Jump to content

Talk:National Hockey League/Archive 3

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4

WINNIPEG

Unlock the page, get Winnipeg up there! Let's go! Donutcity (talk)

The consensus of the majority of editors and regular users here is to wait until the league owners officially approve the sale and the move is officially final. Zzyzx11 (talk) 03:23, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Need better reference

In the lead the statement "the NHL is widely considered to be the premier professional ice hockey league in the world" is referenced to a Canadian online encyclopedia article written by Canadian writer James Harley Marsh. Needs a much better source to claim that the world regards the league this way - or needs to be rewritten to match the source. Given where it is sourced, the statement is rather partisan - Peripitus (Talk) 20:43, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't think citing from an encyclopedia written in Canada makes the source any less valid. That being said, there has to be millions of sources out there that state this being that its generally considered that there is no league even close to its level. The closest being the KHL, but no one thinks its on the same level as the NHL really. -DJSasso (talk) 03:39, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
As an American, I have no trouble with the statement that the person in Canada wrote. Given what I have observed in the past, I tend to agree with it. Of course, opinion isn't supposed to count for much, given the intended nature of Wikipedia, but I will put it there. I would also contend that the influx of players from other countries, most notably those that have ice hockey as a major influence, tend to support the statement as well.Rapierman (talk) 03:06, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
As a european (not russian), I do think the NHL is the highest rank hockey league in the world. The Khl is still young and that might change later but at the moment, even though some key players like Jagr have left, most of the big stars and the young coming ones play there or are planning to play there.Also, the budget and salaries show the same. The reference might not be objective but still, it is.80.223.219.15 (talk) 06:35, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Ambiguity in "Labour Issues"

"24 of the 30 clubs finished even or ahead of their 2003–04 mark." I think that this is referring to attendance, but I'm not sure. Also seems like a choppy sentence. If it is indeed about attendance (which it probably is) can someone change it to "Overall, 24 of the 30 clubs finished even or ahead of their 2003–04 mark for attendance." Setitup (talk) 21:55, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Number of teams not needed in infobox

The amount of teams (Canada (6 teams) United States (24 teams)) should not be in the infobox.
1) It looks unprofessional in my opinion. It states "Country(ies)" not "Amount of teams in Country(ies)". Plus it's already mentioned in the article 3-4 times, including the lead, and a map to show where in the countries they are located.
2) I understand there is a controversy on which country is listed first ... Although I find this extremely childish and feel the US with 4 times the amount of teams should be listed first I could really care less. UrbanNerd (talk) 00:17, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

