Talk:Carolina Hurricanes

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Ice Hockey (Rated B-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.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 
WikiProject United States / North Carolina (Rated B-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-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 North Carolina (marked as High-importance).
 

Wrong Flag[edit]

Patrick Eaves has a US flag next to his name, but he's from Alberta. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.144.92.160 (talk) 00:03, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

However, he plays for the US national team. And standard is to use the flag for the nation they represent. -Djsasso (talk) 14:55, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

List of Carolina Hurricanes players[edit]

I have started a List of Carolina Hurricanes players. When you add players to the main Hurricanes article, could you be sure to add them to the list as well. thanks! Masterhatch 8 August 2005

Retired numbers[edit]

Umm... whst's the point of listing retired Whalers jersey's in the Carolina Hurricanes article if the Canes don't honor them. (Another reason to remove Hartford Whalers content from this article). Maybe the Hartford Wolf Pack honor those numbers? ~~

None, particularly, and you're right in suggesting that Whalers-only honorees should stick with the Whalers' article. The banners had come down in the Hartford Civic Center (the only Whalers-era hockey banner still there was from hosting the All-Star Game in the 1980s) and the Wolf Pack's been a Rangers' affiliate throughout, so I can't see them honoring ex-Whalers. Ravenswing 19:40, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
I removed a lot of Whalers content that was also present in a perfectly acceptable Hartford Whalers article. That first paragraph could probably be shortened into a sentence or 2 (keep the long winded relo story in Hartford?). I also created a Hartford Whalers category and made it a child of the Hurricanes (I did the same for Phoenix-Winnipeg previously). ccwaters 20:34, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
Concur, and done (along with some rework of the Greensboro story). --VT hawkeyetalk to me 04:16, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
    • All retired whalers banners still hang at the Hartford Civic Center, and actually just raised three new retired Whalers banners on Jan. 6, 2006 (The Mayor of Hartford hopes to have NHL return within 4 years)****

Current Squad[edit]

moved to article ccwaters 01:17, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

Oleg Tverdovsky's nationality[edit]

Tverdovsky was born in territory that is now part of Ukraine, but played for the Russian team in the 2004 World Cup of Hockey[1], and a Russian flag[2] hangs at the RBC Center in his honor, while no Ukranian flag was displayed until Anton Babchuk (who is unquestionably Ukranian) joined the team. The flag on the page should honor his expressed nationality preference. VT hawkeyetalk to me 01:08, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

I'd go argue the case over on the talk page for the Team Pages Format. The consensus was to go with birthplace. Ravenswing 06:51, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Rivals[edit]

Tampa Bay Lightning, Atlanta Thrashers, New Jersey Devils, Florida Panthers, Detroit Red Wings, and the Washington Capitals. Now this is what I call going nuts with this. Legitimate rivalries are like Calgary-Edmonton, Rangers-Islanders, Toronto-Ottawa, not the team's entire division and some teams they had playoff series with in the past. Let's decide one or two teams whose visits to Raleigh always draw interest from fans and that the team has had some (preferably contentious) history with. And if there aren't any, or the Hurricanes' history hasn't been long enough to build that, get rid of the entire rivalry list, which is what I favour right now. --Legalizeit 12:59, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Like the Not To Be Forgotten section, the Rivals sections are a nice idea that seems perpetually doomed to bloat every time some homer editor sees a game in which his favorite player gets punched in the face and the Good Guys lose. Scrap the whole thing. Ravenswing 16:19, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
I would say that Buffalo is not a rival of the Carolina Hurricanes. I removed them. AWBricker 02:46, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
As RGT suggested, (re-)killing the whole thing. POV-ridden, unstable, and asymmetrical to boot. VT hawkeyetalk to me 12:27, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit]

