) 02:34, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Please define the term "having a season". Jmj713 (talk) 02:37, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Easy, a season was created to be played. (A pizza slice was bought) League decided not to play it. (Customer decided to throw it out). The having a season part is the having a schedule ready to be played (or a slice of pizza having been cooked and bought). Planned to be played. Organized to be played. etc etc. Once they play the first game it changes from only having a season to playing a season. In other words its the time between buying the pizza and throwing it away. Creating the season and cancelling the season. -DJSasso (talk) 02:41, 15 April 2011 (UTC)


 * We need sources. How many say 2010-11 is the NHL's 93rd season & how many say it's their 94th season. GoodDay (talk) 02:39, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
 * That's easy. Lots of sources describe 2010-11 as the 93rd season. None as 94th.


 * NHL.com
 * NHL.com
 * TSN.ca
 * NHLPA.com
 * Yahoo Sports
 * CBC.ca

And that's just two pages of Google. Jmj713 (talk) 02:44, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
 * And I agree its the 93rd season of play. But its the 94th season in total. Those articles are talking about seasons of play, the nhl guide is talking about overall seasons. Its not that complicated a concept. -DJSasso (talk) 02:46, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
 * No: "prior to the start of the NHL's 93rd season"; "Now in its 93rd season"; "NHL players will begin the 93rd season in league history"... Please read the sources. Jmj713 (talk) 02:49, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I did read the sources. And its clear they mean the 93rd season of play in league history because they are talking about season that were played. Why would they mention a season that hasn't been played when they are talking about seasons that have been played. -DJSasso (talk) 02:50, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
 * So if you agree that the current NHL season is the 93rd then that would mean 2005-06 was the 88th, and since 2003-04 was the 87th, there was no 2004-5. And there wasn't. Jmj713 (talk) 02:52, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
 * No...what I said was that it was the 93rd season of play, in other words there have been 93 total season that were played. I didn't say it was the 93rd season in a row. There were 87 seasons of play. 1 cancelled season (season 88). And then 6 more seasons of play. 87 + 6 = 93rd season of play. But for total seasons its 87 + 1 + 6 = 94. So yes there have been 93 seasons played. But in total there have been 94. Consecutively speaking however, the cancelled season was the 88th. -DJSasso (talk) 02:55, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
 * None of the sources I can find support that. They plainly state: 2010-11 is the 93rd season of the NHL. Nothing more. Plus, like I have stated numerous times, a season is sports is a season of play. Jmj713 (talk) 03:00, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Because they are all talking about how many were played, 93 were played. And I fully agree. But that first sentence in season articles is a numerical sequence. Season 1, Season 2, Season 3 etc. Season 88 was cancelled before it could be played. The league then created a new schedule and season for Season 89, it wasn't the same set of games. The sentence in the season articles as well as the NHL guide are talking about something different than those articles which are stating the total number of seasons played. Not the sequential order of seasons. A season of play in sports is not a season. We went through that a few hours ago when I pointed out to you the definition says a season is just a set of games to be played. And you agreed with that. When they cancelled the 88th season they threw away that set of games. And they created a new set of games for the 89th season. -DJSasso (talk) 03:03, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
 * You do realize this is ludicrous? Let's take the Minnesota Wild for an example, as they're one of the younger teams. Their first season was 2000-01. Their fourth season was 2003-04. The 2004-05 season was cancelled, so the Minnesota Wild did not play. Their next season was 2005-06. It was their fifth season. In that span from their inception to the first post-lockout season, there have only been five season of the Minnesota Wild. That's what each team's article should reflect. You cannot count the lockout in a team's chronology, because a team exists to play. If another lockout happens and lasts two years, will after that teams skip ahead? Jmj713 (talk) 03:14, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
 * But these articles are not just about the team they are also about the franchise. These are two separate but connected things. It may have been the 93rd season the team played. But it was the 94th season for the franchise. The team is only one part of the franchise. Teams exist to make money for the franchise owner. So the business side of things are every bit as important in a season as the games that are played. These are franchise season pages, not team season pages. So when you take the Wild. The 2004-05 season was the 5th season of the franchise. -DJSasso (talk) 03:23, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
 * If you insist on that, it will create too much confusion with statistics. Who played how many seasons, how many seasons a team has made the playoffs, which year is the 200th anniversary, etc. Jmj713 (talk) 03:27, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Not really, it doesn't do any of that. All of those things still stay the same. A player who played 10 seasons still played 10 seasons. A team who made the playoffs 5 times out of 10 attempts still made the playoffs 5 times out of 10 attempts. A team who missed that last 10 playoffs still missed the last 10 playoffs. The only issue is around anniversaries. And the way around that issue is already in use on the Flames seasons. ie It is the 26th season, 25th season of play. -DJSasso (talk) 03:32, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, if as you say the lockout was a season, and say there were 10 seasons including the lockout and a team made the playoffs each season, they were only in nine consecutive playoffs in ten seasons. Doesn't make sense. Jmj713 (talk) 03:34, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes it does....there were only 9 playoffs in those 10 years....So they made it to 9 consecutive playoffs. You wouldn't say a team made it to the playoffs 9 out of 10 seasons. You would write it as the team made 9 consecutive playoff appearances. There are many very easy ways to not confuse people. In fact other than this one sentence on these season articles, It never actually has to affect a single other thing on the wiki. Because that cancelled season doesn't affect anything because it didn't happen. -DJSasso (talk) 03:39, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
 * What was the status of the NHL player contracts during 2004-05? GoodDay (talk) 03:36, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
 * They counted as a year played. -DJSasso (talk) 03:39, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
 * What?? "2004-05 contract years are wiped out." Jmj713 (talk) 03:41, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
 * What don't you understand? They removed one year from the players contract for the 2004-05 season. They wiped it out. -DJSasso (talk) 03:43, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Seems like you don't like facts and just twist anything I say or present you with to your desire.Jmj713 (talk) 03:47, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
 * What fact did I twist? Everyone who followed the lock out knows one year of everyones contract got burnt during the lockout (someone else even mentions it way above in this tread). It's why there were twice as many free agents the year after the lockout. Because there were all the free agents from the year before the lockout and all the new ones that were created because the last year of their contract got used up by the lockout. -DJSasso (talk) 03:51, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Arbitrary break II

 * To quote you "I'm not disputing that the lockout may be considered a season. What I am strongly against is counting it as a season of play.". -DJSasso (talk) 03:07, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I said "may be". And not for teams. It may be considered a season in that there were things happening in the league and the teams that we need to chronicle, and for lack of a better mechanism, we can use "2004-05 season" with the words "would have been the Nth season". Jmj713 (talk) 03:14, 15 April 2011 (UTC)


 * The of play stuff is irrelevant, TBH. It only complicates things. GoodDay (talk) 03:19, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree, either it's a season or it isn't. The lockout was not a season. It was just empty time when the league did not play. It just so happened it lasted about as long as a season would have. Jmj713 (talk) 03:20, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I disagree its the key component of this debate. -DJSasso (talk) 03:23, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
 * It just doesn't look right having that extention on the post-lockout NHL season & team season articles. GoodDay (talk) 03:29, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Arbitrary break III
A thorough read of Conflicting sources might be helpful to focus this discussion. Dolovis (talk) 00:05, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Or might make it more confusing. GoodDay (talk) 03:19, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

We should have a Merge discussion & straw poll at 2004-05 NHL season, as to whether it should be merged to 2004-05 NHL lockout, under the latter's title. GoodDay (talk) 03:47, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
 * The two articles are about two different things. One is about the season business that happened that year. And the other is about the lockout itself. -DJSasso (talk) 03:49, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
 * If the merge proposal passes, then it's 2004-05 not a season. If it fails, then it's 2004-05 is a season. GoodDay (talk) 03:52, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

I will stop now. I think we need way more than just three people to decide this once and for all. Jmj713 (talk) 03:54, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Atleast we're all in agreement that the article 2004-05 NHL season is the core of the problem. GoodDay (talk) 03:56, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Not really. That page of all of them would be the correct page....because unlike a team it doesn't have seasons of play. It purely has business seasons. -DJSasso (talk) 03:57, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Well something's gotta be done about the mis-numberings between the team seasons articles of 2009-10 & 2010-11. We've got the 2005-06 to 2009-10's going by no 2004-05 season & the 2010-11's beyond going by yes 2004-05 season. GoodDay (talk) 03:59, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Well I think more than 3 people have commented there are about 4 others up at the top saying it was a season...and then Alaney2k who kinda road the fence but for good measure I will say supported your side. But you are right we should stop...lol I tried several hours ago. -DJSasso (talk) 03:57, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Jmj713, I'm in the process of adjusting some of the post-lockout team season numberings to add up to Dolovis' 2011-12 totals (which mean 2004-05 is a season). Please don't revert me, as I'm doing this so as to remove the numbering discrepancy. PS: If it's decided to not go by the NHL & have 2004-05 as not a season? Then I'll personally reverse those changes. Afterall, I'm a numerical stickler & don't mind the time & effort. GoodDay (talk) 15:50, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Please add "but the Nth season of play" to keep it factually correct. Jmj713 (talk) 16:02, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

