Talk:2012–13 NHL lockout

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Canada / Sport (Rated C-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Canada, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Canada on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Canadian sport.
 
WikiProject Ice Hockey (Rated C-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Ice Hockey, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of ice hockey on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 
WikiProject Organized Labour (Rated C-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Organized Labour, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to Organized Labour on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
 

2012-13 NHL lockout[edit]

Perhaps 2012-13 NHL lockout would be a better title, even if the lockout were to end before New Year's. GoodDay (talk) 02:35, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

That would imply the dispute stretched across two years. I'd leave it as is until that point. Resolute 03:32, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
I agree with just 2012 for now, because we could see a situation like the 2011 NBA lockout, where the games started in late December. Canuck89 (talk to me) 22:00, September 12, 2012 (UTC)

Move to article space[edit]

Even though the lockout only just began a couple minutes ago, we could probably get this into the article space soon, as it looks like the lockout is probably going to last for at least a couple of months. Canuck89 (converse with me) 04:18, September 16, 2012 (UTC)

Another editor has created a 2012 NHL lockout article. GoodDay (talk) 12:18, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Gullable fans[edit]

I wonder if it's possible (if sourced) to place what part the fans had in THIS lockout. In particular the ticket buyers & merchandise buyers, who've played a major role in the NHL's steady revenue increase of the last 7 seasons. GoodDay (talk) 15:25, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

So it's the fans fault? Rising revenue should get mention but I hardly think we should be placing any blame in wikipedia articles. Eric Ando (talk) 14:43, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Timeline[edit]

A good timeline to build the article on. Jmj713 (talk) 16:15, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Another timeline. Jmj713 (talk) 20:34, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

Players signing elsewhere[edit]

I don't think we need a comprehensive list (then again, why not?), but at least the number of players signing with other teams during the lockout would be useful. Jmj713 (talk) 18:37, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Article fails to actually explain things[edit]

In the very first paragraph is this phrase "The owners declared a lockout of the members", however the article doesn't even try to clarify what exactly those owners own. A team, a station, the entire league? If i knew i would improve, but since i came here to educate myself on the matter i can only point out that the article just plain fails to educate. 178.3.71.175 (talk) 20:05, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

I suppose we did take for granted that one would know it was the team owners. Obviously we were wrong. I will make an amendment that I hope helps. Regards, Resolute 22:59, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Canceled games[edit]

Regarding the section "Canceled games", what are your views on the notability of having this section include each announcement of more canceled games? I'm not sure every announcement is worth noting, but if so, I think it would be better to integrate the announcements into the "Negotiations" section, so they can be placed within the context of the negotiations. (If there is a consensus to keep all of the announcements in one section, then I suggest placing the info in a table or list, to improve readability.) isaacl (talk) 15:55, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Proseline is horrible to begin with. And personally, I don't see a need for that as a stand alone section at all. It should be integrated into negotiations. Resolute 16:55, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
It's not a matter of "notability" but chronology. I definitely feel it's needed for the historical record to reflect each step of the process, whether it's canceled games, talks going on, breaking down, etc. Jmj713 (talk) 03:23, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
Though I do not believe it is appropriate to detail every single step of the process, as Wikipedia is not a place for news coverage, I do believe if any description of canceled game announcements is included, it is best to integrate it within the narrative of all notable events, rather than isolating them into a single section. What do you think? isaacl (talk) 04:28, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
I think a lot of users coming in to the article (especially as the lockout is ongoing) want to first of all ascertain the status of the games canceled and so on. So it helps to have that section which also details when and how many games and through which date was the cancelation. Jmj713 (talk) 15:25, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
A note stating the league has cancelled games to December 30 would be appropriate in the lead, and would immediately take care of that informational request. But we don't need a section that says "on date x, the league cancelled games to date y. Then on date a, the league cancelled games to date b". Honestly, the date that the league cancelled games up to November 15 is irrelevant today. But properly worded in negotiations section: "after three days of discussions between the two sides on December 3-5 broke down, the league canceled games to December 30." That shows action and consequence, in context. Resolute 15:47, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Any further comments before I start to merge the progress described in the "Canceled games" section into the "Negotiations" section? isaacl (talk) 20:10, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