The infobox is a summary of the most important information. The location of the teams is a key piece of information about the league. The information in infoboxes should be repeated in the article. In fact information shouldn't be in the infobox if its not in the main body of the article. -DJSasso (talk) 00:20, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
Agree with DJSasso, and the number should remain in the infobox. Regards, -- Jeff3000 (talk) 00:27, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
And I'm guessing you guys are involved in the childish argument about which country goes first as well. UrbanNerd (talk) 00:52, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
And you need to comment on the issues/subject, not the contributors or maturity of arguments (and by extension their own maturity). See WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA. - BilCat (talk) 01:07, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
And you need to let this article progress, and not act defensive to constructive change. I removed the countries names of the TV partners, and of course it was reverted. There is no need to have separate list of TV partners for Canada and US. I actually watch the NHL on NBC while in Canada. I find the CBC announcers boring and biased. UrbanNerd (talk) 01:28, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
That you find certain annoucers boring is not relevant. What is relevant is that you are removing relevant information from the article. Also the table of championships is not gloating, but quite germane information that quickly shows relevant information to the user, and it's most imprortant in the history section. You should gain consensus before you make wide-ranging changes. Regards, -- Jeff3000 (talk) 01:38, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
Obviously my opinion of announcers being boring isn't relevant. That wasn't the point. Don't be ignorant. You seemed to have negated the point and instead choose to criticize me. The point was I watch NHL on NBC in Canada, people also watch Versus in Canada. Even some people in the US watch CBC for heavens sake. Why do the TV Partners have to be broken up into country of origin ? It makes no sense. And number of teams makes the infobox look crowded and unclassy. The article has many bush league traits, but anytime a edit is done a group of "defenders" jumps in and reverts like they own the article. It's sad. UrbanNerd (talk) 13:01, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
The reason they are split up is because the point of those listings is to list the national broadcasters of each country. It is only your opinion that the article has bush league traits. If many people disagree with you, that probably means that most people don't feel that the article is bush league as you make it out to be. Secondly Jeff has done nothing to criticize you. He criticized your arguement which is what you are supposed to do and not the same thing. You on the other hand keep implying bad faith of editors and calling their opinons childish, that on the other hand is criticizing the editors and a violation of WP:CIVIL as you were pointed to above. The best way to affect change on an article is to do so with a calm non-confrontational manor, you will find most people here are more than willing to accept changes if you can back them up with solid reasoning instead of criticizing various editors. -DJSasso (talk) 13:15, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
It's impossible to work "with" a group that "owns" every hockey related article. UrbanNerd (talk) 13:17, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
No one owns all the hockey related articles. That is just your opinion. The fact that you have been disagreed with a couple of times does not point to the fact that anyone is owning the articles. That is the nature of consensus, sometimes it doesn't agree with you. But go ahead if you want, and keep assuming bad faith of editors, I am sure that will make them want to work with you co-operatively. -DJSasso (talk) 13:20, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
I concur with Djs on these points. I'm actually not a regular editor of this or other hockey pages, and in fact I'm not a hockey fan at all. I do like sports in general, though, and I watch this page for new developments, and to help catch vandalism. If I see an edit I think is unproductive, especially when the editor has other edits under discussion, I will revert it, per Bold-Revert-Discuss. We all have our own opinions about how articles should look, but labeling articles "bush ;eague" in in now way productive. This article is heavily editied, so any changes to the status quo are likely to be objected to - it's that way on most heavily-edited articles on WP. ALso, most articels like this are the way they are for specific reasons, and those choices are often the result of consesnus reached by long hours of discussion, either on the article's talk page, or on project talk pages. It's fine to jusmp in and try to make improvements, but please realize there's a "history" to all articles. It is often worth the effort to do a little research to see what the more recent discussions have been, and what major porblems an articel has had, before making changes, even those that you think are minor. - BilCat (talk) 13:53, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

I am with Jeff3000 and DJ. Dbrodbeck (talk) 02:57, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Dude, if the "country x should be listed first" argument is so childish, why do you feel the need to try and re-argue it? I've no opinion either way on listing the number of teams in the infobox. Resolute 03:55, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm from the US and very patriotic, but this is stupid. If you want, put Canada first because it is alphabetically before United States. Put the US first because it has more teams. Put Canada first because Canadians like hockey more. Put the US first because the league offices are in New York. Put Canada first because the War Room is in Toronto. My point is that there are so many reasons to put either one in either place, argue about it over real reasons instead of maturity (or lackthereof, UrbanNerd), or better yet, don't argue about it at all. Ekcrbe 21:14, 21 January, 2011

Number of Championships

I feel the number of Championships chart should be moved down into the "Trophies and Awards" section or the "Season structure" section. Sure it is history as well, but the history section talks about the "early years", "expansion" and "labor issues". I think it would be better suited in the Trophies, or Season sections. Also, in the MLB, NFL, NBA articles, none of them even list the number of championships in this manner except for the MLB, and it's down in the "Season Structure" section. Makes more sense is all I'm saying. Have a nice day gents. :) UrbanNerd (talk) 13:26, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

