Talk:Detroit Red Wings/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Untitled

I don't have the skill for this, nor the time at the moment to figure out how. But the picture depicting the uniforms needs a minor change. The Wings wear white helmets, not red, with their white jerseys. The only time they wore red with white "road" jerseys was when wearing the Winter Classic throwbacks. Sonar1313 (talk) 14:45, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Poor writing

As can be seen in discussion, the writing in this wiki has terrible grammar. Please correct. For example: "From 1933–34 to 1965–66, the Red Wings only missed the playoffs four times." What did the author mean? It could mean those are the only years they've missed the playoffs, or it means that during that particular span of years (which numbers 4) they missed the playoffs 4 times. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.250.7.162 (talk) 13:55, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

• No, that's pretty clear: Between the 33-34 season and the 65-66 season (a span of 32 years), they only missed the playoffs 4 times. Perhaps it could be more precise, as it seems that a reader must understand that seasons span two years (running fall -> spring), but that's a pretty basic aspect of the NHL. DP76764 (Talk) 16:23, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

That's because most editors are intoxicated when they edit about pro hockey —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.185.60.226 (talk) 13:31, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Octopus section

The piece states "In April 2008, prior to the start of the Detroit Red Wings vs. Colorado Avalanche Western Conference Semi-Finals playoff series, NHL commissioner Gary Bettman stated that a $10,000 fine would be imposed against the franchise, if Al retrieves the octopus, due to 'matter' that flies onto the ice when Al twirls it above his head." Being a non-hockey fan I am only vaguely familiar with the tradition of the octopus. I came here looking for more information. However, the syntax of that sentence is so convoluted that it makes no sense. I have no idea what the original contributor was attempting to communicate. What does it mean? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.79.62.16 (talk • contribs)

It's pretty straight forward. Al Sobatka, who usually picks up the octopii (he's also in charge of the ice surface in general and drives one of the zambonis), sometimes twirls the octopus around his head as he carries it off the ice. The commissioner is apparently concerned that 'bits of matter' will fly off while that happens and will affect the ice surface. The twirling around the head isn't really part of the tradition, it's just something that Al tends to do to fire up the crowd. Dp76764 (talk) 15:33, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

This section does need to be rewritten. It is rather confusing. Also, it needs to include the fact that the NHL has relaxed the 'rule' a bit (see [1]). I can't work on it right now, but somebody else is more than welcome to. Thanks - Rjd0060 (talk) 15:39, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Sweaters or Jerseys?

I've noticed an ongoing conflict regarding whether NHL hockey players wear sweaters or jerseys. I really didn't know which term was correct. While it is true that Reebok refers to the article of clothing as a "Jersey" Reebok Store, the NHL rulebook states:

SECTION TWO: TEAMS

Rule 13 Composition of Team

b. Each player and each goalkeeper listed in the lineup of each Team shall wear an individual identifying number at least ten inches (10") high on the back of his sweater. Sweater numbers such as 00, 1/2 (fractions), .05 (decimals), 101 (three digit) are not permitted. In addition, each player and goalkeeper shall wear his surname in full, in block letters three inches (3") high, across the back of his sweater at shoulder height.

All players of each Team shall be dressed uniformly with approved design and color of their helmets, sweaters, short pants, stockings and skates.

Altered uniforms of any kind, i.e. velcro inserts, over-sized jerseys, altered collars, etc. will not be permitted. Any player or goalkeeper not complying with this Rule shall not be permitted to participate in the game. NHL Rulebook

Rather than quote every mention of Jersey or Sweater in the NHL Rulebook, I'll just point out that it's almost always called a sweater, except when the rulebook makes mention of oversized goalie jerseys.

So the question is: who's right, the company that makes the jersey or the National Hockey League that almost always calls it a sweater?--69.14.183.129 (talk) 04:48, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm still inclined to leave it as "jersey". This is the traditional term, used all over Wiki, and it isn't really "wrong". - Rjd0060 (talk) 04:53, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

How about this link to the NHL official web site.Asher196 (talk) 04:56, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

They're using the Reebok terminology for the article of clothing. I'll bet it's because this site is a redirect to a sales outlet selling Reebok merchandise.--69.14.183.129 (talk) 05:08, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

That would not be a safe bet. If you look closely, they also sell CCM jerseys.Asher196 (talk) 05:13, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Curious, why not? Do you believe that the NHL actually sells it's own merchandise direct to the public?--69.14.183.129 (talk) 05:16, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Because for the sake of curiousity I went through the process to purchase a jersey right up to the point of paying for it, and was never redirected to a different site.Asher196 (talk) 05:18, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Might I suggest some light reading? Proxy_server. This is how a website URL could be redirected to another web server. But the NHL.com site wouldn't even need that, it could just be utilizing a web service and serving the information up in a frame on the original web page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.14.183.129 (talk) 05:27, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

The issue was never about what is right, but what is most commonly used. A common standard at wikipedia is to use naming that is the common usage. Such as Bill Clinton instead of his "right" name which is William. The majority of people will call them jersey's and not sweaters. Not to mention the reason they used to be called sweaters was that they were sweaters in the past, they no longer are. -Djsasso (talk) 04:57, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

And to affirm that "jersey" is the most common usage, "hockey jersey" gets 1.1 million google hits compared to 104,000 for "hockey sweater".Asher196 (talk) 05:04, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

By the way, we have an article on this. Hockey jersey----Asher196 (talk) 05:06, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for the link to the Wiki article, it's good to know that it's been covered. However, I don't think that a comparision of Google hits would be a definitive answer for a question; otherwise I would have to start believing in UFO stories, JFK assassination plots, etc.--69.14.183.129 (talk) 05:19, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