I've stopped at the Buffalo Sabres team season articles. The Sabres 'apparently' chose 2010-11, to celibrate their 40th anniversary. In contradictions to the San Jose Sharks, who've chosen 2010-11, to celibrate their 20th anniversary. GoodDay (talk) 15:59, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
 * This was brought up during the discussion yesterday. Vancouver as well, they're celebrating their 40th anniversary in what would've been the 41st season, if the lockout is counted. Jmj713 (talk) 16:02, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Key discussion points
Can I suggest we put the fine semantic debate on what constitutes a "season" on hold? After all, if the NHL had decided to ignore the lockout year in its season numbering, I doubt there would be a debate on how the cancelled season ought to be included in the season numbering. Let's rewind a bit to first principles: So the key questions are: If there is no disagreement, then there is no grounds for Wikipedia to follow a different season numbering. If there is a disagreement, then it must be determined which source reflects a prevalent view, since there isn't a practical way to give each view coverage with appropriate weight. isaacl (talk) 04:04, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
 * When it comes to record-keeping, in the end, the league has the final say in what is deemed official, since it literally defines the meaning of the recording of events. As such, the use of primary sources to determine the official record book is acceptable under Wikipedia's guidance on using primary sources: "A primary source may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements that any educated person, with access to the source but without specialist knowledge, will be able to verify are supported by the source."
 * If Wikipedia, as a tertiary source, is to maintain an accounting of records that differs from the primary source, in accordance with Wikipedia's policy on original research and on lending appropriate weight to different viewpoints, there must be secondary sources that reflect this different accounting, and show it is more prevalent than the official accounting.
 * Is the NHL's official record of events unambiguous regarding the numbering of seasons?
 * Assuming there is a clear direction from the NHL's record book, do secondary sources that compile NHL statistics follow the same numbering, or do they follow a different numbering?
 * If there is a disagreement between secondary statistical sources and the NHL, is there sufficient reason to believe that the viewpoint of the secondary sources prevail over the NHL's view? (For example, do notable sources such as newspapers and books follow the viewpoint of the secondary statistical sources, rather than the NHL's?)
 * I'm for all of that. I can't wait 'till we get a solution, so I can dive through those NHL season & NHL team season articles. GoodDay (talk) 04:08, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Can't sleep. So I'll make one final comment for today. This is a really non-controversial topic, or should be. I've already established that the NHL's own site lists post-lockout seasons numbered as omitting the lockout. And reputable third-party sources adhere to that numbering scheme as well. We had the lockout article, for years, I believe, say that it "would have been the 88th season". And the 2005-06 season has always said it was the 88th season. Here are some sources that expressly state that the 2005-06 season is the 88th. So taking into account that nowhere does the NHL say that the lockout was the 88th season, and that most if not all sources I have been able to find reference the post-lockout seasons by their numbers omitting the lockout, this discussion is obviously moot. I can't believe so much time needs to be spent and so much said to get such a simple point across. The NHL did not have a season in 2004-05. Jmj713 (talk) 05:59, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
 * The NHL's guidebook does include the 2004-05 as a season. The NHL's own site does not list post-lockout seasons numbered differently. What it does is redisplay news articles from news feeds like the Canadian press which support you point of view. But that doesn't mean the NHL had anything to do with what the journalist wrote. And the teams in the league also include it on their webpages. -DJSasso (talk) 12:06, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Where on that Rangers page does it say explicitly 2004-05 was the 88th season? Saying this season is the Rangers' 85th is clearly a mistake, and the Official Rangers Media Guide (viewable here) does not say "85th season" but, says correctly "85th anniversary". Teams cannot celebrate seasons they did not play. They can celebrate years. Which is why this goes back to what a season is, and this is the crux of the matter: a season in sports is a season of play, not of time. Jmj713 (talk) 12:34, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Page 89 of the Official NHL Guide and Record Book/2005 states on the New York Rangers information page "Franchise date: May 15, 1926, 79th NHL Season". The same book states on page 73 for the Montreal Canadiens "Franchise date: November 22, 1917, 88th NHL Season", and on on page 121 for the Toronto Maple Leafs "Franchise date: November 22, 1917, 88th NHL Season". Dolovis (talk) 14:27, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
 * That's not what I'm after. I need a source stating "2004-05 was the 88th season of the NHL". So far I've only been able to find sources stating it "would have been" the 88th season of the NHL, and multiple sources (including the NHL) unanimously numbering post-lockout seasons omitting the lockout. I have given some of those sources during this discussion. I have not seen any sources for this phantom season numbering that numbers the lockout as the 88th season, and that's the only sticking point. I have beyond a doubt established that the lockout is not considered the 88th season. Therefore, none of the post-lockout season articles can count it as a season when numbering seasons played. Jmj713 (talk) 14:35, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
 * The next year's edition of the Official NHL Guide (for the 2005-06 NHL season) states on page 97 on the New York Rangers information page "Franchise date: May 15, 1926, 80th NHL Season". The same book states on page 81 for the Montreal Canadiens "Franchise date: November 22, 1917, 89th NHL Season", and on on page 129 for the Toronto Maple Leafs "Franchise date: November 22, 1917, 89th NHL Season". Dolovis (talk) 14:38, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Right so what you are trying to do is twist the subject to what you what? What was being discussed was how the NHL describes 2004-05. That was what the original question at the top was. We are showing sources which show that. You have not beyond a doubt established that the lockout is not considered the 88th season. None of your sources claim that. They just claim that there were 93 seasons played. Our articles also weren't claiming it was seasons played. You keep arguing for season played, when we were just numbering the seasons in those articles per what the NHL calls them. Which is what we should do because its a verifiable fact that the NHL labelled the lockout season #88. -DJSasso (talk) 14:39, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Where? Where exactly does the NHL explicitly state "2004-05 was the 88th season of the NHL"? Jmj713 (talk) 14:49, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
 * This discussion has become tedious. To be clear, the 2004-05 season did not disappear, it is just that no NHL games were played. League business continued during the 2004-05 NHL season, most notably the 2004 NHL Entry Draft held on June 26, 2004, and the on-going NHL labour negotiations (2004). The NHL farm teams continued to play during the 2004-05 season, and the business of staffing those teams also works into the league's 2004-05 operations. Individual teams continued to operate their scouting staffs, and similarly the NHL continued to operate its NHL Central Scouting Bureau during the 2004-05 NHL season. I can go on and on, but such content is better left for the 2004–05 NHL season article about the 88th NHL season. Dolovis (talk) 14:53, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia deals with verifiable evidence. I can't find any such verifiable evidence that states the lockout was the NHL's 88th season, but I can find numerous sources to contradict that claim. Jmj713 (talk) 15:04, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
 * However, you have already been shown that the NHL Guide identifies the 2004-05 NHL season as the Canadiens' "88th NHL Season" and as the Maple Leafs "88th NHL Season" (and you do know that those two teams started play in the NHL's first NHL season, right?), so your only remaining concern is that you want to be shown an Official NHL Source stating the explicit, word-for-word phrase "2004-05 was the 88th season of the NHL"? Really?? Is that's what it will take to satisfy you? Or even then would you insist that such source is wrong? Dolovis (talk) 15:36, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Of course it would be wrong. However, there is no such source, because it's false. There was no season played. Jmj713 (talk) 15:41, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Please note that in the first two questions I raised, I explicitly requested that we examine the views of the official NHL record book and secondary sources that compile statistical records, not news sources. When it comes to the record book for a sport, the governing body defines the meaning of all terms. For example, the NHL has defined a "win" to include overtime and shootout wins. To use a different definition would require secondary sources compiling statistics, equivalent to the NHL's repository of records, that used a different definition, so Wikipedia could draw upon these secondary statistical sources for its accounting of wins based on the different definition. Then it must be shown that this different definition is the dominant one used by most people, in direct opposition to the NHL's definition. For this last point, sources such as news articles and books can be used. isaacl (talk) 15:04, 15 April 2011 (UTC)