I'm always happy to be corrected, but I was wondering if whoever corrected me on the tropical storm/hurricane watch flags could further elaborate. The source I used for my calling the single flag a "tropical storm" flag (and hence the irony, they aren't the Carolina Tropical Storms) was first my memory from college, but then also this page at USAToday: [3]. Then I looked it up right here at Wikipedia and found the info that corrects that: Hurricane warning. What I'm wondering is when and why this changed, and do some systems still go by the old way, some the new? Fletcherism 28 April 2006

You're right, it's actually a storm warning. I changed it to "hurricane watch" because the Wikipedia article on tropical storm advisories said this was the case; however, looking at that USA Today page, that information came straight from the NOAA, so I'll trust them over a Wikipedia article. I think someone else had changed it to "gale warning" since then, which, according to that graphic, is not correct.

Not "Katrina's Team"[edit]

I rv'd this claim because I've been watching the team all season via NHL Center Ice, listening to home and away radio broadcasters via XM, and reading the local papers online, and not once have I seen or heard anyone refer to this club as "Katrina's Team." Google "Carolina Hurricanes" "Katrina's team" only gives WP-derived sources. WP:NFT. VT hawkeyetalk to me 12:54, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Under the circumstances, it would be deemed a seriously sick joke, and any player or media flack stupid enough to use the term where anyone could hear would be flayed alive for it. Ravenswing 13:15, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
Agreed with both. I've never heard this term/nickname in all my exposure to the 'Canes. 18.239.6.86 03:03, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
Agreed also. I go to the majority of the home games..watch everyone...was at Game 7 of the SCF...etc. Never heard the term before. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Bobbyschultz (talkcontribs) 02:42, 26 January 2007 (UTC).

Conference Championships[edit]

Yes, the NHL declares the 2 teams advancing to the Stanley Cup Finals as their respective "Conference Champions" (REF: [4]). So this is Carolina's 2nd. The NHL doesn't officially award anything to the "regular season conference champs". The AHL on the other hand, currently recognizes both: Eastern Conf Reg Season: Frank S. Mathers Trophy, Eastern Conf Playoff Richard F. Canning Trophy, etc... ccwaters 18:27, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Redneck Hockey[edit]

The article cited says nothing to support the claim: This minor controversy picked up some steam, especially during the Buffalo series, as some Sabres fans publicly complained that essentially they "deserved" to win more than Carolina, being in "hockey country", while many of Carolina's fans were "fair weather fans" who were "riding the bandwagon". It just says there were arrests involved with an altercation between Sabres and Canes fan. Something that is not uncommon. ccwaters 18:24, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

  • Why are you zeroing in on this item? Where are your complaints about the rest of the article's information? Anyway, I'll do what I can to find documentation supporting what I reported, which they were talking about on WRAL-TV and other places during the playoffs. And give it a break. In a few weeks the "afterglow" from the Cup win will fade, and then you can delete to your heart's content. Wahkeenah 18:55, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
Just because the Hurricanes won the Cup doesn't mean that Wikipedia's rules on verification have been suspended. This remains an encyclopedia, no matter how many people in Raleigh have warm fuzzy feelings right now. Ravenswing 21:21, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
Calling this pretentious weblog an "encyclopedia" is a bit of a stretch. Wahkeenah 23:10, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
You're using the section to take a jab at another fan base. Unless you have references that directly attribute the "Redneck" phenom specifically to Sabres fans, I suggest you be general about it origins. As far as I can tell the whole thing was spearheaded by a "local" tshirt company based in Florida [5]. ccwaters 14:04, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
Calling Wikipedia an encyclopedia is nothing less than what it is. You have a long and active involvement with Wikipedia for someone who infers that he's not on board with its purpose. Ravenswing 17:36, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
This site gives me an outlet for my interest in writing. I get into debates with users about content, as everyone does. But until you all do something to stop IP addresses from wasting countless hours of everyone's time, this site remains a weblog, not a real "encyclopedia". Wahkeenah 17:51, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
So do you have the references I was asking for? ccwaters 11:33, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
Not to your satisfaction. Wahkeenah 11:37, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
I'll wait a while and let other parties chime in before I before edit it. I really don't think what I'm asking for is unreasonable. ccwaters 12:17, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
It's not merely not unreasonable, it's downright required. I'll edit the section out right now. If anyone wants to come up with the verifiable sources Wikipedia requires, feel free. Ravenswing 16:52, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
Where are your sources for the rest of the article??? Wahkeenah 17:22, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