There we go, I have no problem with this move. It might actually make the images/tables even out slightly better that way. I don't know that it really belongs in the season structure section as the championships don't really have anything to do with the structure of the season, but for esthetics I like it. -DJSasso (talk) 13:29, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
We'd have to move images around in the trophies section as well. Specifically, I'd move the Gretzky image up to history as part of moving the table down. Resolute 13:35, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
I went ahead and moved it down. Please feel free to tweak it, or whatever. UrbanNerd (talk) 23:36, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
I had to correct the comparison between Montreal's Stanley Cups and the Yankees World Series championships because the original writer forgot to include their first Cup when they were part of the NHA as part of the statistical comparison. LReyome254 (talk) 03:02, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
Ugh. I'd just as soon remove that statement altogether. It's unnecessary penis measuring. Especially since the criteria is ambiguous. Montreal has 23 Cups in the NHL, 24 Cups overall, 25 NHL championships and 26 overall league championships. Which figure is most accurate? Resolute 03:20, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
Easy; 25 NHL championships. The Cup hasn't always been emblematic of the NHL championship, and this is the NHL article, so championships achieved in other leagues aren't pertinent here.  Ravenswing  16:22, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
Sure, but given the context why would you discount the Canadiens' 1914 NHA/SC title? The comparison is Yankees vs. Canadiens. Moreover, you open up to the "but Montreal did it in fewer seasons, so have the higher percentage..." argments. I just don't see the need for the comparison. Resolute 18:24, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
Why would I discount it? Because it didn't happen in the NHL, and this is the NHL article. Make the comparison in the Canadiens' article, and all the championships they won at the major senior level are appropriate. But if this is going to be used as a Habs-vs-Yankees slugfest, that verges on a WP:COATRACK issue.  Ravenswing  20:53, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

That is rather my point: What purpose does a Habs vs. Yankees comparison serve on the NHL article? Resolute 21:15, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

No purpose at all. GoodDay (talk) 22:07, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