 * These are the normal discussions when discussing statistical records. You have to keep a level head and make sense independently. It seems clear, based on the NHL Guide 2011 that the NHL appears to define an 'NHL season' to include the 04-05 lockout. But the NHL is also inconsistent on this. But the NHL does not define Season (sport). There was no 'season of play' in 04-05. No team won the Stanley Cup. There is no disagreement there either. That the AHL or any other league operated is irrelevant. The NHL's early records are known to be wildly inaccurate. There is a whole group of people developing summaries of old-time games. There is no valid reason why we cannot, by consensus, use the term 'season of play'. That's what I advocate. Because that makes sense in keeping with sport definitions. It prevents Wikipedia from becoming beholden to marketing. Wikipedia also differs when it comes to Olympics and World Championships. We know about those cans of worms. &#x0298; alaney2k  &#x0298; ( talk ) 16:04, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
 * There is one big reason that we shouldn't do it that way, it will confuse readers if we have one number in our season articles and the NHL has another number. For this reason alone we should stick to what the league uses. That being said at this point with 4 people saying we should go by what the official record says and 2 saying we shouldn't and two not actually outright saying which way we should go there is no consensus to do anything to override the the official record. I personally think it makes more sense to add the "season of play" on the relatively few milestone season articles to clarify why the two numbers don't jive. Than to throw every other season article out of alignment with the official record. -DJSasso (talk) 16:15, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I'd rather not follow the NHL's inconsistency. The Sabres called this season their 40th, in contravention of the Guide. If we stay consistent with season of play, then we don't have to care about the NHL's inconsistency. The NHL's records have lots of errors. So does the HHOF. Even I sent in a correction to the NHL Guide that was reflected in the 2011 book. SIHR keeps statistics. I'll see what their records say for the year. I will probably meet with one of the NHL Guide editors when the 2012 book is released. Maybe I can e-mail him prior to that. &#x0298; alaney2k  &#x0298; ( talk ) 16:25, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I strongly disagree with your statement. The reader would be more confused if the non-season is counted as a season. Again, the Vancouver Canucks are explicity celebrating their 40th season. This count omits the lockout as it should. By your standard, the 2010-11 Cancucks article should say it is their 41st season. The reader would be very confused. However, if we adopt the logical way, this doesn't even arise, as the article will simply state it's the 40th season, end of story. Jmj713 (talk) 16:21, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
 * No that exactly not what I said. What I said is that it should say its their 40th season of play, and 41st season overall. Or some such. The reader would understand exactly what was meant. If we adopt your way whenever the league says its the 94th season and our articles say its the 93rd season then people say. Wow there goes wikipedia being wrong again. I would also point out the rangers are celebrating their 85th season right now....so it goes both ways. -DJSasso (talk) 16:24, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
 * But I have never seen any source, including the league saying it's not the season it is. After work I will stop by a local Barnes & Noble and check out this Guide, but I don't understand why we must keep to one single source when an overwhelming majority of other sources, including the league itself and the teams, wholly contradict it? As for the Rangers, look above where I posted a link to the 2010-11 Rangers Media Guide, and official publication. It says it's the 85th Anniversary, not season. Jmj713 (talk) 16:27, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
 * We stick to it because its up to the league that they title the season. They have titled it the 94th season. The league could call next season "173rd NHL season" and we would be required to note that that is what the season is called. Would we say they played 173 seasons? No we definitely would not. But the name of the season would be the 173rd NHL season none the less. As for your comments, that is what Vancouvers logo says as well. -DJSasso (talk) 16:32, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
 * That would be complete lunacy!

Here's an analogy. If a TV show is on the air for several seasons, DVDs come out, everything is labeled chronologically: Season 1, Season 2. During the off-season the writers were working on the new Season 3. The network came in a said they don't like where the story is going. They end up cancelling the show. Due to popular demand they resurrect the show a year later. The writers write new scripts. The show airs. The DVDs come out. Do they put Season 3 or Season 4 on the box? Jmj713 (talk) 16:35, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Actually I just read about that happening with a movie franchise. And yes they skipped the number of the movie they started and cancelled. Not television but it is equivalent I think. -DJSasso (talk) 16:36, 15 April 2011 (UTC)


 * That's why the article would say the third movie, even if it were titled Movie 4. To your point of numbers, it would appear that there is no consensus. Would you amenable to a) removing numbers b) stating both c) stating only NHL or d) stating on season(sport) numbers? &#x0298; alaney2k  &#x0298; ( talk ) 16:51, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Like I said. I have no problem listing X season of play. As long as we also include what the NHL officially calls it. Personally I would rather do this on articles where there might be confusion. Like Vancouvers this year where the numbers don't align. However, I would be willing to do it on all of them from the lockout going forward. -DJSasso (talk) 16:54, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
 * To use the example of our article for 2005-06 Calgary Flames season. "The 2005–06 Calgary Flames season was the 26th NHL season in Calgary while the team celebrated its 25th season of play." Its very susinct and easy to understand. I don't think anyone could claim that someone would be confused by it. -DJSasso (talk) 17:01, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
 * It's needlessly wordy. It should just say it was their 25th season, because they're not celebrating years. Celebrations can be mentioned in the body of the article. It's when a team is celebrating years, like the Rangers, do we need to make a distinction, "84th season, 85 years since establishment". Jmj713 (talk) 17:18, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
 * So you aren't willing to compromise at all? Good to know. -DJSasso (talk) 17:21, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Of course I'm willing to compromise. This goes back once again to what a season is. It is not just time; that's years. Which is why we have for the Rangers their 84th season, 85th year since establishment. No inconsistencies, no ambiguities, no confusion. Jmj713 (talk) 17:25, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Right, but what a season is in the NHL apparently differs from your view of what a season is. The way we compromise so that both sides are happy is to list both. Listing both is no more wordy than saying 84th season and 85th year since establishment. In doing it this way we are still leaving out what the NHL offically calls it. It calls it a season. -DJSasso (talk) 17:29, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Not just my view, but anyway, at best a few sources seem to contradict the overwhelming first- and third-party sources that do correctly disregard the lockout when counting seasons. Based on this fact alone I believe we have enough grounds to dismiss the Guidebook. Jmj713 (talk) 17:33, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

We still have to wait for several years, but I would be shocked if the NHL celebrates its 100th season during its 99th season of play. Jmj713 (talk) 16:46, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
 * It is unfortunate that it is a few years off....because that would help make a definative answer. -DJSasso (talk) 16:48, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
 * They can, of course celebrate 100 years since the league's founding, as the Rangers and the Sharks are doing this year. Still not seasons, though. Jmj713 (talk) 16:52, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
 * They could do like the Canadiens and celebrate for two years. -DJSasso (talk) 16:54, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
 * The Canadiens celebrated for a period of 12 months (well, with lead-up activities first) that spanned two seasons. isaacl (talk) 17:08, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I know...I was making a joke... -DJSasso (talk) 17:09, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

The NHL doesn't define what the term "win" means for all sports, but it defines "win" in terms of the NHL. Similarly, it doesn't control how the term "season" is used generally, but it chooses how to label its own periods of operation. In the interest of trying to put the brakes on everyone just repeating their views over and over again, I'm suggesting we look at what the various statistical database sources have done, and take our cue from there. isaacl (talk) 17:08, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
 * If the NHL used unique words for seasons, like Red Season, Green Season, or something like that, then yes. But they're not, they're just numbers. And in the three years between 2003-04 and 2005-06 only two seasons of the NHL took place. Jmj713 (talk) 17:18, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Further to my point above, SIHR does not list 2004-05 as a season for any of the NHL teams. Hockeydb.com, which is run by a member of SIHR, also does not list 2004-05 as a season. E.g., |Ottawa Senators. So it is the statistical norm to not consider it a season. &#x0298; alaney2k  &#x0298; ( talk ) 17:03, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Not sure the link to hockeydb shows anything either way. It is just a listing of stats for the years that were played. It doesn't actually label the seasons. -DJSasso (talk) 17:05, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Positions to date
Here is what I believe the main positions are:

In support of counting 2004–2005 as a numbered season:
 * The NHL Official Guide and Record Book identifies the period with a numbered season.
 * The league continued to transact business (outside of the scope of collective bargaining) during this period.
 * To number seasons in Wikipedia differently than the NHL would be against Wikipedia's policies on original research and undue weight, and would make Wikipedia appear inconsistent with the NHL's record book.

In support of omitting 2004–2005 as a numbered season:
 * Various news articles do not give the period a season number.
 * There is no clear view from the NHL that it has labelled the period as a numbered season. The media guides from some teams (Calgary Flames) do not assign the period a numbered season.
 * "Season" is widely interpreted to refer to a period where scheduled games took place; it is confusing to count 2004–2005 as a season when no games were contested.

The point regarding the NHL's position relies upon how much weight is given to the printed NHL Official Guide and Record Book. Everything else I think is understood (though not necessarily agreed to by everyone) and so I suggest we do not need to add more comments attempting to clarify these positions.

Here are the proposed going-forward positions I have seen, both of which distinguish between years of operation and seasons where scheduled games were held, so the NHL has one more year of operation versus season of play.
 * Proposal 1
 * Use the unqualified term "season" to refer to a season of play.
 * Use a qualified term such as "year of operation" or "years since establishment" to refer to a year of operation.
 * Proposal 2
 * Use the qualified term "season of play" (or something similiar, perhaps "competitive season" or "season of competition") to refer to a season of play.
 * Use the qualified term "NHL season" to refer to a year of operation.