I disagree. I was simply trying to assess the most common usage. The google hits is a good way to get a rough approximation. Obviously more people use the term "jersey"Asher196 (talk) 05:26, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

On this point we must disagree. Obviously more web pages use the term "jersey". --69.14.183.129 (talk) 05:30, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

And people make web pages.Asher196 (talk) 05:34, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

And some people make web pages. And some people make more web pages than other people. My point is still that a comparison of Google hits is not a valid statistical sampling method.--69.14.183.129 (talk) 05:38, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

For the sake of this argument it is. This just isn't important enough to sustain this much debate. Have a great day!Asher196 (talk) 05:42, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Which is what the point is. Naming conventions state that we should use the most common usage, and 1 million vs. 100k is quite a substantial usage. And websites don't just create themselves, people do which means that people also use the term jersey more often. -Djsasso (talk) 05:36, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Quite aside from that, I'm unimpressed by the fact that the rulebook uses the term "sweater." It also uses the term "fisticuffs," but I haven't noted we've changed the name of Fighting in ice hockey.  Ravenswing  05:12, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

A very good point! But was hoping for a better answer to the question than "because most people think so".--69.14.183.129 (talk) 05:14, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

"Most people think so" is the correct answer as far as Wikipedia policy is concerned. WP:NAME holds: "Generally, article naming should prefer what the greatest number of English speakers would most easily recognize, with a reasonable minimum of ambiguity, while at the same time making linking to those articles easy and second nature." When Google results for "hockey jersey" outnumber "hockey sweater" by over twenty to one, and the only counterargument proffered by the belligerent anon IPs edit warring this issue is "Well, we want this instead," this isn't an term that should remotely be in question.  Ravenswing  15:16, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Jerseys and sweaters are synonyms, so switching the wording is just lame. See dictionary.com's jersey reference:

1. a close-fitting, knitted sweater or shirt.

So, using the word 'jersey' is more precise, that's all. Alaney2k (talk) 14:15, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

I think Don Cherry growled ('bout a week ago), that the correct term (at least in Canada) is sweater. GoodDay (talk) 14:51, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Don Cherry growls a lot of things, but as in many other things, he's talking out of his backside here. Google Canada hits for Canadian pages only on "hockey sweater:" 18,200. On "hockey jersey:" 325,000. Hrm, including the CBC's own online shop. (grins)  Ravenswing  15:19, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Cool. GoodDay (talk) 15:24, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

WP:LEW ccwaters (talk) 23:58, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

It appears that our good friend the 'sweater' advocate has resumed his crusade. I'm the one who started this 'Sweaters or Jerseys?' section, specifically to get the edit war off the article page and on to the discussion page. I even took the part of devil's advocate, hoping to get the pro-sweater faction to chip in his/her two cents (which this person has failed to do). I also honestly believed that 'jersey' was the correct term, but I wanted someone to make a valid case for it.

I think that the arguments presented were of varying validity, but Ravenswing's point re 'fisticuffs' versus 'fighting' probably was the best argument in favor of 'jerseys'.

I'd like extend Ravenswing's point to note the following: while the NHL rulebook does use the term 'sweaters' more often, the most recent rule changes by the NHL (the goalie equipment and the tie-downs straps) use the term 'jerseys'. This indicates that the ruling body for the NHL has itself accepted the new term 'jersey' over the old term 'sweater'.

I appologize to all those who, when taking a pro-jersey stance, may have felt angered or frustrated with me. I was pushing each of you in order to get (imho) your best argument and was calling you to task over what (again imho) were weak arguments. I'm sorry if it did start to seem as if we were enmeshed in the Monty Python skit Argument Clinic. --69.14.183.129 (talk) 19:20, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Football players wear jerseys. Hockey players wear sweaters. I don't care what Google has to say about it. I am not the original sweater agitator. I cannot produce evidence to support my contention other than my years involved with hockey in Metro Detroit. 99.185.60.226 (talk) 13:34, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Current roster

Czechoslovakia doesnt exist anymore. But the flags are correct with the newer countries. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.216.227.191 (talk) 18:39, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

The location used is as it was at time of birth. So players born when the country was still Czechoslovakia are listed as being born there. -Djsasso (talk) 18:42, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Back-Up goalie for Osgood will be Howard. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.184.250.247 (talk) 16:16, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

We don't update the rosters until the season starts or the player has been added to the roster on the official team page. -Djsasso (talk) 16:21, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

The roster is misleading - it includes many players who made appearances with the team during the season (called up briefly from the AHL), but were not part of the end-of-season roster. I think a separate section should be made for players who were not on the active roster at the end of the season (and thus don't have their names on the Cup). Irregulargalaxies (talk) 22:58, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

The list of those on the cup is located on the 2008 Stanley Cup Finals page once it is announced, which it has not been yet. The roster on the this page is the day to day roster of the team. And not the final roster. The final roster of the team is located on the 2007-08 Detroit Red Wings season page. Note that final roster and names on cup are a different list and are not the same thing. -Djsasso (talk) 23:00, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Likewise, the USSR does not exist anymore. And neither does Sverdlovsk as the city name for where Pavel Datsyuk comes from. The current correct geographical description is "Yekaterinburg, Russia" instead of "Sverdlovsk, USSR". Yekaterinburg was the original, pre-Soviet name for the city which was named after Peter the Great's wife when it was founded in 1723. The city name was changed to Sverdlovsk in 1924, after the Russian Revolution, but reverted to its original name following the collapse of the USSR in 1991. signed PM Pauloeric63 (talk) 14:42, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

