Talk:National Hockey League

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)

• What do you mean? There's a section discussing defunct and relocated teams, and a link to a much larger article concerning them.  ῲ Ravenswing ῴ  21:56, 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)

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)

• Truth be told, the last NHA meetings were over a year after the NHL's founding ... but you're quite right - this doesn't belong in the infobox as it was listed, and I've deleted the entry.  ῲ Ravenswing ῴ  02:56, 21 June 2011 (UTC)