What do you mean by unsourced "accusations"??? What accusations? Wahkeenah 18:58, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

See first comment in this section... ccwaters 19:07, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
I don't see any "accusation", I see city-to-city rivalry banter. What country are you from, anyway? Wahkeenah 19:16, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
Does it matter where I from? Accusation, banter, whatever. Its unsourced and has no place here. There are plenty of message boards to discuss behavior of teams' fan bases. ccwaters 19:22, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
I took away the so-called "accusations". If you still have a problem with it, then I must assume that the problem is you. Wahkeenah 01:15, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
Now your complaint is the picture, which is the same one or nearly identical to the one that the fans had on their posters. There is nothing on that picture's page that restricts it to the Andy Griffith Show page, and it illustrates a point made in the paragraph, so according to the way I read the "fair use" gibberish, it qualifies. Also, I don't appreciate the not-so-veiled obscenity in your abbreviation for "Fair Use Criteria". Wahkeenah 02:35, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
Its not my shortcut. Never noticed the "obscenity" until you pointed it out. If you take issue with it this is probably a good starting point: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=WP:FUC&action=history I'm done. ccwaters 11:12, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Either way, a fan/media fad through one playoff run is trivia, not a major component of the history of the franchise worthy of its own section heading and corresponding TOC entry. I'm relocating it to the trivia section. VT hawkeyetalk to me 19:15, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

  • Fine. In fact, I beat you to it. Wahkeenah 19:21, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
  • And you improved on it. Looks good. Wahkeenah 19:34, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
  • I live in Raleigh, been to every playoff game cept 2, was at game 7...and trust me: the term "Redneck Hockey" is a big deal and definately deserves to be in here.
    • The jealous Edmonton and Buffalo fans on this page would probably call that "original research". If you could find some interesting stuff from WRAL or the News and Observer to post here, that would help reinforce this writeup. :) Wahkeenah 12:31, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
Attempting to enforce similar requirements on the Canes' page as on every other NHL team page does not a jealous Buffalo or Edmonton fan make. You may want to spend some time reading other teams' pages (start with Philly, Montreal, Tampa, and Dallas) and taking note of how much similar fan movements are written about. Wikipedia has standards, and no matter how much we love the team and enjoy the associated stuff, the page needs to stick to them. By the way, I attended my first Canes game on October 31, 1997, and I've worn my Erik Cole jersey in arenas where there were more guys in our colors on the ice than in the stands. VT hawkeyetalk to me 15:07, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
Then maybe you could help with the research on this point. I don't want to make too big of a deal about it, I just don't like the ignorant ones' approach of trying to suppress the fan-specific info as if it didn't exist. Wahkeenah 16:19, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
I think it's acknowledged, and sourced, just fine as it is now: a paragraph in the Trivia section with a proper <ref>URL</ref> link to substantiate claims of a recent phenomenon. Neither ccw nor RGT are ignorant, nor do I believe they're haters; both have spent quite a lot of time on this article in particular, on the hockey WikiProject linked above (take a look), and on Wikipedia in general. They (and I) are trying to enforce standards for team articles that make this article, and all the others, look better. It's not personal (a lesson I had to learn through a bunch of rv'd edits as well, coming from E2 as I did); you'll have much more fun, and success, if you don't make it that way. VT hawkeyetalk to me 19:02, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
The manner in which that information was attacked displayed the all-too-typical arrogance of a number of editors on this website. However, this trivia seems to have found its proper spot in the article, so it's probably time to stop flogging this pretty-much-dead horse. Wahkeenah 05:59, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
The manner in which that (at the time quite unsourced) "information" was defended displayed quite a bit of arrogance, as to that; it takes some stones to come onto a website, express your contempt for it and its rules, and declare those suggesting the rules be enforced arrogant. It is, of course, from a glance at your Talk page, all-too-typical, and probably isn't going to change any time soon, WP:CIVIL or otherwise. Then again, when bandwagoning outsiders wander off, the project locals will still be around. Ravenswing 06:23, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
I never fire the first shot, nor do I raise the "civility" flag like some do when I fire back at them when they cop their I-know-better-than-you-do attitude. Wahkeenah 04:21, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