While that is true, it does not change the fact that Datsyuk was born in Sverdlovsk, USSR. Wikipedia convention is to use the name of the place as it existed when he was born. It would be revisionist history, and therefore incorrect, to change it to reflect political changes in the intervening time. His nationality is Russian, but his birthplace was in the Soviet Union. Resolute 14:49, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

The Streak

This statement is false: "This is the longest current streak of post-season appearances in all of American professional sports." The streak is of 17 straight playoffs... but St. Louis had a streak of appearing at every playoff from 1980-2004 (which is 24 seasons). The St. Louis article also mentions that this is the second longest streak (I do not know if this is true). Thus that beginning paragraph should be changed unless I am unaware of something. 76.64.163.203 (talk) 02:18, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes and if you read the sentence it says current streak. St. Louis's streak ended in 2004 so its not current. -Djsasso (talk) 02:22, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

St. Louis' wasn't the second longest streak, as to that. The Bruins had the longest streak ever of 28 seasons (from 1968 to 1996), followed by the Black Hawks (from 1970 to 1997).  Ravenswing  05:03, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Rivalries

Should We Start Doing A Rivalries Section for Teams? —Preceding unsigned comment added by KingRaven44 (talk • contribs)

We don't generally have rivalries sections as most of the information that gets put in them is POV and original research which are not good. -Djsasso (talk) 14:15, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

History section longer than "main article"?

Why is the history section significantly longer and more detailed than the "main article" it refers to?

Also, who thought referring to teams by their nicknames (e.g. "Avs") was appropriate for an encyclopedia article? I'd change it but I don't have an account and the page is locked. This article could certainly use some cleanup, though.

--69.112.198.201 (talk) 04:30, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps the History section should be spun off into a separate article (i.e. the History of the Montreal Canadiens), and a shorter summary included in this article. 32.97.110.50 (talk) 15:30, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Actually what should be done is have alot of the stuff in the 2005 and beyond section cut out because it suffers from recentism. -DJSasso (talk) 16:35, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Octopus references...

In the section on the octopus, it says the following:

"The 1952 playoffs featured the start of the tradition—the octopus throw. The owner of a local fish market, Peter Cusimano, threw one from the stands onto the ice. The eight legs were purportedly symbolic of the eight wins it took to win the Stanley Cup at the time. The Red Wings went on to sweep both of their opponents that year en route to a Stanley Cup championship. The NHL has, at various times, tried to eliminate this tradition but it continues to this day.[citation needed]"

Would any of these be suitable references for the fact that the tradition continues to this day? [2] [3] [4] (see number 4 in the list) Cheers, Edhubbard (talk) 01:18, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

"Darkness of Harkness" nonsense

Quite aside from the POV inherent in the sentence, that the (rather brief) Harkness period is known to Detroit fans as "Darkness of Harkness" is complete BS. I found a microscopic SIX hits for the phrase on Google, one for the blogger cited in the reference, one for the Wikipedia article and three for Wikimirrors. The staggering thing is that the edit is at least a year old, and went that long unexamined and unchallenged.

Beyond that, I'm going to tag the article for recentism. Does anyone else find it crazed that the Wings' four Stanley Cups in the 1950s are addressed with a collective eight sentences combined, while half of the text length of the article addresses the last fifteen seasons?  Ravenswing  07:58, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree with your critique that the article over-emphasizes recent history, but I have to say having grown up in the 70s and 80s the Darkness of Harkness line is well known to me. It's a phrase that Wings fans of that era would be aware of, but not one that would find its way to Google because it was limited to hockey fans of one city in one generation. Google is not the arbiter of truth. This phrase did exist and was once common, referring to the nadir of Wings history. Whether or not it is notable is another matter. As you said, it was a brief period of time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.226.30.56 (talk) 01:52, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Recentism

Someone keeps putting a recentism tag on the article. Anyone know specifically why? I asked him to explain and he pointed to recent sections being longer. If there are issues, edit out the unimportant information. However, simpyl statign a section is longer, particularly when the team has been one of the greatest dynasties inNHL history over the period at issue, is not a valid basis. Please be more specific. Hotdoggin1 (talk) 16:53, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

The section covering the last 5 years is as big as sections covering larger sections of the past. That is the textbook definition of recentism. What needs to happen is for 90% of the stuff covering the last few years needs to be stripped out and if relevant placed in individual season articles. -DJSasso (talk) 17:00, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

The most recent events dwarfing the rest of an article is exactly what recentism is; if you're shaky on the details, try clicking on the link in the tag. It doesn't get more specific than that, and I'm unsure what in the edit comments was ambiguous on that score. DJ's fix is one way of doing things, while what I had in mind was a History of the Detroit Red Wings article akin to similar articles for the Habs and the Rangers. It'd be preferable if an experienced editor enthusiastic about the Red Wings did it, but in any event, if you're not interested in helping to improve the article yourself, please refrain from removing tags alerting other editors that there are issues requiring some work.  Ravenswing  02:18, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Well, hey, look; someone already started such an article. I think I'm going to transfer a large, large chunk over.  Ravenswing  02:20, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