Again, I think everyone's previously-expressed views are well-understood. Does anyone have any new comments to offer? The two proposals are very similar so I would hope an agreement can be reached on a way forward. isaacl (talk) 18:14, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Your first point, "The NHL Official Guide and Record Book identifies the period with a numbered season" is incorrect. At least it hasn't been shown to me by those claiming to have seen the guide. As I said, after work tonight I will stop by a bookstore and verify for myself that the Guide explicitly identifies and numbers the lockout as the 88th season. Jmj713 (talk) 18:19, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
 * You were shown with a direct quote by Dolovis that it did. -DJSasso (talk) 18:21, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Where exactly? I agree with Proposal 1, a season should refer to a season of play, which it is. Years of operation are not seasons. Jmj713 (talk) 18:23, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
 * He gave you page numbers and everything....And Proposal 2 makes the most sense since it covers both sides wishes where as the first one only covers the wishes of what currently looks to be the minority. -DJSasso (talk) 18:25, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes he gave page numbers for where it supposedly states such and such a years was the team's such and such season, which would appear to count the lockout. The wording above is: "The NHL Official Guide and Record Book identifies the period with a numbered season". Jmj713 (talk) 18:28, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
 * And that is what it is doing, identifying the period with a numbered season. The 2004-05 season is the Nth season. I really don't understand what it is you think you should see. How much more clear is it that the league identified it as a numbered season when it outright said "Such and such a year was its 88th season." So I am not sure how anyone has not shown you. At this point I think you are just being disingenuous. -DJSasso (talk) 18:32, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
 * No, as far as I can tell from what Dolovis has told us, it lists team seasons with numbers. I will verify this. However, the point above is about identifying the NHL season itself with a number. Jmj713 (talk) 18:34, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Its the same thing. If the Montreal Canadians who were in the league since the first year had 88 seasons. Then the league to must have had 88 seasons. Now you are just being ridiculous. -DJSasso (talk) 18:36, 15 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Again, I suggest that we avoid repeating previously-expressed views. I am not saying all the points are agreed upon, but that we all understand what the points are, and that we all understand the opposition to them (hence the point that there is no clear position from the NHL). Every view has already been re-stated many times; another go-around without adding something new isn't going to help reach an agreement. isaacl (talk) 18:24, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I understand that. I was only pointing out a factual mistake. Jmj713 (talk) 18:26, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I appreciate your desire to argue your position passionately, but you have previously pointed this out, and everyone clearly understood you (even if they didn't agree). Let's not go through another iteration of the same point-counterpoint. isaacl (talk) 18:33, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Obviously DJSasso hasn't, or he wouldn't be asking me over and over what I mean when I have stated repeatedly what I mean. Identifying the lockout with a season number (88) in the Guide. If it doesn't, this is all moot, because it seems to be the only source to do so, while the majority of other sources I have given contradict it. Jmj713 (talk) 18:36, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Because you keep contradicting yourself or ignoring what other people have said. Like you are doing right now. You are ignoring the fact that many people have argued that the NHL and those sources are talking about two different things. Seasons of play and Seasons of existance. -DJSasso (talk) 18:39, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Teams exist in time, in years. Not seasons. A season actually spans two years. Jmj713 (talk) 18:40, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
 * That actually supports my position more than yours. We use the word seasons to count the time that teams exist because it spans years. Using the words years causes confusion because there are two years involved in every season. When you talk about a team you say their 25th season, you don't tend to say their 25th year. This is why so many people were confused by the Canadiens the other year because they decided to break with the normal way of doing it. Instead of celebrating by season they celebrated by year and confused most of the country. And why it was a reoccuring news story that people didn't understand why the team was celebrating during two different seasons. -DJSasso (talk) 18:42, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
 * But most teams are doing that. They are celebrating years in existence because it's easier. Counting seasons is cumbersome, in addition to the non-season on top of things. Which is why we're having this debate. I wish it were simpler. I'll stop now before I get more information on what's printed in the Guide. Jmj713 (talk) 18:48, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
 * A season for a sporting team can be considered as a fiscal year. So an MLB baseball season, for example, can be said to span from the end of one World Series to the next. isaacl (talk) 18:49, 15 April 2011 (UTC)


 * As far as I can tell, DJSasso understood what you were saying, even if he didn't agree. To all participants: there's no need to go over the same ground unless you have something new to add; you're just making everyone's watchlists longer. isaacl (talk) 18:46, 15 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Adding any amendment in the post-lockout NHL seasons & NHL team seasons articles, would still give those articles an unusual look in their respective intros, though. GoodDay (talk) 18:23, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
 * No it wouldn't, it would just extend the length of a sentence by 5 or 6 words. -DJSasso (talk) 18:24, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
 * This much is certain, we can't let the individual team decide. They must all be consistant. GoodDay (talk) 18:28, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
 * The teams for the most part are celebrating years of operation, which is absolutely fine. Jmj713 (talk) 18:29, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

If we rely on official NHL guides, here's the official Calgary Flames guide for 2010-11. It states: "The Calgary Flames will mark their 30th NHL season". Jmj713 (talk) 19:07, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the information; I've amended the position statements accordingly. isaacl (talk) 19:21, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Also, here's the Senators' guide. Look on page 174. It says: "First 17 seasons at a glance". And it lists 18 seasons including the lockout. So, they too obviously dismiss the lockout. Jmj713 (talk) 19:25, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
 * As pointed out earlier the Flames have flip flopped on the issue because they celebrated their 30th season last year and called it such in many of their press releases. As have other teams. But again, none of them are the league. As for the Senators...they are clearly talking about the first 17 season they played. -DJSasso (talk) 19:26, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
 * So you can discern what they mean when in fact teams are clearly disregarding the lockout when counting seasons. That's all that matters in this debate, whether to count it. It's obvious there will not be any disagreement with how many actual seasons have been played. Jmj713 (talk) 19:30, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Right but this discussion isn't about if they count it for a total. Its about what the name of the season is. Offically the season of the lockout was called the 88th season. And the next was the 89th season. In pure counts yes its not counted in the total of season played. But that isn't what this whole thing has been about and no one from the beginning has disagreed with you on the fact that there have been 93 total season played. Which is what I tried to explain to you last night, that sentence in season articles, isn't giving the total number of seasons played. Its listing what the season is designated as by the NHL. In other words its name or title. -DJSasso (talk) 19:31, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
 * It has not been called the 88th season. Please provide a direct link to support that claim. The Record book we talked about does not number individual league seasons, unless Dolovis can give us an update. Like I said, I will stop by a bookstore later today and verify what it says regarding the lockout. I have given a tremendous amount of overwhelming evidence to support my position, yet you dismiss it out of hand without any counter-evidence. Under normal conditions, I believe I have presented more than a sufficient amount of reliable sources for Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jmj713 (talk • contribs)
 * Whatever, I am done arguing with a stone wall. I tried to work out a compromise so your side could be displayed on the articles as well as mine. You weren't interested. As it stands consensus is completely against you. If other people come and sway the tide of consensus so be it. But as it stands right now, you don't appear to have any consensus for your position. -DJSasso (talk) 19:39, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I can - and have - provide numerous sources saying 2004-05 "would have been" the 88th season, and saying 2005-06 is the 88th season. None to the contrary. How can the consensus (you) be against me, if you haven't provided any sources to back up your claims and I have provided dozens. Jmj713 (talk) 19:40, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I know...you keep repeating that...while still failing to understand that your sources are talking about seasons played. Which no one is disagreeing with. What you are disputing is the naming of the seasons which we have provided sources that the NHL called the lockout Montreals 88th season and then calls the next season their 89th season. He provideed quotes from both those years guidebooks. And the consensus is not me....there have been 4 editors who have said you are wrong. -DJSasso (talk) 19:44, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
 * We are not talking about Montreal. Jmj713 (talk) 19:45, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes we are, these are team season pages. So its completely relevant what the NHL lists the teams season as. Which is why this section is title NHL team season articles. -DJSasso (talk) 19:46, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Then you are jumping from one thing to another. You talk about whether the NHL numbers the lockout as its 88th season, and then switch to Montreal when confronted with contrary evidence. Jmj713 (talk) 19:49, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Because they are one in the same, if Montreal's season was called the 88th season and Montreal has been in the league since season 1. Then logically it must mean its also the leagues 88th season. They can't be on seperate numbers. -DJSasso (talk) 19:51, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
 * 2004-05 would have been Montreal's 96th. Jmj713 (talk) 19:54, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
 * NHL season. Stop trying to be difficult. -DJSasso (talk) 19:54, 15 April 2011 (UTC)


 * The Senators media guide isn't really taking a position; the heading can be considered to just be describing that the list below has team statistics for 17 seasons. isaacl (talk) 19:36, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