"Hurricanes suck"?[edit]

Technically speaking, Hurricanes blow and Oilers suck. How's that for neutrality? >:) Wahkeenah 23:38, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Trivia section[edit]

My edits to the trivia section regarding the RDU Airport and "Redneck Hockey" were deleted. Apparently this was because of the use of "weasel words" and not adhering to NPOV. As far as the airport fact goes, this is something that has been well-documented by the media. If a citation was wanted, I can find one. The commments I added about "Redneck Hockey" are indeed true - most Hurricanes fans were tired of being seen as second-class by fans in other hockey cities, and "Redneck Hockey" was a backlash. This might not be documented extensively in the papers, but I can tell you, as a fan of the Hurricanes for many years, that statement is 100% fact. (I know that I am a fan of this particular team, but I am not going to disrespect Wikipedia by adding things I know aren't 100% true - my additions were not a result of team bias.) It is not meant to be a shot at fans of any other team - it is simply an important piece of background information into something that others apparently feel is significant enough to mention in this article. I saw no "weasel words" in that statement. By the way, it was NOT started by a Florida t-shirt company, as one user claimed above - the same company also made shirts that said "Caniacs," a term that was in use WAY before the 2006 playoff run. Feel free to put a "citation needed" tag on those items, and I will try my best to find them. I don't see why it would be better to place a "citation needed" tag on those statements rather than to delete them outright. For now, I'm reverting the page back to the way it was, since I see no reason that what I posted was not worth mentioning. User:152.3.83.224 06:10, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

  • I have also had problems with the pedants on this page. I was rooting hard for the 'Canes, but I don't live in the area. If you could find some references to this topic, say at WRAL or in the News and Observer, it would really help shut them up. Wahkeenah 06:18, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
    • Please don't call them "pedants" - we all can respectfully disagree. Name-calling will not get anyone to support us on this issue. However, I understand your frustration, especially considering how closely I follow this team. I will find references from WRAL, the N&O, or other sources when I can. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.3.83.224 (talkcontribs)
      • If you were to read the attitude they copped about it, you would see what I'm getting at. Good luck finding info. I especially would like to find something in writing that refers to what I saw on WRAL-TV while visiting NC during the Buffalo series... how Buffalo fans thought they "deserved" to win more than NC fans. Wahkeenah 07:03, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, I didn't notice the airport thing. I didn't intentionally revert that, sorry. I would probably word it a little better though: "wee hours" isn't very encyclopedic . As far as the sentence:

The slogan was also intended to be a proverbial "slap in the face" to those who wanted to see hockey fail in the South or claimed that Carolina fans were less hockey-savvy than more "established" northern teams.

Most importantly, its just a redundant and more inciteful restatement of the sentence directly preceding it...

During the 2006 playoffs, some Carolina media and fans adopted the slogan "Redneck Hockey" parodying a stereotype of Southern culture and the region's image as a non-traditional hockey market.