And done.  Ravenswing  02:57, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't think any of you understand what recentism is. First, WP:recentism is an essay and not Wikipedia policy. Second, simply pointing to paragraph lengths does not show recentism since there are other factors at issue, including, with historical facts, a lack of quality sourceable information. On a side note, it looks like you corrected the problem by removing information from the pre51995 sections (the sections you have incorrectly cited as being too short and thus a symptom of recentism). Did such an act actually make sense to you? Also, instead of actually correcting this problem that you asserted exists, you created a new page with the same information? Buddy, think about that, if there is a violation of "recentism" (which is not a policy so in reality it can't be violated) how would keeping the same information correct anything? Are you sure there was not an underlying motive behind removing valid information? In the face of what was written here, I can't fathom any reasons for what you did beyond a compelte missunderstanding by all parties what constitutes recentism and the proper way to correct it. Is this correct? So you are aware, I have undid an edit that appears to have tried to correct part of the problem this attempt to "move recentism" created. Hotdoggin1 (talk) 04:29, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Alright, everybody calm down. Remember, we're all on the same team (Team Wikipedia FTW!). Yes, Ravenswing, when doing an extensive removal of what s/he though was unnecessary, removed a small amount of stuff from the 1926–1949 section, but removed a ton of stuff from the recent (1994–present) sections. About 97% of what was removed was recent stuff (1994–present). I think Hotdoggin1 only noticed the small 3% in the 1926–1949 section, and assumed that Ravenswing had a skewed view of recentism. I think it's clear that both Hotdoggin1 and Ravenswing understand recentism, and both are trying to improve the article. The issue here isn't really recentism, but about 400 bytes of changes to the 1926–1949 section. Hotdoggin1 wants the info kept, and Ravenswing must have had some reason s/he removed it. It would be nice if we can move the debate forward and discuss whether the additional 400 bytes should be left in or removed, and the reasons for or against doing so. —Muéro^(talk/c) 07:09, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

It's "he," thanks, Muero. As far as Hotdoggin's rambling comments go, first off, I'm curious about his assertion that material was "removed against consensus;" what consensus would that be? What precisely is the "problem" he claims has been created? That he personally dislikes the concept of recentism? That's apparent, but no one's claimed that there's any black-letter policy against recentism - this is a stylistic issue, and furthermore one with broad support Wikipedia-wide. Did I choose what wording to keep in the article and which to transfer to the history article? Yep, I sure did - which is my privilege as an editor to do. Were I to seek permission to do so, I wouldn't pick someone who, through a glance at his contribution list, has made exactly one mainspace edit to any hockey article other than a reversion or tag removal, and whose list of articles edited are curiously similar to that of the other editor involved here. If an experienced editor is curious as to why I chose the phrasing I did, I'll be happy to respond. (And, in closing, if these remarks sound bitey, I react very strongly to being accused of having an "underlying motive" behind editing, and do not apologize for doing so.)  Ravenswing  09:31, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Actually, editing articles is what happens here. In fact there is a large warning when you go to submit what you have written that it can and will be edited and/or removed. And if you don't agree to that to not submit. Ravenswing is well within his rights to edit articles as he sees fit, as is any other editor. You are welcome to disagree and discuss, but its off the mark to sugest there is an underlying motive for the removal. This is a process that we complete on all articles, cutting down the history on the main page so its just a brief overview and put more detail in the history of and season articles. If anything the fact that you and an another editor whom have done no edits to this article or any other hockey article other than ones involved in this situation are what is suspicious. -DJSasso (talk) 13:15, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

I had been to the page previously and recently returned to find some major changes, and looked through the history and saw a widespread deletion of information without any basis given. I corrected what I saw was changed for no reason. I do not see any basis for removal of the information. Apparently someone else agrees with me, and another person disagrees with me. By the way, I take your tone, particularly the implication that a person must have edited a hockey article to edit this page, to be a bit "off." Meanwhile, RCTraylor and yourself seem fit to point to this non-issue and not discuss the changes and instead assume people are acting in bad faith. I would prefer to settle this without having to fall to the level of name calling and assertions of bad faith. I agree with Muero that everyone is trying to improve the article and that this debate can be moved forward. Throwing accusations around will not move it forward. To move this forward, tell me, why should the sourced and factually accurate material be removed? I don't see any problem with it, so please explain. Cliesthenes (talk) 16:25, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

I am not implying that you must edit a hockey article to edit this article. I am implying that you two are the same person because you are both editors who have only sporadically edited. In the few edits you both have made are on a number of the same articles. The information should be removed as it doesn't read well and belongs more appropriately in another location. -DJSasso (talk) 16:33, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

We are not the same person. If you want, request a checkuser. Otherwise, assume good faith. "Doesn't read well" (sic) is not a basis for deletion, it is a basis for editing (As I have been doing, though you continue to blindly revert my work to improve the article, which, mind you, I am within my rights to report). "Belonging in another location" is only a good argument if all of the information was removed from this article, thus eliminating these sections. It wasn’t. What appears to have occurred is selective reasoning. There is nothing wrong with that, though I believe important information was removed and should stay. Furthermore, there is no rule against having the same information in two places. So the only thing we are dealing with is your opinion versus mine (ignoring your violation of WP:Good Faith, and WP:Revert). I agree some cleanup is needed but I disagree with the removal. Would you care to offer a compromise, or will you instead continue to make assertions and start an edit war? Cliesthenes (talk) 16:45, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Removal is part of editing. And yes there are standards that say things should not be in two places at once, other than brief summaries. There is no violation of good faith, as good faith says right in it that you do not need to blindly follow it when there is evidence to the contrary. I have also not violated revert in that I reverted only twice as opposed to the four times required to violate it. -DJSasso (talk) 16:48, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Victoria Cougars to Detroit Cougars

Can you provide a source to proove the part you keep readding? Because it is factually incorrect as the NHL has been acknowledging the continuation. -DJSasso (talk) 16:52, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