In case it isn't already evident, just repeating the same arguments isn't convincing anyone to change their minds. Can you focus on finding more information to clarify the value of one proposal over another, or on a new proposal that helps combine their strengths? Going through the team media guides to find additional primary source information is a good start. isaacl (talk) 19:54, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Which is what I've been doing. Apparently all that matters is the phantom Record book and only that. Jmj713 (talk) 19:56, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Please, can either one of you stop responding to the other with the same arguments? (And you don't have to respond to this comment explaining how you are or aren't; we can already see what you're doing.) Don't worry, the person to speak last won't win by default. (Of course, if you have new points to make or new information to discuss, by all means, please contribute them.) isaacl (talk) 20:04, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Really you aren't doing anything but egging it on further you realize right? :P -DJSasso (talk) 20:06, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
 * The hope is to egg it onto using new words and sentences, instead of just the same old ones over and over again ;-) isaacl (talk) 20:11, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Would be a waste of time. He thinks anyone that doesn't agree is just wrong. I could have the comissioner come up to him in person and tell him. Or the team owners and he would still say they are wrong and that he is right. He has said as much already. Yes a primary source outwieghs newspapers sources. -DJSasso (talk) 19:57, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
 * The problem isn't our positions. The problem is that we are talking about two different things and he insists on continueing on with what he is talking about, when that isn't what is being disagreed with. He keeps trying to proove to me something I already agreed with. -DJSasso (talk) 19:59, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
 * That's why there's no need to continue down that thread. Both of you agree on a distinction between years of operation and seasons of play. The question is do we have a workable approach for reflecting this in the text? What are the specific issues with using the term "season of play" versus "season", or "year of operation" versus "NHL season"? isaacl (talk) 20:08, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
 * If I understand his complaint earlier correctly. Saying "was the 26th NHL season in Calgary while the team celebrated its 25th season of play." was too wordy. While "was the 25th season in Calgary while the team celebrated its 26th year of establishment" was fine, when they are about the same length. So to me the issue is no matter what anyone suggests, if we use the word season he won't be willing to play ball. Frankly I don't see why the propossed wording wasn't acceptable other than trying to "win" an arguement and thus it must be rejected. DJSasso (talk) 20:13, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Not true. The terminology itself is not as big an issue as numbering. Saying it's a team's, for instance, 5th season when it should be 4th is factually incorrect. I'm all for saying "season of play". It was done like that on most article prior to this debate. But plainly saying it's a team's 5th season and that's it is wrong. Jmj713 (talk) 20:14, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Then you are having an issue with the terminology. You are having an issue with saying season. We are putting the number you agree with in the sentence. The number that doesn't include the lockout. While mentioning that it would actually be the season + 1 had the lockout not occured. I fail to see what is incorrect about that. You get the number you want, the one minus the lockout. And the people who like to follow the NHLs stance get the number they like. That way readers would not be confused when they compare either newspapers or the nhls wording to the article because both are there. -DJSasso (talk) 20:18, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
 * The Calgary example is not the best one because it's one of those where a team celebrated seasons, not years. Most teams celebrate years. The Rangers and the Sharks current seasons, respectively, should, and I believe do, read "is the team's 84th season of play. The franchise is celebrating 85 years since its establishment in 1926"; "is the team's 19th season of play. The franchise is celebrating 20 years since its establishment in 1991". Jmj713 (talk) 20:24, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
 * You can change the name to any team it still works. I just used Calgary cause its a team I follow. The basic idea is X NHL season and X season of play. For the sharks I would say "was the 20th NHL season in San Jose while the team celebrated its 19th season of play." -DJSasso (talk) 20:26, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
 * They're not celebrating 19, they're celebrating 20. They even have special patches on their jerseys. Why isn't this statement valid: "The 2010-11 San Jose Sharks season is the team's 19th season of play in the NHL. The franchise is celebrating 20 years since starting play." Jmj713 (talk) 20:30, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Which is the exact same thing. They are celebrating their 20th season since joining the league. During that time they had 19 seasons of play. The issue with using the word year is that is not what the NHLs official terminology used. The goal of compromising was to make the sentence true to both sources. The NHL considers it San Joses 20th NHL season. And I purposefully put in "NHL season" instead of just season so its clear that we are talking about what the NHL calls a season and not season in general. -DJSasso (talk) 20:32, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
 * OK, so sounds like both of you favour "season of play"; can we now agree on whether we can use "NHL season", "year of operation", or something else? isaacl (talk) 20:22, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
 * NHL season versus year of operation. Well the problem with year of operation is that the teams would have started operating a few years before they actually play a game. NHL season is a good option because that is what the NHL's guidebook calls it. -DJSasso (talk) 20:23, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
 * "Year of operation" was just my suggestion for a more concise way of saying "years since the first time the team has participated in a regular-season NHL game." Perhaps "year of NHL participation", or "year of NHL membership"? isaacl (talk) 20:28, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Well the idea I am shooting for is that we should be trying to use the same terminology as the league. Atleast for part of the sentence. Because we should list the official language. We can also add onto that the language that Jmj713 likes that is often found in papers. By sticking to what is found in both types of sources we are being true to all sources. -DJSasso (talk) 20:31, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
 * "Years since starting play" or "year of NHL participation" is still accurate, though. If the official language isn't sufficient prevalent, then it may not be that important to highlight. isaacl (talk) 20:36, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
 * The articles we have are used to chronicle team performances in the league, aren't they? Simply using "seasons of play" gets rid of any ambiguities. Jmj713 (talk) 20:39, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure what you're trying to say; I'm trying to see if a common agreement can be reached on what to call the number of years a team has been participating in the NHL. DJSasso has proposed "NHL season"; you have suggested terms such as "years since starting play" and "years since establishment". I added a few more suggestions; any other ones? isaacl (talk) 20:43, 15 April 2011 (UTC)


 * They are also supposed to be the history of that season, ie the business that team conducts and what not. Not just the statistics. They include more detailed history of the team than the general team page has. But few of them ever get expanded that far because it takes a long time and by time people get them going good a new year has started. Essentially there should be as much or more prose on the page about stuff not about performance than the raw stats. But as we all know wikipedia is never "finished". -DJSasso (talk) 20:43, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

To get back to what constitutes a season, it's too bad the NHL doesn't explicitly define that it is a season of play, the Rules do, however, whenever mentioning the word "season" speak exclusively regarding playing games. Jmj713 (talk) 20:05, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Round and round we go. The 2004-05 season included a "season of play".  It was, however, cancelled by the lockout. Resolute 22:33, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Also, there's another thing to keep in mind, if you want to get technical. Some teams, when celebrating anniversaries will say it's their whatever year. For instance the Rangers are celebrating their 85th anniversary this season. However, their first game took place on November 16, 1926, and 85 years since that date would be on November 16, 2011 - next season. Even if you take the date the team was established, May 15, 1926, that falls to mid-playoffs, when the Rangers may be out already. So for the Rangers their 85th season and 85th year will both be next season. It's all just marketing. Jmj713 (talk) 21:14, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Is anybody here, capable of contacting the NHL offices? Maybe we can get a definitive answer from them. GoodDay (talk) 22:42, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Agreement and question
It seems an agreement has been reached on using the term "season of play" to describe all seasons where scheduled games were contested (therefore the numbering of seasons of play will exclude 2004–2005). Although the latest discussion was between two editors, I believe the earlier statements of others indicate they too would agree to this consensus (if this is not the case, please respond). Thanks very much to everyone for their input!

The remaining question is regarding the term "NHL season". What do people think about using this term to denote a year of a team's participation in the NHL, as counted from the team's first NHL game? The numbering sequence for this would include the lockout year, and so starting in 2005–2006 would be equal to 1 + the number of seasons of play. isaacl (talk) 23:02, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I just want to make sure there's no skipping of numbering involved, which at the moment is the case 'concerning' Dolovis' edits. GoodDay (talk) 23:12, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

The clear consensus of this discussion is that the NHL Seasons started with the 1917–18 NHL season which was the first NHL season, and has continued through to the 2010–11 NHL season which is the 94th NHL season. Dolovis (talk) 02:51, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
 * So you consider 2004-05 to the NHL's 88th season. GoodDay (talk) 02:54, 16 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Commenting on the Post-lock NHL season articles changes you've made, "Nth season NHL season"? GoodDay (talk) 03:07, 16 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Let's not be hasty in declaring a clear consensus before others who have previously argued against counting 2004-05 as a season have had a chance to consider the specific question regarding the use of the term "NHL season" and comment. isaacl (talk) 04:49, 16 April 2011 (UTC)


 * I agree that the term NHL season is as Isaacl describes. But I don't think that that is the real dispute. It's the numbering used in the leads of the articles. And I disagree that there is a consensus. The Guide is an official document and if editors consider the information to be important, then it should not be banned. But it's got problems as described above. It does not count seasons of play. I suggest that the primary numbering be the seasons of play, with any other relevant numbering added. E.g. seasons in the NHL, WHA, in Quebec or Phoenix or whatever. As in "The 2010-11 Ottawa Senators season is the 18th season of play of the Ottawa Senators NHL team. It is the 19th NHL season of the franchise." The lockout article for the Senators could omit the season of play though, I suppose. &#x0298; alaney2k  &#x0298; ( talk ) 06:02, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Which editor do you believe has objected to using the term "season of play" as I have described above, which aligns with your sample sentence? As I recall, Dolovis hasn't made a statement either way, but everyone else has at one point supported the term "season of play", just as you describe. isaacl (talk) 14:35, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Resolute did above, he believes that even the cancelled season had a season of play, but that the season of play was cancelled. I do sort of believe this as well but got tired of arguing around and around in the circles with Jmj. -DJSasso (talk) 14:37, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I overlooked that Resolute did agree at one point with the idea of a difference between the two, but disagreed with putting it in the lead. Perhaps in the interest of breaking the stalemate, we can reach an agreement to include the number of seasons of play, as I believe this is a notable fact that readers are interested in when calculating statistics about a team? isaacl (talk) 14:45, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Check out Dolovis' solution at the post-lockout NHL season articles, which I tweaked a little. GoodDay (talk) 14:53, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes thats what we have been asking for basically the whole time. -DJSasso (talk) 14:55, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I'll implement this solution into the post-lockout NHL team season articles. GoodDay (talk) 15:03, 16 April 2011 (UTC)


 * The following compromise has now been incorporated into the post-lockout NHL Season articles: The 2010–11 NHL season 94th season of operation (93rd season of play) of the National Hockey League. I trust this meeets with most everyone's acceptance. I do not see the same consensus among in this discussion that this compromise should follow for the individual teams. Dolovis (talk) 15:10, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
 * For the post-lockout NHL team season article intros, for example we'd have "20th season of operation (19th season of play)" within the 2011-12 Ottawa Senators season intro. GoodDay (talk) 15:16, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I oppose putting that wordy phrase in all of the indivdual NHL teams articles. We have a solid and verifiable source that explicitly states that it is the 'Ottawa Senators 20th NHL season". That is something that we did not yet find for the NHL Seasons articles. Additionally, some teams have moved, which seems to require clarification of play, and it just gets too wordy. Dolovis (talk) 15:45, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
 * The problem would then remain, as you've still got inconsistancy in the Post-lockout NHL team season articles. GoodDay (talk) 15:51, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
 * There should be no problem for you because there is no inconsistency. Just follow the verifiable source (such as the Official NHL Guide and Record Book) and count the 2004-05 season as a season for each of the individual teams. That is what the NHL does, and that is what the vast majority of this discussion has agreed is the proper thing to do. Some may still maintain that the lockout season was not a season, however such logic flies in the face of the reliable sources. Dolovis (talk) 22:06, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry to get back to this, but which reliable sources? I've provided dozens of reliable sources disproving your position of counting the lockout as a season, yet you just cling to a single source and somehow that outweights it. As yet another example, the 2010-11 Washington Capitals Official Media Guide omits any mention of the 2004-05 "season" whatsoever. Jmj713 (talk) 22:14, 16 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Well tonight or tommorrow, I'm gonna start fixing the numbering on those articles, so that they'll add up to your 2011-12 totals. GoodDay (talk) 22:13, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