I would contend that WP:WEASEL applies to the phrase more "established" northern teams. What are the qoutes implying? Who are you quoting?. What's a proverbial "slap in the face". What proverb are we referencing? ccwaters 11:36, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

ccwaters 11:18, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

  • Duly noted on the "wee hours" thing - you are right, that phrasing isn't very encyclopedic. I'll change it to "after midnight." As for the other sentence, I put that in there because the first sentence made the whole thing seem very spontaneous, as if the fans just woke up one morning and decided to do the whole "Redneck Hockey" thing without any provocation. However, I can see how the sentence would be a bit inciteful and unencyclopedic. When I say "proverbial," I mean that "slap in the face" is an oft-used phrase to describe someone or some group's effort to annoy someone else or another group. However, I definitely agree that the wording could be better. As for the "established" thing - that could have gone without quotes, sorry about that.

How about if I did this:

"...and the region's image as a non-hockey market, in response to some opposing fans contending that Carolina fans were less hockey-savvy or less dedicated than other fans due to their status as fans of a Southern team."

I'll change that, I think that sounds a lot better and more encyclopedic/respectful. If anyone else has problems with that, feel free to tell me about it. Template:Unsigned:152.3.83.224

I think you're on the right track. Its a little wordy though. Anyway, is this something that was around before that just blew up in the playoffs or is it really a direct response to something? There are references to a TV news clip: I can only imagine a drunk face-painted Sabres fan spewing smack on camera. If it was really that influential, I'm sure you can find it at youtube. ccwaters 15:04, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
It actually was a direct response that popped up for the first time during the 2006 playoffs. Unlike the term "Caniacs," the "Redneck Hockey" slogan was not in use at all before that.

Franchise Records[edit]

I edited out the franchise record added by 69.60.229.47 regarding the Canes being one of 5 NHL Teams not to have ever been swept in a playoff series. If the franchise individual records are going to include records earned by the Hartford Whalers teams, then the team records should also include them. As such, Hartford was swept in the playoffs twice by Montreal in franchise history, the first being a 3 game sweep in 1979/80 and the second time in a 4 game series in 1988/89.Fran —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Pparazorback (talkcontribs) 02:10, 16 February 2007 (UTC).

Hurricanes captain ,2004-05[edit]

Hello Darthflyer. The NHL captains are listed by 'PERSON' not by 'SEASON', as a result during the calender years 'March 2004 to September 2005' the Hurricanes had no captain. During the 2004-05 NHL lockout, the Hurricanes franchise (still) existed. So please stop removing that fact from the 'Team captains' section. GoodDay 01:18, 10 March 2007 (UTC) :Forget it, do what you want 'Darthflyer'. GoodDay 02:36, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

I've added 2004-05 NHL lockout tag -example: (Lockout) . This helps explain why the Hurricanes captaincy was vacant during that time. GoodDay 16:44, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Trivia Section[edit]

"The abbreviation 'Canes is often used, as with the teams of the University of Miami and Lethbridge of the WHL, whose teams have long been known as the Hurricanes."

^^^I think this can be removed entirely, as it seems to be of minor importance and also is kinda straightforward. Also, I think the two wrestling tidbits can be combined into one trivia comment. Another thing I think needs to happen is a Jersey section, describing the team's jerseys. The third-jersey trivia can be put into this section. The team mascot needs to be mentioned too. The last trivia comment, refering to the team missing the playoffs and the distinctions that go with it, I think can go into that final paragraph talking about this past season. If we can fit some of these trivia things into the main text, then I think the article will be better put-together. Love each other, or perish. ~Auden 04:55, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Jersey Numbers[edit]

Mike Sundheim, Media Relations Director for the Carolina Hurricanes, noted in his blog on the official site that Matt Cullen will in fact be wearing number 8 next season and Tim Gleason will wear number 42. Source: http://hurricanes.nhl.com/team/app/?service=page&page=NHLPage&id=2412 Atomicbalm 03:07, 19 August 2007 (UTC)atomicbalm

Thanks. Have been looking for that source and did not see the media blog which confirmed that change. I will correct the roster template if it has not already been fixed showing the change. Pparazorback 03:54, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Franchise History[edit]

In the section that discusses the team's two years in Greensboro, it says: "With attendance routinely falling below 3,000 for many games, Sports Illustrated ran a story titled "Natural Disaster", and ESPN anchors mocked the "Green Acres" of empty seats; in a 2006 interview, Karmanos admitted that "as it turns out, Greensboro was probably a mistake."