You mean other than the NHL not recognizing the championships won by the team, and the Red Wings themselves listing the first season of play as in 1926? I am sure I can find numerous other things but after this, it is apparent it is a non-issue. You are correct, there is an inaccuracy. The franchise was not sold, just the players. This is why the team is not a continuation. See http://redwings.nhl.com/club/page.htm?id=43765# I will edit to reflect that. Any other problems? What source do you have to the contrary???Cliesthenes (talk) 17:06, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

I failed to see what you're protesting about. As for the suggestion that RG has something up his sleeve? I've never known him to be a Chicago Blackhawks fan. GoodDay (talk) 17:27, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes, because there are more than one way to acknowledge the continuation. This is the one of the problems with that sentence. They continually pay tribute to the Victoria team in ceremonies with various releases of patches and logos and the like, which is a form of acknowledging continuation. One of the other issues is the fact that that sentence is like saying saying "I bought the fish from the fisherman. However I did not catch the fish." Well you are saying the same thing twice. The reader can tell from the fact they purchased the players from the other team that the team is not the same team. -DJSasso (talk) 17:35, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

The Victoria/Detroit thing always confused me. Did the Victoria Cougars fold & the Detroit Cougars were an expansion team? or did the Victoria Cougars 'move/re-locate' to Detroit as the Detroit Cougars. GoodDay (talk) 17:42, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Its sort of like the Vancouver Canucks situation. Considered two teams by the NHL, but the team itself often celebrates the achievements of both teams as if they are a continuation. And the Ottawa situation is similar as well but in the opposite manor, in that the NHL declared it the same team but neither the team nor the NHL actualy consider the records of the old team to belong to that of the new team. -DJSasso (talk) 17:44, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

I reckon, in the old NHL days, it was just done differently. So much easier now, simply re-locate the franchise (well not that simple, just ask Basillie). GoodDay (talk) 17:51, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Exactly, the analogy to a modern day teams is not the same. The better modern analogy would be a transfer of players in FIFA leagues. A team can by the starting 11 from a team that is folding, that doesn't make the new team a continuation of the previous team. Furthermore, paying homage to a part of the team's history is not the same as being a continuation of a franchise. So again, what basis do you have to show that the team is considered a continuation of the Victoria franchise. Did the NHL declare it so? Lets see some links. In my mind, this proof should be especially strong since the Red Wings designate 1926 as their inaugural season, and stated only players were purchased--not the folding franchise. Cliesthenes (talk) 18:36, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

A better analogy from hockey is looking at how the number of stanley cups is calculated. Montreal counts one from pre-NHL (1915). Detroit does not count the pre-NHL cup won by Victoria. If they did, the number would be 12, and not 11. What is the difference? Montreal was one continuous franchise, Detroit was not as the Wings first began play in 1926--as the Red Wing's website indicates. Cliesthenes (talk) 18:44, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Whether or not to honour the past seems to be up to the team itself. The Red Wings acknowledge the orginal Victoria team, but so far as I know, the Blackhawks don't really care about the Portland Rosebuds, and certainly the Rangers aren't interested in pointing out that their original players came from the Saskatoon Sheiks. Ultimately, however, none of these were franchise relocations or continuations. The NHL bought the six WCHL teams' rosters, and in the above three cases, simply moved the contracts over to stock the three expansion teams. Detroit was already granted a franchise when the Victoria Cougars were still playing. They just took on the name as an homage to the team that gave them all their players. Calgary, Edmonton and Regina had their players purchased as well and the contracts dispersed across the entire NHL. Resolute 18:46, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Exactly. More evidence of this: "When the league folded, the Saskatoon players were sold to form the Montreal Maroons. Frank Patrick then negotiated the sale of the rest of the WHL players to the National Hockey League. The players were to be sold as three teams, one from the Victoria Cougars, one from the Rosebuds, and a third from the best players from Calgary, Edmonton and Vancouver. A deal was reached where the players of the Rosebuds were sold for $100,000 to form the new Chicago Black Hawks expansion franchise." See Whitehead, Eric (1980). The Patricks, hockey's royal family. Toronto, Ontario: Doubleday Canada. ISBN 0385156626. Since this issue now seems fairly settled, what other issues do you have? Cliesthenes (talk) 18:47, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

The history there is incorrect, as the Maroons were already two years old when the WCHL folded. As I noted above, the Sheiks went to the Rangers instead. I actually just went through the Calgary Herald archives on the WCHL's demise. Some interesting stuff there - including the fact that the Maple Leafs and Maroons were both opposed to granting teams to Chicago and Detroit on fears that the NHL was becoming too Americanized. They relented only on the fear of an American mid-west league being formed and a new round of contract poaching. Resolute 18:52, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm just citing cited information from another Wikipedia article. The key point I pulled was about it being a sale of players to the NHL, and not a sale of franchises. I imagine the actual book would be more accurate, that is why it is cited. Still, good call. Cliesthenes (talk) 18:57, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Doesn't eliminate the fact that the sentence is a bad sentence which was still my main problem. The sentence is like saying saying "I bought the fish from the fisherman. However I did not catch the fish." Well you are saying the same thing twice. The reader can tell from the fact they purchased the players from the other team that the team is not the same team, just like by saying you bought the fish is obvious that you didn't catch the fish. -DJSasso (talk) 19:05, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Are we 'all' in agreement, that the Victoria Cougars & the Detroit Red Wings are not the same franchise. GoodDay (talk) 19:12, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Yeah I never claimed they were the same franchise, just that the sentence was misleading and redundant. -DJSasso (talk) 19:14, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Okie Dokie. GoodDay (talk) 19:16, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