I have merged the announcements of game cancellations into the "Negotiations" section. isaacl (talk) 20:31, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Availability of concert venue[edit]

Regarding this edit on the availability of Madison Square Garden for a relief aid concert, though I appreciate the notability of this concert, I'm not sure if the connection to the lockout is more than tangential at best. (Plus the concert could have been held on another day in MSG; it wouldn't have had the alliterative date, but I'm sure a different publicity hook would have been invented for it.) Should there be a list of some of the key events being held in NHL arenas during the work stoppage? isaacl (talk) 15:16, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

I would say no. First off I totally agree with everything you said above and while I think the concert was a terrific thing to add a section about other events happening is more of a coatrack that doesn't add to the primary topic of the page. --Mo Rock...Monstrous (leech44) 15:29, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
I tend to agree. That cancelled dates opened arenas up to other events is useful to this article. What those events were is not. Resolute 17:25, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
I removed this part. - PM800 (talk) 17:39, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Page should be moved to 2012–13 NHL Lockout[edit]

The dash should be elongated. I made the attempt, but it didn't work. GoodDay (talk) 01:11, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

I agree it should be made to a n-dash to match the prior labor dispute articles as well as all of the season articles.--Mo Rock...Monstrous (leech44) 02:50, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Page Should Be moved to 2012 NHL Lockout (for Now)[edit]

The page should be moved to 2012 NHL Lockout as it has not yet extended into 2013. Although it probably won't be settled before the New Year, per WP:CRYSTALBALL we can't assume it won't. However, I'm not going to bother making a proposal because it needs a week to run its course, and by that time it will have run into 2013 and the title will be correct. Should I just leave it as is and invoke WP:SNOW? Or is there clear consensus to change it for three days? Smartyllama (talk) 01:46, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

I believe it was moved because games were officially cancelled into January, so even if it were to be settled before new years the effects still carry over into 2013. --Mo Rock...Monstrous (leech44) 02:06, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
But the lockout could have ended in December, and games would have resumed a few weeks later. But now it's into 2013, so it's a moot point and there's no need to discuss it further. In the event of another lockout, we can worry about it then. Smartyllama (talk) 19:53, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Ratification[edit]

Doesn't the lockout continue until the owners & players ratify the new CBA? GoodDay (talk) 18:36, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

It can end whenever the owners decide to end it; I haven't heard any announcements about whether or not they've opened their facilities to its players. isaacl (talk) 18:41, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
Shouldn't we have the intro as ongoing, until the new CBA is ratified? GoodDay (talk) 18:43, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
I know what GoodDay is getting at. The article is saying the lockout is over when it isn't. It's just not something I'm going to get too concerned about, as while the article does now discuss the lockout in the past-tense, it does still accurately state that the deal is only tentative. Resolute 18:43, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
I appreciate the distinction; I also didn't see much point in starting back-and-forth editing on the end of the lockout until there is more information (such as an announcement that players have resumed training at their clubs' facilities). isaacl (talk) 18:48, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
Yeah, that is pretty much where I am at as well. Resolute 18:53, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

All true, but plenty of reputable media sources say "lockout is over". Jmj713 (talk) 19:29, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

If the new CBA isn't ratified, I suppose we can simply revert to ongoing. To do so now, would invite edit wars with IPs. GoodDay (talk) 19:40, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
I am among the contigent that says the lockout ended January 12 at 10:20pm EST. Anyone who said that it was over on the 6th stated it as such because it made for shorter headlines than, "An agreement has been reached and now we're waiting for ratification." Even the hockey media have been tweeting for the past 20 minutes about how the lockout is now officially over. Had the lockout ended last weekend, players would have been signing contracts, been traded, and training camps would have started already. saint0wen (talk) 03:47, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
A tentative agreement was reached on January 6th. The official end of the lockout happened when it was ratified. It's stated perfectly here. Kjscotte34 (talk) 12:36, 13 January 2013 (UTC)