May I ask about the reason(s) why the defunct teams are not included? Why not just make a footnote saying that a specific team is now defunct? Quartus486 (talk) 18:39, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Well, I was just wondering why it is supposed to be a "Total Stanley Cup championships" when some teams, and hence championships, are not included. As for me, if I read the word "Total", I want to be able to read about all of them, not be forced to look up another page. Simply, what's the reason for not including them? Seems odd to me. Quartus486 (talk) 11:23, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
Well it comes down to the fact that this page is just about the NHL and its written in summary style which is how most of wikipedia works. A broad general page gives a brief summary and then you click a link and go to the other page with has full detail. We can't try to fit everything on every page so to speak. -DJSasso (talk) 12:40, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
What championships won by NHL teams do you think are being excluded?  ῲ Ravenswing ῴ  14:02, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
There is a box part way down the page which lists the cup wins. It says on it defunct teams not included. That is what he is referring to. The original senators, maroons etc are not on it. -DJSasso (talk) 14:25, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
Yes, that's what I mean (what Djsasso said). I'm sorry I wasn't clear enough. Quartus486 (talk) 15:35, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
Well, I'm still not satisfied with the answers. To me this is like not counting the olympic gold medals that the Soviet Union won just because the country doesn't exist anymore, which is not how it's done. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ice_hockey_at_the_Olympic_Games#Medal_table Quartus486 (talk) 16:47, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
There is a difference in that the table for the gold medals is the location where everything is listed. Just like there is a page that lists all the cup winners. This is just a summary of teams that currently exist that have won. This isn't a list of every winner. Two different purposes/lists. -DJSasso (talk) 17:02, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Would it not be more appropriate to list NHL championships, then, not Stanley Cup wins? FWIW, I think you'd only add three lines to add Maroons, Sens and St. Pats to the table. ʘ alaney2k ʘ (talk) 17:44, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Doesn't actually matter to me, I was just commenting on why it was the way it was. Stating NHL championships opens up the whole can of worms on the different trophies used to denote champions. -DJSasso (talk) 17:54, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
I agree; since it is the NHL article, a list of NHL championships (for all teams, whether they are currently operational or not) seems apt. Yes, the differences between the Stanley Cup championship list and the NHL championship list would have to be explained, but the reality is that the two differ. It could be a multi-column list: NHL championships, and Stanley Cup championships once the Cup became exclusively the trophy for the NHL champion. isaacl (talk) 18:18, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
The difference between the two is minute. Only twice in NHL history has its champion failed to win the Stanley Cup, and both times it was Montreal. That aspect of the difference is already explained by the note attached to the infobox. I've no issue with adding the Maroons and old Senators to the championship table, but the St. Pats are the Maple Leafs. Their Cup is already counted in the Leafs total. Resolute 18:48, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
Is the 1918 win included in the Leafs' total? I'm not sure it was the same franchise. I think the Leafs' franchise started in 1919. ʘ alaney2k ʘ (talk) 20:21, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
1918 is included, and I would say it should be. I think it is commonly held that the Arenas were part of the same franchise, the difference being that a temporary charter became a permanent one in 1919. Resolute 20:32, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
That's consistent with the NHL. That's probably best. ʘ alaney2k ʘ (talk) 20:43, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
"This is just a summary of teams that currently exist that have won" (Djsasso 17:02, 4 July). It's just that, nowhere does it say that. It only states "Total Stanley Cup championships", and that's it! And even if you decide to add that, why? It doesn't make sense.Quartus486 (talk) 18:24, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
But it does say that, right below the title it says defunct teams not included. As for why, I am guessing the original creator of the table figured most people coming to the page are going to want to know about their particular favourite team and that those who wanted more detail would go to the page about Stanley cup champions. And defunct teams aren't likely to have fans anymore...the only two with cup wins stopped playing hockey 70 years ago. I didn't create the table so I am only guessing. I don't have a problem adding the two missing teams. Just didn't think it was all that necessary since it had been this way for a number of years and this is the only time someone mentioned it being an issue. -DJSasso (talk) 18:37, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
Yeah, probably not a lot of Montreal Maroons fans out there any more.  ῲ Ravenswing ῴ  20:26, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
I know it says that below. I CAN read. It just doesn't say why. Anyway, since no other than me seems to object there's little meaning in wasting energy on trivial things. Thank you for your answers though. Much appreciated. Quartus486 (talk) 11:26, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
Alaney2k, Resolute, and I agreed with including defunct teams, and Alaney2k and I agreed on including all NHL championships (not sure if Resolute agreed with this while being against having two columns, which was only a side-suggestion of mine). isaacl (talk) 14:32, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
I would also support including defunct teams. UrbanNerd (talk) 21:59, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

To archive

http://m.nhl.com WhisperToMe (talk) 22:58, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Overtime rules needs better reference

The article states "There are no television timeouts during playoff overtime periods; the only break is to clean the loose ice at the first stoppage after the period is halfway finished."

Reference 58 is a 2 page sports opinion article, hardly a definitive source. Even worse, it has no mention at all that I can find about the ice cleaning at the first stoppage of play. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.227.42.143 (talk) 09:49, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Potential Thrashers to Winnipeg move

Just to make some issues clear: the NHL has confirmed that negotiations are taking place to sell the Atlanta Thrashers to a group that intends to move it to Winnipeg, as has been reported in multiple sources. They have also denied that such a move has been finalized. Therefore, any discussion of this issue should make absolutely clear that these are negotiations, and that it hasn't happened-- yet. However, I don't think the issue should be ignored entirely, given the high likelihood that this will eventually be finalized in the coming days (the league, current owners and future owners are all pretty much on record wanting this to happen, unlike much of the Hamilton speculation that the league has fought tooth-and-nail to prevent). It should be mentioned, but only as current status and nothing speculative. J. Myrle Fuller (talk) 21:39, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