The lowest reported attendance for a Hurricanes home game was 5,516on November 23, 1997, a 3-3 tie with the Calgary Flames. The average attendance for 97-98 was 9,108 and in 98-99 it was 8,188. Not only was attendance not "routinely" 3,000, it had never been below 5,000 for even one game.

"Official" attendance records include season ticket totals and comps; they don't necessarily reflect actual game attendance.  Ravenswing  19:43, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

That is true for all attendance figures in sports. What evidence is there that they routinely drew 3,000? This number is thrown out there as fact even though there is no evidence to support it. The only documented attendance figures there are to go on are the numbers the teams submit to the NHL. Unless someone went through the stands and counted how many people were there each night and they "routinely" came up with 3K, this number doesn't really have a place in the entry. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.28.247.151 (talk) 21:57, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

http://cgi.cnnsi.com/features/1997/weekly/cover/1027/index.html Finding that article might be a start. ccwaters (talk) 22:19, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Carolina Hurricanes seasons[edit]

I have put Carolina Hurricanes seasons up for WP:FLC. I am asking if anyone has any photos of the Hurricanes that they can put on wikipedia. Preferably a pic of the arena and/or with the Stanley Cup. No action shots, just a good clean image. Please shoot me a message on my talkpage if you have one. Thanks, PGPirate 23:37, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Undue weight[edit]

For pity's sake, the section on the 2006 playoffs is larger than all the rest of the team's history combined. If no one beats me to it by tomorrow, I'm trimming it a LOT.  Ravenswing  20:22, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Trivia section: gone[edit]

I've whacked it, integrating as much as I could (and believed important, in historic perspective: e.g. the loudness, tailgating and airport stuff from '02 has stuck, "Redneck Hockey" from '06 has not) into the team history section. Some of it was already duplicated, i.e. the playoff-missing stuff and gale flag. Need a cite for the Don Cherry comment; I remember news reports clearly, but got nothing linkwise at the moment. VT hawkeyetalk to me 02:20, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

neutrality[edit]

There are still a number of harsh words in this article which are tipping the scales of neutrality. Judgmental words like "lackluster" and phrases like "made national waves" appear to be the opinion of the editor rather than based on 3rd party sources. Opinions?

True, but so are most sports related articles. Not that that makes it right. The bigger issue really is the near total lack of inline references.68.221.254.57 (talk) 00:43, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
Since the original flagger has not responded, I am going to remove the flags from the article. This article is certainly not any worse than most other articles in its class. It could use some cleanup, but it's not overly problematic. If I'm wrong, I'll repent on my deathbed. 68.221.254.65 (talk) 23:08, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Copyright on YouTube[edit]

There is a video on YouTube that has the description as the exact first two paragraphs in the box. I have tried to have it be changed but no third party may do so. Here is the link http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6RFaSLb05hs&feature=related —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.9.43.22 (talk) 23:44, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Josef Vasicek[edit]

Are there any sources which state that his number is "out of circulation," or has it merely not chanced to be assigned to anyone else yet, given that it's an unusual high number? Ravenswing 13:11, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

No sources that I'm aware of. Given that the players are wearing "63" memorial patches on their uniforms this season, I doubt anyone will use that number this year. That doesn't mean it's "out of circulation" like Chiasson's #3, though. I think the statement's speculative. JTRH (talk) 14:21, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

initial version of new uniforms[edit]

Initial version of the new uniforms for 2013/14 is now available in the Hebrew version of this article. Tdunsky (talk) 05:59, 1 July 2013 (UTC)