I still maintain that the lockout was not a season. Thus, the season of play number must come first in the lead. The lockout was just a period of time the league existed, but essential league business (playing games) was put on hold. Here is a real-life example: the WPHL. There were only nine seasons played in that league, but its existence spanned 13 years. Does that mean it had 13 seasons? No, it had nine. Jmj713 (talk) 17:04, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't think the WPHL existed while the IPHL was in existence. &#x0298; alaney2k  &#x0298; ( talk ) 19:34, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
 * The WPHL actually ceased its operations for three (not four) years. They shut down after the 1903-04 season, and then the league was revived for the 1907-08 season. There were no operations at all in the between time, thus there were no seasons. That is very different from the NHL's lockout year where the league was busy with on-going operational issues, including labour negotiations, drafting, scouting, marketing, merchandising, staffing, farm teams, ect.
 * Yes, it's not an identical situation, yet the gist is that still both leagues did not play consecutive seasons, regardless of the circumstances. Any next season, be it a year later or four years later, will still just be the next season not +1 or +4. Jmj713 (talk) 22:22, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, you have made your opinion very clear, and you have demonstrated that you are unwilling to change from your position. You should be pleased that your opinion has been taken into consideration for the compromise that was reached for the NHL Seasons, but you must now also understand and accept that the consensus of the discussion for the individual team's seasons in the NHL has sided conclusively that the 'Official NHL Guide and Record Book' is to be taken as a verifiable source when it comes to the issue of numbering the NHL Seasons for the individual teams. Dolovis (talk) 23:01, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
 * You seem to have reached that conclusion all by yourself. You still haven't answered my question why you feel the Guide outweighs other sources including the NHL's and the teams'? I'm fully willing to compromise and reach a solid consensus, yet you don't appear to want to listen to reason and countless verifiable pieces of evidence and cling to your single source as your only argument. Jmj713 (talk) 23:05, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Season (sport) is an important statistic, not a "title", which the NHL season is. We should treat it in that manner, and have it in all articles describing actual seasons of play. I would rather use 20th NHL season (19th season of play) as a small modification of what GoodDay has proposed. We should probably make a redirect of NHL season to the appropriate article, where it will be explained. &#x0298; alaney2k  &#x0298; ( talk ) 19:32, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I've been changing the numbering of the Post-lockout team season articles, so that they add up to Dolovis' total on the 2011-12 articles. I do this 'not' because I support that 2004-05 is a season, but because I'm annoyed with the articles-in-question being out of sync. It'll take me awhile, as there's games on my TV. GoodDay (talk) 23:10, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Wouldn't it have been easier to just change the 2011-12 articles instead? Jmj713 (talk) 23:13, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I tried that a couple of days ago & Dolovis reverted me. Thus I came here (WP:HOCKEY) for clarification & here we are. GoodDay (talk) 23:14, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Team season articles
OK, I see a few proposals for wording at the start of each team article. Here a few examples, with minor alterations from some of the above examples to avoid repetition while improving the grammar. [Note: a few more proposals have been added based on further discussion.]
 * 1) "The 2010–11 season is the 93rd season of play (94th NHL season) for the Montreal Canadiens National Hockey League franchise."
 * 2) "The 2010–11 season is the 94th NHL season (93rd season of play) for the Montreal Canadiens National Hockey League franchise."
 * 3) "The 2010–11 season is the 93rd season of play for the Montreal Canadiens National Hockey League franchise."
 * 4) "The 2010–11 season is the 94th NHL season for the Montreal Canadiens National Hockey League franchise."
 * 5) "The 2010–11 season is the 93rd season of play (94th year in the NHL) for the Montreal Canadiens National Hockey League franchise."
 * 6) "The 2010–11 season is the 94th year in the NHL (93rd season of play) for the Montreal Canadiens National Hockey League franchise."

We seem to have a split of opinion, so perhaps interested editors can list all the options they are willing to live with, in the spirit of compromise, and hopefully there is one that can achieve consensus. isaacl (talk) 22:57, 16 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Has anyone been able to find a source to verify that this is the "93rd season of play for the Montreal Canadiens"? Without a verifiable source that statement violates No original research. On the other hand, the fact that it is the "Montreal Canadiens 94th NHL Season" is verified with a source. If we just agree to follow policy then there is no further debate. Dolovis (talk) 23:07, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
 * You need a source for math? Jmj713 (talk) 23:08, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
 * As you seem to have agreed that it is the 93rd season in which the NHL has contested games, I'm not sure why you don't agree it is the 93rd season in which the Canadiens NHL franchise has contested games. As the previous discussion agreed upon the meaning of season of play, all we need to do is count the number of seasons of play. Reliable sources are not required for routine calculations. isaacl (talk) 23:13, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Here's a source. It talks about the 2010-11 NHL season as the NHL's (and thus, according to Dolovis) Montreal's 93rd season. Jmj713 (talk) 23:19, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
 * And here's a source from the NHL stating that 2007-08 is the 90th season. The 88th season would thus be the 2005-06. There would have been no 2004-05 season, as there wasn't. I cannot make this any clearer. Jmj713 (talk) 23:38, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Actually the 2002–03 season was the Montreal Canadiens 94th season of play. The 2010-11 season was the Montreal Canadiens 94th NHL Season. Dolovis (talk) 23:36, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I do not see the phrase "season of play" within the source. Jmj713 (talk) 23:39, 16 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Note the sample sentences are discussing the seasons of play of the Montreal Canadiens NHL franchise. isaacl (talk) 23:57, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

This has been discussed to death, the sources are verified, and the matter has been settled by consensus. These are the verified facts: The 2010-11 season is the NHL's 94th season, the Ducks' 18th NHL Season, the Thrashers' 12th NHL Season, the Bruins 87th NHL Season, the Sabres' 41stNHL Season, the Flames' 39th NHL Season, the Hurricanes' 32nd NHL Season, the Blackhawks' 85th NHL Season, the Avalanche's 32nd NHL Season, the Blue Jackets' 11th NHL Season, the Stars' 44th NHL Season, the Red Wings' 85th NHL Season, the Oilers' 32nd NHL Season, the Panthers' 18th NHL Season, the Kings' 44th NHL Season, the Wild's 11th NHL Season, the Canadiens' 94th NHL Season, the Predators' 13th NHL Season, the Devils' 37th NHL Season, the Islanders' 39th NHL Season, the Rangers' 85th NHL Season, the Senators' 19th NHL Season, the Flyers 44th NHL Season, the Coyotes' 32nd NHL Season, the Penguins' 44th NHL Season, the Blues' 44th NHL Season, the Sharks' 20th NHL Season, the Lightning's 19th NHL Season, the Maple Leafs' 94th NHL Season, the Canucks' 41st NHL Season, and the Capitals 37th NHL season - all of which is verified by the annual publications of the Official NHL Guide and Record Book - which has been in print for every year since 1932 (79 years). You may not agree with the Official Records, but that does not change them. To quote Wikipedia's most central policy Verifiability, “The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth: whether readers can check that material in Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether editors think it is true.” Dolovis (talk) 00:02, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Why, out of all the available sources, you have selected just one that conforms to your POV? The Guide fails verifiability because so many other reliable sources contradict it. Jmj713 (talk) 00:06, 17 April 2011 (UTC)


 * If you want to delve deeper into Verifiability, not just skim the top, it also says the following: 'Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published secondary sources [...]. Secondary sources are second-hand accounts, at least one step removed from an event. The Guide book is a primary source. Jmj713 (talk) 00:31, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

I am happy with either 1 or 2. (Montreal is not a good example, as they played for several seasons in the NHA prior to the NHL) The season of play is easily found from hockeydb.com, which is considered a reliable source. For the NHL season, we use the NHL guide. I don't subscribe to the 'contradict relentlessly' method of debate, but I do think that season of play is essential for a statistics almanac. Whereas NHL season is a title. &#x0298; alaney2k  &#x0298; ( talk ) 00:30, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, we need to see examples on the hard cases, too. The current proposals list the seasons of play for the NHL franchise. If someone would like to suggest some more options, please feel free to do so. (And I appreciate your restraint in discussion!) isaacl (talk) 00:53, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I would prefer to use #3. Second choice would be #1, however imperfect, because it will be very confusing to a user, if they're unaware of the consequences of the lockout, why did a team in a single season have its 19th and 20th season at the same time? They won't ponder the delineation of the phrases "season of play" and "NHL season". These are all crutches. The only logical and viable solution is for all post-lockout articles is to simply use the phrase "season of play". That eliminates any ambiguities and crude wording, and the numbering sans lockout is supported by numerous reliable sources (even though, as Isaacl has pointed out, simple math does not need to be cited anyway). Jmj713 (talk) 01:12, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