I see it is clearing up an issue that several people, including yourself, have indicated there was confusion on. So, do you admit there is nothing indicating that the Wings are a continuation of the Victoria team? I seem to recall you indicating otherwise. I may be mistaken. Is there any other issues that result in you blind reverting the edits? I keep asking, and you keep pointing to one sentence (initially on the basis it was wrong, now on the basis you disagree). Am I to assume this ONE SENTENCE is the only issue?Cliesthenes (talk) 20:35, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

I agree they are not the same franchise, I do believe they are a continuation as is anything in the history of something. And no its not the only issue I was just beginning at the top. I also agree with the most recent comments in RGs edits per being uncited and redundant, and that the one playoff series was no more notable than the many playoff series that have followed. -DJSasso (talk) 20:40, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Much better. -DJSasso (talk) 20:46, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. DJsasso, it would help if you were more specific. What playoff series? What comments by RG? What redundancies? Without knowing what you are talking about, it appears these are things that can be edited around without any difficulty, thus not needing a complete deletion. I think I have corrected the first problem you have identified. Lets move to the next item on the list. For the record, without knowing which series you are refering to, I want to state that yes, it is possible for one playoff series to be more notable than another. However, I have no problem removing a part of a paragraph that states a series is more notable without any legitimate basis. Remember, notability (as defined by Wikipedia) is based on numerous objective factors, including how it was reported. Furthermore, if there are sources that state it, the notability statement should stay. Cliesthenes (talk) 20:55, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

RCTraylor, so you are aware, it is typically better to tag unsourced material that appears to be factually relevant and correct, instead of deleting it. Following your method, large amounts of important information is destroyed without giving anyone a chance to spend the 20 seconds it takes to find a link. Please keep this in mind in the future. As requested, I have added cites, and rewrote the sections per Djasso's advice (and with his approval). While the information describing the founding of the franchise may have a minor "redundancy" with the info box, it seems that the date of origin is a requirement in history section. Despite the clear necessity of this fact (with the way you edited it, it appears the team was founded in 1925) I have added additional information to this already necessary piece of information to minimize the impact of any "redundancy." (By the way, it seems if the date of founding is redundant, so must every mention of a Stanley Cup win, along with the date of any name change as they are all in the info box along with the text). The only thing that remains that is at all at issue is the inclusion of the red wings first foray into the playoffs, which is somehow being argued as non-notable? I don't follow that logic, but added sources that indicate the foray into the playoffs allowed Jack Adams to stay on the job. This fact is clearly notable given his stature in the game, and the Cups he led the team to. Is there anything else you need added to alleviate your problems? Cliesthenes (talk) 05:15, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Only it wasn't the Red Wings' first foray into the playoffs; that was in 1929. As far as Adams goes, I quite agree that his stature in hockey makes facts from his career notable, and suggest you place such facts in his own article. Beyond that, if you have a burning need to expand the history section, you might turn your energies to the History of the Detroit Red Wings article, of which the main article's history section is supposed to be a summary.  Ravenswing  10:04, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

The article doesn't say it was. So we are in agreement? Cliesthenes (talk) 14:25, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Why do you want to make comparisons of simliarity of the Victoria Cougars to the pre-NHL Montreal Canadiens? The pre/post NHL Montreal Canadiens are the same franchise, where's the Victoria Cougars & the Detroit Cougars/Falcons/Red Wings are not the same franchise. GoodDay (talk) 16:29, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

You hit the difference on the nose. Without the addition of that phrase, it appears that there is an argument (not one I agree with) that the Wings should have 12 Stanley Cups due to this "merger." It simply clarifies an ambiguous section of the article when looked at through the reality of modern sports mergers. Frankly, I don't see why there is so much hostility about it. I would be happy with one sentence, but other posters seem to want more for it to stay, so I added it. Personally, I find this section of the article to be the most interesting part of the page. Cliesthenes (talk) 16:45, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

You could shorten the 'example' though: "thus the reason why the Red Wings don't count the Victoria Cougars 1925 Stanley Cup championship as their own". GoodDay (talk) 16:47, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm fine with that. I am even fine if it has no example, though I think the example makes it read better. In fact, I am fine with the version of the sentence that existed since 2006 until RG removed it that stated: "However, the NHL does not consider the Red Wings to be a continuation of the Victoria team." I a not picky. I just think something like this needs to be added. Cliesthenes (talk) 18:25, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

The article's infobox & Stanley Cup Champions navbox are self-explanatory. GoodDay (talk) 19:48, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

It may be, but the article itself, without this sentence, is not. This is probably why this setence was added four years ago, and remained as part of the article for years. I don't see the issue of adding this sentence, though I can understand (I don't agree with the logic) the worries that some posters have about a section becoming too long, but in reality, this is one sentence (more if written well) that clears up an ambiguity in the text. It isn't that big of a deal. Furthermore, I have doubts about the underlying intention of at least one poster who added this information to another page (with a similar sentence) less than a month ago. If it was a valid addition then, it is a valid addition now. Cliesthenes (talk) 19:09, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Truthfully, I think the explanation is unnecessary. We state that Detroit was a new NHL expansion team. We state that the Patricks negotiated the sale of the WCHL's players to the NHL, specifically sending the Victoria Cougars players to Detroit. We state that the Detroit Cougars took on the name as an homage to the Victoria Cougars. It is then self-evident that 1. The Detroit Cougars and Victoria Cougars are not the same franchise, and 2. Only the player contracts were moved, not the history. There is no need to bash the reader in the face with the fact that they are different teams, and how the Canadiens handle their history is utterly irrelevant to the Red Wings. Apples and oranges. Resolute 19:36, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Could someone who has access edit the sentence "Like with the other teams that folded and whose players were purchased by the NHL" to something like "Like Chicago, which had purchased the Portland Rosebuds"? The first text is awkward. ʘ alaney2k • talkʘ 20:01, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