The negotiations are now complete. The team has been sold to the Winnipeg ownership group and is slated to move pending approval by the Board of Governors (who are expected to simply rubber stamp the move). Gateman1997 (talk) 17:40, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
Still not official till it is approved on the 21st however. -DJSasso (talk) 17:41, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
As per our other talk page, I disagree. The NHL has officially announced the relocation. The vote will just ratify that announcement. I believe it is fair to change the links now. Resolute 18:43, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
But they didn't announce the relocation. He specifically said he was just announcing a purchase agreement and that a relocation had not yet been approved. -DJSasso (talk) 18:46, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
I'd have to agree, there has been no official move yet. The move could still get voted down. UrbanNerd (talk) 03:20, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Teams Map

The map needs to be reverted back to show no team in Manitoba. There is no such team there as of now, the map is incorrect and misleading. UrbanNerd (talk) 02:54, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Done, regards, -- Jeff3000 (talk) 03:42, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

"Formerly: National Hockey Association (NHA)" (Infobox)

This, in my opinion, is a misrepresentation of the league's history. The word 'formerly' implies that some kind of name change, rebranding, etc. occurred during the league's history, which is incorrect. The NHA ceased to exist when the NHL was formed. In fact, the article later contradicts itself by calling the NHL a "new league" and that the NHA owners voted to "suspend the NHA." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.150.140.160 (talk) 12:07, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

TV Partner(s)

So I removed the flags from the "TV Partners" section of the infobox, and of course DJSasson re-enterd them as per his usual article ownership mentality. I can understand the flags being used in the infobox to show where the teams are from, even tho it is against guidelines. But using flags to show where the TV Networks are from ? I mean c'mon ! MOS:FLAG clearly states:

  • Avoid flag icons in infoboxes
  • Flag icons should not be used in infoboxes, even when there is a "country", "nationality" or equivalent field
  • They are unnecessarily distracting and give undue prominence to one field among many.
  • Flag icons are visually distracting in infoboxes and lead to unnecessary disputes when over-used.
  • Do not emphasize nationality without good reason
  • Wikipedia is not a place for nationalistic pride. Flags are visually striking, and placing a national flag next to something can make its nationality or location seem to be of greater significance than other things
  • it is better to remove the flags even if that makes the list, table or infobox inconsistent with others of the same type where no problems have arisen.

There is absolutely no need for flags to show which TV Network originally broadcasts from where. People in Michigan watch hockey on the CBC, and people in Saskatchewan watch hockey on NBC. The networks should be listed in alphabetical order and no undue weight should be given to nationality. Even the flags beside the number of teams should be removed, but I have no problem with them, as I'm sure others don't either. The MLB has removed flags entirely from the infobox. In short there is already flags in the infobox directly above them, there is no need for them, they add nothing to the article and in fact distract readers from the very info they are trying to portray, and they should be removed. UrbanNerd (talk) 01:51, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