UPDATE: I've completed the changes to the NHL team season articles Post-lockout. I implemented the majority opinon, that the teams count 2004-05 as a season. All I'm requesting is that if any further changes are made to those articles, please do implement to all of them. GoodDay (talk) 02:10, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
 * #4 is the only choice for the team's seasons that is allowed by WP:V, and choice #2 was the compromise agreed to for the NHL's seasons. The other two choices fail WP:V and WP:ORIGINAL. Dolovis (talk)
 * You are clearly ignoring valid arguments against and are just trying to ram through your POV. Jmj713 (talk) 04:47, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
 * To be fair the same could be said about you, if not more so. You completely wish to ignore that the NHL officially calls it a season. If that isn't ignoring a valid argument and trying to push your POV.... -DJSasso (talk) 13:58, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Not at all. I have demonstrated that the Guide is a flawed and unreliable source with countless reliable sources. Jmj713 (talk) 14:22, 17 April 2011 (UTC)


 * #4 is incomplete for the purpose. There are cases like Montreal, which predate the NHL, Edmonton, which played in another league, along with Quebec/Colorado. #2 is better and more complete. I don't see how it violates wp:original which states that the collection and organization of data is essential. Plus, using -only- the Guide violates wp:primary. It would be preferable to use season only to refer to season (sport), which is supported by secondary source, although the NHL Season is important to indicate what the NHL official description is. Consensus is inclusive, not exclusive. It seems that with the prevailing counter-logic, that we should create 90-91 and 91-92 ottawa senators season articles, but only state 'season of operation.' &#x0298; alaney2k  &#x0298; ( talk ) 04:31, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Number 4 is clearly the best choice as that is what the primary source says. And contrary to what Alaney has said wp:primary allows for clear statement of fact from primary sources. However, as I said before I am willing to compromise with #2. The other two are just no good at all. #4 isn't really incomplete because it says its the "Nth NHL season". For the season pages before they joined the NHL I would put "Nth WHA season" or whatever. -DJSasso (talk) 13:47, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Given its similarity, would #1 be suitable, as it reflects a count of NHL seasons, plus a count of seasons of play for readers to quickly understand the context in which the team's on-ice records should be considered? isaacl (talk) 14:26, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Absolutely not, official name should come before a sub-set number of played seasons. -DJSasso (talk) 19:11, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
 * For the team articles, it's not a question of the official season name, but a count of the number of NHL seasons during which the franchise has been active. What is the advantage in having this count stated before the count of seasons in which a team has contested games? Which count will readers be more interested in? Does it really make a substantive difference either way? isaacl (talk) 20:15, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I believe readers will be more interested in the larger of the two numbers. I know I would be, and I think most people would want to know that number more than how many seasons were actually played. Either way its him you should be asking that question of. The only one objecting to using option #2 is him. Even Alaney2k agreed with #2 and he was the only other one objecting to the generic use of season. -DJSasso (talk) 20:19, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Readers will be interested in the facts. The facts is a team has played a certain amount of seasons, and has existed for an additional year. The lockout was not a season in any way shape or form. If you re-read the entire debate and look at every piece of evidence I have presented this will be evident. Jmj713 (talk) 20:24, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Here's yet another (I've lost count) reliable source. Look at the number of years in the table provided. None of the numbers include the lockout. The Wild, for instance, correctly have 10 seasons, not 11. Can't you see that counting the lockout as a season is just wrong? The Guide book, which is apparently the only source on the planet that does, is wrong, plain and simple. None of the myriad other sources support that. As a statistical example, what if a user would like to calculate the percentage of time the Wild have made the playoffs? They've made the playoffs three times in their history. The user will take 11 seasons you're giving them and get 27.3%. However, the correct percentage would be 30%. Jmj713 (talk) 14:46, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
 * In my changes to the post-lockout team season articles, I noticed some of the 2011-12 articles were numbered to include 2004-05 as their season, while others excluded 2004-05. If these were all done via the NHL source? then that source would seem un-reliable. GoodDay (talk) 16:40, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

If you have found any post-lockout team season articles that are numbered to omit the 2004-05 season, then those articles were not done via the Official NHL Guide, which has been always been consistent to recognized the 2004-05 season of operation. Dolovis (talk) 19:14, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
 * It's unreliable because it contradicts every other source available. When a user will see that as of 2010-11 the Wild have had 11 seasons, that user will not find confirmation of that fact anywhere else, will be confused and decide Wikipedia is wrong. Jmj713 (talk) 16:56, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
 * The over-statements you use to push your POV only serves to emphasize a lack of credibility on this subject. Dolovis (talk) 19:14, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
 * How so? Except a single unreliable primary source you have no evidence to back your claim. I have provided innumerable reliable sources to disprove it. Jmj713 (talk) 19:18, 17 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Having gone through this discussion (these last few days), I'm forced to conclude that the NHL source which Dolovis' is using, is flawed. There was no season in 2004-05 & the NHL Guide appears to be retroactively denying that fact. GoodDay (talk) 17:56, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
 * If by your (unsourced/original research/personal opinion) logic there was no 2004-05 NHL season, then during exactly what NHL season did the 2004 NHL Entry Draft take place? Dolovis (talk) 19:03, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
 * It's plenty sourced. The draft took place during the off-season. The lockout began on September 16, 2004. Jmj713 (talk) 19:07, 17 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Your very own NHL Guide source seems inconsistant, unless you made mistakes on some of the 2011-12 team season articles. GoodDay (talk) 19:05, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
 * To repeat again which has been said over and over, those papers and the guide book are talking about two different things. The papers are talking about total season played. The guidebooks is talking about season title's. It's comparing apples and oranges. One is a total of season played while the other is giving a name. -DJSasso (talk) 19:12, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
 * You are inferring that distinction. All sources stated only "season". No "season of play"; no "seasons played" - "season. The Guide has been irrevocably proven to be factually false.Jmj713 (talk) 19:15, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
 * No, it hasn't been proven factually false. Again a league can name its season whatever it wants. A primary source is 100% reliable and verifiable when it comes to such things. As for inferring that distinction, pretty much every article you mention is talking about a new playing season beginning. It is clear as day that that is what the articles are talking about. -DJSasso (talk) 19:21, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
 * If you want to accept primary sources, then the NHL's own official site NHL.com is one, and it contains numerous contradictions to the Guide book. Moreover, official team media guides, also primary sources, contradict the Guide as well. As I've said, at best the Guide is unreliable and should not be used when an overwhelming majority of sources invalidate it. Jmj713 (talk) 19:27, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Nowhere on the nhl's site is a statement from the league contradicting the league. All you have shown on the leagues site is news articles written by people not part of the league office. So there is no contradiction. Either way, consensus is clearly against you. You can either try to work with us to find a middle ground or you can keep arguing to yourself. -DJSasso (talk) 19:38, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
 * The NHL Draft occurs within the off season. There were no exhibition (i.e. pre-season) games in September 2004 & no NHL playoffs (i.e. post-season) games in 2005. GoodDay (talk) 19:15, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
 * That is the centre of the argument GoodDay, one camp believe season only means when games are being played. The other camp believes the season is the 12 month period from when the last season ended to the season after begins. In other words a business season. The definition of season supports the second option. The 2004 draft would have happened during the business season, but not the season of play. Jmj refuses to acknowledge that teams are businesses and thus we must only go by if games were played. -DJSasso (talk) 19:21, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
 * The NHL teams aren't helping matters by mixing up their cellabrations. GoodDay (talk) 19:24, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
 * The Guide book also talks about seasons played. The season begins when teams play their first game. The season ends when they play the last game. The inbetween time is the off-season. Jmj713 (talk) 19:27, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes it is the off season for the team. But its still the season for the franchise. This is what we are getting at. A business season is broken up into two parts. The Off-Season and the Season of play......In the year where they cancelled the season of play, there was only one part of the business season, the off season. This is what it seems like you are having trouble connecting with. You are talking about the season of the team, and we are talking about the season of the franchise. The team is only one part of the franchise. -DJSasso (talk) 19:35, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Please give a source for this definition of a sports season. Jmj713 (talk) 19:38, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Your own link has it. Remember a team is also a business....so your one definition on that page isn't the only appropriate definition. Its just an example of one meaning. #4 and #7 also apply to this situation. -DJSasso (talk) 19:40, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Clear points
Jmj713 (talk) 19:44, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
 * No source whatsoever has described the lockout as the NHL's 88th season.
 * Numerous sources including the NHL have described post-lockout NHL seasons by numbers excluding the lockout.
 * No source whatsoever has described the post-lockout NHL seasons by numbers including the lockout.
 * No secondary sources support the "lockout was a season" claim.
 * Overwhelming majority of primary and secondary sources support the fact that the lockout was not a season.
 * Counting the lockout as a season is incorrect, does not pass verifiability, corrupts statistical data, and is simply illogical.
 * No NHL source has excluded the lockout. And in no way does counting it corrupt statistical data. Again the difference between a season and a season of play here. When talking about statistical data you talk about the season of play. Its not illogical, the business still operated. That year didn't just disappear. It would be illogical to act like it did. -DJSasso (talk) 19:47, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
 * When talking about number of NHL seasons no source has counted the lockout as a season. Jmj713 (talk) 19:48, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
 * The NHL does...and that is all that matters. Its called self identification. What a entity self identifies as is what we go by even if there are other reports stating differently. This concept was recently used on Wayne Gretzky where numerous sources claimed he had American citizenship, yet a recent interview had him commenting he did not. Now do we go by the one reference that is the source. Or do we go by the hundreds of articles that said he was. This is a concept that is used across wikipedia for things like religion alot and is part of wp:primary sources. A primary sources information is 100% ok these types of judgements. All we are required to do is mention other sources disagree. Which is why we have compromised above. -DJSasso (talk) 19:53, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
 * No, the NHL doesn't. Nowhere have I seen the lockout being referred to explicitly as the NHL's 88th season. To do so would certainly qualify as OR. Whereas post-lockout seasons have been exclusively referred to as excluding the lockout, such as 2007-08 being the 90th season and so on. Jmj713 (talk) 19:56, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
 * BTW, I've changed the intros to the 2004-05 team season articles. Having them say, it's a team season with their games cancelled. GoodDay (talk) 20:08, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I've also changed the numbering of seasons at the List of NHL seasons article, to reflect the 2004-05 was the 88th season. GoodDay (talk) 20:46, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Like I said, that would be clearly OR. Jmj713 (talk) 20:49, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Alaney2k, has already reverted me. GoodDay (talk) 20:50, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Order of season counts
In case it wasn't clear, my previous questions on the viability of proposal #1 versus #2 are open to everyone to discuss. In short, what, in your view, is the substantive difference between the two? Alaney2k has already indicated a willingness to accept either one; can we get some flexibility from the rest, so we can stop re-explaining ourselves, and move on to more productive matters? isaacl (talk) 20:30, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I oppose listing factually wrong information which is unsubstantiated. The actual number of seasons must be listed. If need be, the number of years a franchise has been in the league can be added. Jmj713 (talk) 20:32, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
 * As both proposals 1 and 2 include both numbers, are you willing to show flexibility and live with either proposal? isaacl (talk) 20:39, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
 * No because I don't want to propagate falsehoods and compromise on facts. I have demonstrated repeatedly and convincingly why the lockout was not an NHL season. You can see the six points I listed above, there is nothing to disprove those facts. Jmj713 (talk) 20:43, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
 * You previously indicated you could live with proposal 1; can you explain, in your view, what is the substantive difference between proposal 1 and proposal 2? isaacl (talk) 20:45, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I had said I would like to go with #3. Jmj713 (talk) 20:48, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
 * You had previously indicated that proposal 1 was your second choice; can you explain, in your view, what is the substantive difference between proposal 1 and proposal 2? isaacl (talk) 20:50, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
 * The phrase "94th NHL season" being first. I would amend that to "in its 94th year in the NHL". But that gets too wordy and complicated. Which is why #3 is the clearest and more importantly factually correct way, which is supported by sources. Jmj713 (talk) 20:56, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
 * We can certainly add new proposals for using "Nth year in the NHL". Can you elaborate how, in your view, the order of the counts makes a substantive difference to the reader? Will it really affect them significantly? isaacl (talk) 20:59, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
 * This is moot anyway, as we have established that the only source for counting team seasons including the lockout is unreliable and fails verifiability completely. Thus, double listing of two different numbers is necessary and will confuse users. Years in the NHL don't even need to be listed unless the team is celebrating an anniversary, such as the Sharks, for example. "The 2010-11 San Jose Sharks season is the team's 19th season of play. The Sharks are celebrating 20 years since starting play in the NHL in 1991." Jmj713 (talk) 21:09, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Just as "seasons of play" requires no external source, "years in the NHL" does not require one either, as this is also a simple count of (NHL fiscal) years. There are multiple editors who have not agreed that this information is moot, and so in the interest of reaching a compromise, we are exploring how different the various options truly are, in terms of their effect on readers. Regarding team anniversaries, careful explanations are required anyway, thanks to the monkey wrench of the lockout year, and cases where teams celebrate the actual anniversary year, and not the date that marks the end of the anniversary year. isaacl (talk) 21:16, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Either of the 6 proposals is acceptable to me. GoodDay (talk) 20:42, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

