Talk:List of all-time NHL standings

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.Ice HockeyWikipedia:WikiProject Ice HockeyTemplate:WikiProject Ice HockeyIce Hockey articles

Lists

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Lists, an attempt to structure and organize all list pages on Wikipedia. If you wish to help, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.ListsWikipedia:WikiProject ListsTemplate:WikiProject ListsList articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

New Title[edit]

This isn't all-time. This is just the all-time of active teams. The article's title is misleading.LordAtlas (talk) 01:36, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm in favor of this... "List of all-time NHL standings for active organizations" --Scary Ghosty (talk) 03:02, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Done! Scary Ghosty (talk) 19:39, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

We could've just added a section for defunct organizations. This new title seems overly specific for something that could've just been addressed by adding to the article. Soulbust (talk) 03:39, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on List of all-time NHL standings. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110519181732/http://www.hockey-reference.com/teams/DAL/ to http://www.hockey-reference.com/teams/DAL/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:45, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Playoffs incomplete[edit]

The table seems to be missing the defunct franchises. See List of NHL playoff series#Defunct teams. Jmj713 (talk) 20:27, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Active/defunct separation[edit]

This is something I've always wondered about (even with other sports as I have helped maintain the NBA and NFL ones). I am of course assuming here, but I don't think it's a stretch to imagine that a lot of people use this page (and ones for the other sports, such as MLB) to look at current teams and whatnot, being able to just have a quick glance and be able to see oh look Chicago ranks 25th or something like that.

But like I said, I have considered in the past maybe combining the active+defunct franchises, or perhaps discussing a combination of the two. So I guess this is a good time to do that. Pinging @Jmj713: since you made the edit. I do like the idea of highlighting defunct teams in grey (and is similar to the visual I've imagined prior). I am unsure if this is something that'd be the consensus view on how to present the information. I've also thought about maybe including the defunct teams but unranked, or alternatively including both an "active team ranking" and "overall ranking" column (or perhaps putting them in the same column? Wanderers, for example would be listed as – / 39 if in the same column or something like that).

Another thing with the defunct franchises is that they have a huge gulf of games played when compared to the active franchises, aside of course from Vegas and Seattle. Seems perhaps somewhat odd to have the Wanderers (6 games played) on the list. I don't know. Maybe it'd just look odd(?) to me and not others.

Also yes, we would need to add the defunct franchises to the playoff table, I agree with that. Even if left unmerged, it'd be good to add that information. Soulbust (talk) 02:28, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It might look odd but I see no reason to separate the two, if we're talking all-time standings. Because if we exclude any team that has been part of the NHL since 1917, then it's simply not all-time. I believe it's more encyclopedic to do that. And it's easy enough to see that, for instance Arizona still ranks last of actives. Another argument for is being respectful of achievements of these defunct teams, the original Senators and the Maroons were great teams. As far as the larger amount of games played by active teams, don't forget that win-percentage is what's being ranked, so it's still possible that decades from now the original Senators and the Maroons will still be above some active franchises, which I think is interesting. Jmj713 (talk) 03:31, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]