I really do not care one way or the other, but I am not much on personal attacks actually. Dbrodbeck (talk) 02:12, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
Since the country names do not indicate representatives of the country, or persons/teams competing on behalf of a country, I don't believe the flags in the infobox fall under any of the appropriate uses for flags, and I support removing all of the flags from the infobox. isaacl (talk) 04:18, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
I reverted you because not only did you remove the flags but you removed the country names which are appropriate for listing the nations the networks come from which is important since we are only listing national networks. Please cease your unending personal attacks on people. It has nothing to do with ownership, it was simply a disagreement with your action. Which if you would have discussed after you were reverted the first time we probably could have easily come to an agreement on how to go forward instead you reverted me again and proceeded to edit war like you usually do when people disagree with you. The flags themselves were a secondary issue. -DJSasso (talk) 12:51, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
Once again your explanations for aggressive article ownership is both transparent and laughable. In no way did I intentionally personally attack you, I was simply referring to your long history of article ownership and edit warring. But this is all off topic, this isn't the place to discuss your editing style, I insist we stick to the tasks at hand. UrbanNerd (talk) 21:54, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
I don't think the country of original broadcast is relevant in the infobox. If a reader wants to know more about the specific networks they are linked to their respective article. The flags and country names only cloud the box and distracts readers from the actual information being portrayed. UrbanNerd (talk) 21:59, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
As there are multiple broadcast partners in both countries, I believe it is useful to organize them by country, and to make this organization evident by showing the country name. I also believe it is of interest to the reader to be able to easily identify the broadcasters in each country. isaacl (talk) 22:15, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
I agree with including the country names, at least; these keep the numerous network initialisms, which may be unfamiliar to readers from outside the US and Canada, more easily distinguishable. It also helps make clear that these are the domestic broadcasters in the league's two home countries, not the overseas broadcasters. oknazevad (talk) 22:30, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
UrbanNerd, I suggest you drop the personal shots and stay on topic. DJSasso did absolutely nothing wrong in reverting your change, so your attacks are wildly off target. As to the topic itself, I'd say remove the flags, but keep the country abbreviations. Two three-letter acronyms are able to convey a large amount of useful information in this situation. Resolute 22:40, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
I'd be fine with that. Like I said it was mostly the country info that I was concerned about not the flags. -DJSasso (talk) 23:12, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
I'm not sure why to include country of broadcast. The info trying to be portrayed is the NHL's tv partners, not the country of origin of the networks. The list with just the networks listed alphabetically would make the infobox less crowded, more visually appealing, and if the reader wants to learn about the specific networks they are free to do so. Sometimes less is more fellas. UrbanNerd (talk) 23:34, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
It is important where they are originating though. When the NHL sells its TV rights, it does so nationally. It doesn't just offer a bundle to the highest bidder, rather, it says, who in Canada is going to be our national broadcaster and who in the United States is going to be our national broadcaster. While these networks may be available across the boarder and watched my opposing nationals, the point remains that the NHL has a Canadian partner and an American partner. Because the league specifically does this, I don't see why the infobox shouldn't reflect this. – Nurmsook! talk... 04:15, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
I would include the country of origin, and the flags actually. Alas I am but one voice.... Dbrodbeck (talk) 12:11, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
For better accessibility, I prefer keeping the full country name, and in this case, without many drawbacks compared with using a country abbreviation. isaacl (talk) 12:36, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
Yeah I have no opinion on full vs. abbreviation. I am good either way. Full is probably the way to go since its only a difference of 3 letters on one of the countries. -DJSasso (talk) 13:00, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
Ok, I can modify it, and if anyone has further questions, concerns, request, etc. We can discuss those. UrbanNerd (talk) 22:01, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
  • Are we still only listing national TV braodcasters with national contracts? Someone is trying to add Rogers Sportnet, but shouldn't that be considered a regional since each of the four Sportsnet channels have TV contracts to specific local teams and not the entire national NHL contract? Zzyzx11 (talk) 20:11, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
    Yes Rogers is just a regional broadcaster so we don't list it. Just like Fox Sports in the states is. -DJSasso (talk) 23:17, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

I still think naming the country of broadcast makes the article look pretty amateur. The folks over at Major League Soccer have the right idea. Anyways, I don't think NHL Network USA is a partner this year, according to this reference. Also even the reference just lists the networks together, not divided by which country they broadcast from. Just another example of why we shouldn't be doing it the other way. UrbanNerd (talk) 01:54, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Fan Base affluence

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Hockey_League#Popularity

"Studies by the Sports Marketing Group conducted from 1998 to 2004 show that the NHL's fan base is much more affluent than that of the PGA Tour.[116] "

The 116 endnote leads to http://community.seattletimes.nwsource.com/archive/?date=19910221&slug=1267313. The article is from 1991, so it can't be on the same study. A better source is needed. Canadianism (talk) 01:46, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