NHL team roster templates
I just wonder, should there be a NHL team roster templates for each season, similar to national team roster templates for World Championship or Olympic games. For reference, you can check the List of Canadian national ice hockey team rosters. Oxozor (talk) 03:24, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
 * There isn't an individual page like this for NHL teams. But we list the rosters on each season page for each team. Since there is a new roster every year to try and put them on a single page for NHL teams would be too cumbersome. -DJSasso (talk) 01:42, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I support the idea of an NHL team roster templates for each season. If some editor wants to do that work, it would definitely add useful information to the article. Dolovis (talk) 02:02, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
 * As DJSasso notes, it has already been done. Each team season article will (or should) display the full roster for that season, including statistics.  In truth, that list of national team rosters is bordering on WP:NOTSTATS and WP:IINFO, as it is just a bare list of names that is very unlikely to have the capability of growing into more. Resolute 14:04, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Article names
Hello. Is there any WPP Hockey convention regarding the article names, mainly the use of diacritics? Thank you. - Darwinek (talk) 15:08, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
 * The current convention is to use diacritics in appropriate player articles. They're not used in any article on or pertaining to an English-speaking league, but may be used in articles on leagues where the dominant language does use them - the European leagues or the LNAH, for instance.   Ravenswing  15:22, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Do I understand it correctly, that e.g. Czech, Latvian, Slovak or Swedish player articles should have diacritics only if these players appear in the non-English speaking leagues? - Darwinek (talk) 09:21, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Player articles get them if their name includes them no matter what. As long as their name actually includes them, you will need a source showing their name with diacritics. Team/League articles only get them if that league is not a primarily english league. So for example the QMJHL, LNAH in Quebec or any of a number of European leagues such as those you mention. -DJSasso (talk) 13:19, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
 * DJSasso assertion is incorrect. Policy concerning the naming of articles is found at Article titles: The policy (WP:UE) is clear and specific “In deciding whether and how to translate a foreign name into English, follow English-language usage. If there is no established English-language treatment for a name, translate it if this can be done without loss of accuracy and with greater understanding for the English-speaking reader.” Dolovis (talk) 15:55, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Which applies great to translations. Adding or removing diactrics is not a translation. And has been shown in the past, diacritics are used in english. So use english wouldn't apply to this situation because words with diacritics are already english language words. -DJSasso (talk) 16:11, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I don't support the use of diacritics in general when there is an English spelling, but we've discussed this many times and agreed within the project to treat it as if it was an ENGVAR issue. For North America specific articles, we hide diacritics, but show them for European.  We also use them on player articles. Resolute 16:04, 12 April 2011 (UTC)


 * See here for the exact wording this project uses. -DJSasso (talk) 16:20, 12 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Yeah, WP:HOCKEY has settled this long ago. GoodDay (talk) 18:32, 12 April 2011 (UTC)


 * The commonly used form of name should be used for article names. The use of Diacritics for article names should only be used if it can be demonstrated, by reliable and verifiable sources, that such form of name is the commonly used form. Such reliable sources would include the hockey-related websites eliteprospects.com, hockeydb.com, legendsofhockey.net, nhl.com, tsn.ca, eurohockey.net. You will notice that I have shown that North American and European websites can be used to verify the commonly used name, however, per WP:NONENG, because this is the English Wikipedia, English-language sources are preferred over non-English ones, provided that English sources of equal quality and relevance are available. Dolovis (talk) 14:05, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
 * And the arguement before and why the consensus we have came to be is that the name with and without diacritics was considered by some to be the same commonly used name since they are spelled the same. We didn't come to a clear consensus that having them or lack of having them constituded a change in one being the common name and one not being the common name. -DJSasso (talk) 14:09, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

As has been demonstrated many times, a consensus is not set in stone, and may change over time. It should also be remembered that it is not within the scope of the ice hockey project to over-ride community consensus on this issue. Per WP:CONLIMITED: ''“Consensus among a limited group of editors, at one place and time, cannot override community consensus on a wider scale. For instance, unless they can convince the broader community that such action is right, participants in a WikiProject cannot decide that some generally accepted policy or guideline does not apply to articles within its scope.”'' Dolovis (talk) 16:00, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Eh, if it were up to me? GoodDay (talk) 16:03, 14 April 2011 (UTC)


 * I didn't say a we are overriding a policy. A group of editors can come to a consensus on how to interpret a policy/guideline. Which is what our consensus is. An interpretation of a policy. -DJSasso (talk) 16:09, 14 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Dolovis, the "community consensus" is to use diacritics in article titles, and it is done that way throughout Wikipedia. - Darwinek (talk) 16:43, 14 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Darwinek, the policy of Article titles (which represents a community consensus) is specific, clear, and on-point. This discussion should properly be a wiki-wide discussion, especially if you want to change or challenge policy. Dolovis (talk) 23:54, 14 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Exactly. If you want to challenge the current policy and usage, you should start a wiki-wide discussion. Till that time, diacritics will be used in article names, as they currently are. Just look around the Wikipedia and you will understand. - Darwinek (talk) 08:52, 15 April 2011 (UTC)


 * That was not the conclusion of this ANI discussion. Dolovis (talk) 14:07, 15 April 2011 (UTC)


 * ANI does not make a policy, the last time I checked. And diacritics are used, I would be very surprised if there was a single Polish sportsmen, for example, whose name didn't have them (unless he emigrated and his name is habitually written without them, but those are rare exceptions). Please note that any discussion about the use of diacritics (or rather, a suggestion not to use them) needs to involve country-wikiprojects; for example WikiProject Poland would certainly not welcome a unilateral decision by a WikiProject Basketball to de-diacriticize Polish basketball players. As far as Ice Hockey, I am pretty sure all Polish ice hockey players have diacritics in their names, and I see no reason why any other nationality should be an exception. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 17:54, 18 April 2011 (UTC)