By all means, change it. GoodDay (talk) 20:42, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

He can't. Dj fully protected the article due to the edit war. I'm not going to touch it though because that statement really cuts close to the heart of the issue. I don't see the relevence in either the existing or the proposed statement. Resolute 21:21, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

When in doubt, throw'em out. GoodDay (talk) 21:30, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

You don't see the "Relevance" of a statement in a Detroit Red Wing's article which directly discusses the circumstances and extent of the creation of the team and its "merger" with another franchise? I can understand other arguments but "relevance," i.e. connected with the matter in hand and useful to a reader, is not one of them. It is clearly relevant to the merger and creation of the team, as it discusses the merger and clears up an ambiguity as to the extent of the merger when the team was created. GoodDay stated this precise issue earlier when he stated "The Victoria/Detroit thing always confused me. Did the Victoria Cougars fold & the Detroit Cougars were an expansion team? or did the Victoria Cougars 'move/re-locate' to Detroit as the Detroit Cougars." There is an answer to this question. The added clause addresses this point. As for the proposed change from Alaney, I have no problem with the change. In fact, ideally the added phrase would be unnecessary as we would simply replace the text from previous version which existed for 4 years untouched and was concise and to the point, that has repeatedly been removed by only one poster (even though he placed the identical phrase in a separate article).

As for Resolute, no one is bashing anyone in the head with anything, and frankly, even if it did ... so what? We bash them in the head with hundreds of facts in the article. (Team won cup in X year, productin line was created, etc.)This is no different, especially as you note in your post the ambiguity. You talk about the team being an expansion team while, the article also states it bought out another team and took its players. In the modern sports world, these are mutually exclusive facts. Also, take into account that this article is not written just for those informed about the sporting business, but also those who have no knowledge of the business. It seems that you think we should ignore the later's needs. Cliesthenes (talk) 01:46, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Frankly, I think the wording, as is, is very poor. But, yes, when we say "The NHL granted Detroit an expansion team" and "The contracts for the Victoria Cougars players were sold to Detroit" it is already obvious that the only connection between the founding of Detroit and demise of Victoria is the fact that the players were sold from one team to another. The rest is just awkward irrelevancies (namely: mentioning the Canadiens/Blackhawks). IMO, of course.Resolute 03:19, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

I have no problem with a change in wording (as I have stated for the fifth time, frankly, I think it should be one sentence, however, in order to appease RGTraylor, I added added additional information. I personally prefer the pararagraphs to be more succinct. He would have no part of that with any of my edits and required more. For your last part, I think it is better to look at your inference as rationale but it is not the only rationale inference (a trail of logic can have many reasonable ends). It is very easy for someone to interpret the purchase of the entire roster of a team as a standard merger, similar to two corporations merging with each other. In the corporate context, such a situation would be considered a sale of assets. With that, while not on the same level of a standard merger, come additional liabilities and duties due to the nature of the sale. Realistically, you may jump to the conclusion that the two are mutually exclusive, however, in reality that isn't necessarily the case and the line can and typically is a fine line. Outside the modern day legal context, if we follow your argument, we are still left with an ambiguity. Not everyone will read purchasing the contracts from a team as an asset sale, many, will read it as a merger. In fact, even GoodDay, a person with several hundred edits on hockey pages and with a broad knowledge of hockey history, has identified some confusion as to whether the team actually continued. My belief, and I think even you have to agree, is that we cannot assume everyone will immediately jump to that conclusion and that there is a possibility of confusion without the phrase, in other words, someone will misunderstand what is written and assume the team is a continuation. You probably regard that possibility as negligible, while I regard it as reasonably significant. Either way, even if we are too assume that only one out of 1,000 posters will read that paragraph as a full out merger/continuation of the franchise. Think of it this way, if GoodDay, a person with a large amount of knowledge in the area can be confused after reading it, so can a poster with no knowledge in the area. This is probably why the sentence was added in the first place. This is also probably why the person who edited out the phrase in this article, placed in the Red Wings history article unchanged. It is not that it is irrelevant; it is more that it is cautionary. Remember, our job as a Wikipedia editor is to improve articles, while at the same time ensuring a proper dissemination of factual information. You may think the paragraph without the addition does that, but that is something you cannot guarantee. Meanwhile, we already know there was some confusion behind it. Cliesthenes (talk) 04:19, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

GoodDay is a bit of a stickler with continuity which is why I think he was asking about it. He likes to have every article treated the same so he was in my view asking more from an angle of how can we treat this like similar articles as opposed to not actually known. But I could be wrong on that. But anyways that being said, I do agree with Resolute that this is bashing the user over the head with information, which was what my problem with the original single sentence was. I accepted the more wordy version that is now there because atleast it wasn't a throw away sentence tacked on the end like it used to be. That being said I want to be clear that I don't think any of it needs to be there, and that I would think it would be pretty darn clear to anyone hockey fan or not reading it that they just bought the players and not the team since it specifically says bought the player contracts. However, I have too many wp:lame wars I am involved in. lol. don't really need to add another. -DJSasso (talk) 04:36, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