I didn't see any references to PGA Tour fans in that study, only to Hockey fans vs. non-hockey fans. Canadianism (talk) 18:10, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
Maybe I copied the wrong one...I found a few with a quick google search. I will look again. -DJSasso (talk) 18:12, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
It seems that the source has been reverted to that irrelevant 1991 article. Canadianism (talk) 19:05, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Past schedule formats

I suggest that the various History of the National Hockey League articles would be appropriate places to describe previously used season formats. It's an extra level of detail better suited for the separate history articles. For the former format from 2005 to 2008, History of the National Hockey League (1992–present) would be apt. What does everyone think? isaacl (talk) 05:27, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

agreed. Dbrodbeck (talk) 05:59, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
an excellent idea 99.245.230.74 (talk) 07:40, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Entry Draft Section

I added a new section with a link to the NHL Entry Draft. I tried to select the most appropriate placement (just before the season structure). --Fabricebaro (talk) 13:01, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Lead - Eastern Bloc

I commented out the increased availability 'especially from the Eastern Bloc' sentence section in the lead. The cite did not support it. Also the section about Origin of players doesn't really support it. I know what is there 'between the lines' - that with the fall of the communism, etc. that a lot of players could move to the West. But it's not clear that is is 'especially'. That might be original research. You could argue that the biggest growth has been from the Scandinavian countries? ʘ alaney2k ʘ (talk) 14:10, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

I agree with its removal, it seems superfluous at best especially as written. However in reading the referenced news article, I don't think it supports anything in the section. The article only provides reference for an increase in the the number of European captains between 2000 and 2006. The paragraph discussess the general increase of American and European players as a percentage of all NHL players since the 1967 expansion. 99.246.116.118 (talk) 01:51, 12 July 2012 (UTC)


Lockout

Should the current lockout be in the top? Seems like it should only be with information overall, not current topic? --HelferLad (talk) 21:49, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

As opposed to 2012-13 NHL season as the current competition? I wouldn't have a problem with that, as the lockout is the only game in town, really. Resolute 21:51, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
Oh I am fine either way it just read weird to have a current event at the top which is usually just a quick glance and lead in. Hope it will be back soon but its a mess eh. --HelferLad (talk) 02:58, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

French Translations

I don't know if this is the right place to post this but I feel that having french translations on page for the National Hockey League and the Stanley Cup might be a little excessive. As of the time I am writing this (06/16/12) we have 30 NHL teams in this past season, only one of which are from a French speaking locale (Montreal Canadians from Quebec). The 2011 population of Quebec represents 2.276% of the combined population of the United States and Canada. Additionally French and English are both official languages of Quebec. My final point, if I want to know about the National Hockey League or the Stanley Cup in French then I would be using the the French Wikipedia Site to look at the French Wikipedia pages for the NHL and the French French Wikipedia pages for the Stanley Cup. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.195.147.142 (talk) 01:07, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

The NHL, like Canada, is officially bilingual. The NHL is an organization that is officially known by two names, the NHL, and the LNH. They are both official designations. The NHL had its historical roots in Quebec, as the league was founded in Montreal. In addition to the Canadiens, the Ottawa Senators also use both languages (if you watched the Rangers-Senators playoff series this season, one side of the rink at Scotiabank Place had the French version of the Stanley Cup playoffs logo while the other side had the English version). After all, the Ottawa area is located along the Quebec-Ontario border. The NHL has also had other teams such as the Quebec Nordiques, the Montreal Wanderers, and a few others. Just because a majority of NHL teams are now in English-speaking areas, or in areas that have higher populations, or in the US instead of Canada, should not make the official French names "less important" from a historical point of view. Furthermore, just because there are articles about the same subject in the other language editions of Wikipedia is not an excuse to remove the foreign names in the first sentence here on the English Wikipedia. Zzyzx11 (talk) 02:42, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
Though of the course the Wanderers and the Maroons were both meant to appeal to the English speaking audience as opposed to the French. Jntg4Games (talk) 18:52, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:National_Hockey_League/Archive_3&oldid=1051971211"