• Since it's come up, the reason I object to the statements I've taken out is this: this is a factual article. It isn't a trivia piece, and it isn't the Red Wings FAQ. The Detroit franchise was not granted until after the WHL folded, and the Victoria Cougars played in a different league altogether, and having to state that the Wings don't claim as their own Cups won by a different franchise playing in a different city in a different league is Mickey Mouse crap on the scale of demanding language that astronomers don't consider the sun a red supergiant despite the fact that some other stars are, indeed, red supergiants. How can this be compared to the Canadiens (who despite the current language - and who snuck that phrasing in? - is the only pre-NHL professional hockey team still extant), which did win a pre-NHL Cup with the same franchise playing in the same city? Frankly, it'd take a moron to read "Frank and Lester Patrick, the owners of the by then-defunct WHL, made a deal to sell the players of the 1925 Stanley Cup champion Victoria Cougars to the new Detroit team" and then go on to ask nonetheless "Errrr, are they really the same team?" I presume people reading Wikipedia articles don't need to be fed "Now, really, they truly aren't the same franchise, honest they're not, and see, we're even giving you multiple sources explicitly saying so, just in case the cleear language and timeline weren't already tipoffs."  Ravenswing  05:07, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

I don't believe the sentence-in-question is in the other NHL team articles, with the same beginnings (example - Rosebuds & Blackhawks). Recommend it be deleted, per Resolute's reasoning. It's already made clear to us, that the Victoria Cougars & the Detroit Cougars/Falcons/Red Wings are not the same franchise. GoodDay (talk) 18:20, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

RG, I must admit that I didn't fully read your post, but from what I read, you are wrong on several major points. First, there are numerous sites that say that the Wings are a continuation of the Victoria franchise.[5] [6] [7] In your haste to remove this text, you lend credence to these misstatements of information which are becoming increasingly common, even in NHL circles. In my opinion, Wikipedia editors should be looking to edit so misinformation such as this is slowly chipped away from the social conscience. Second, Montreal counts pre-NHL Stanley cups. Phoenix counts, pre-Coyote's wins. Carolina even counts some pre-NHL records when it was in Hartford. It is simply the way it is. It is a reasonable thing to believe that the win may count since nowhere within the article does it state Victoria's team folded. It indicates the league folded, but anyone with even the most basic understanding of sports law realizes that a team may survive the ending of the league. The basic underlying problem is it does not identify that the team is not a continuation of the franchise. Thus, your logic misses its point. You seem to be under the irrational assumption that once a league folds, the teams fold. That is simply not the case, teams move on, change leagues, cities, players, etc. Prior achievements still count. This is especially true in hockey. As a hockey fan, you should realize that prior to the NHL; the Stanley Cup was awarded to teams from numerous leagues. A Cup win while in a different league may still count. However, this all brings to the table a simple solution, how about this wording: "Frank and Lester Patrick, the owners of the by then-defunct WHL, made a deal to sell the players of the folded 1925 Stanley Cup champion Victoria Cougars to the newly founded Detroit team." All problems are solved. If it not right, for the first time in this process, propose a solution beyond repeating "delete" repeatedly. Now let’s move on. This is boring, despite me using this type of stuff as a break from work, I have better things to do than discuss than this tedious topic. Cliesthenes (talk) 02:11, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

The Victoria Cougars folded in 1926. The Detroit Cougars were an expansion franchise, thus both were seperate franchises. The New England/Hartford Whalers/Carolina Hurricanes are the same franchise. GoodDay (talk) 16:47, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

I agree, however, my inclusion of those facts is rebutting the irrational assertions made by RG. Look at it this way, if you are unaware that the teams are different (this fact is not stated in the article), the other facts (moving and being in a different league) are immaterial to the argument of whether past records are counted. Really, he was simply using faulty logic, as I pointed out. Furthermore, the issue of properly having records is not central to the point that the article does not give a complete picture of the creation of the team. Meanwhile, the article never states the Victoria team folded and ceased to exist. It does mention a league folding, however, as we are all aware, a league folding does not mean a team folds. See numerous examples from the sports world, including the Detroit Ignition for examples. At best, these facts are IMPLIED. However, under Wikipedia guidelines including WP:Obvious, simply implying a fact is not the proper method to state it. Everyone seems so worried about "hitting someone over the head" with a single sentence, that they are ignoring the fact that less than half of the logic they are using for them implying that the franchises are not the same is not even stated in the article, namely for one, that the Victoria team folded. Furthermore, given the LARGE amount of sites that state the Wings are the same franchise as the Victoria team, the WP:Obvious guidelines seem even more important. Now, how about my solution? Let's improve the article and fix the problems made from randomly deleting information that created an ambiguity. There is a clear ambiguity that MANY people believe. Let's fix it, so people have a better accurate understanding of how the team was actually created, instead of finding faulty facts that may be true if you apply varying levels of logic to imply a fact. Is that really the method you want? You actually want someone, say an eight year old kid to have to go through this process to find out about the team? I personally expect more effort from editors than that. Maybe that is too much to ask. Cliesthenes (talk) 19:06, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm in agreement with Resolute's pts at 03:19 February 5th. GoodDay (talk) 18:20, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

You actually think this fact is "obvious?" I am sorry, but this fact is misstated by hundreds of websites, many of which are legitimate sources. Yet, you think it is "obvious" when written on this page? Ok, who is this "obvious" to? You? A sports expert? A casual sports fan? An expert in business mergers? A non-sports-minded-person? An eight year old? Who does ad hoc this standard of "obviousness" apply to? More importantly, why should we ignore Wikipedia policy under this "obvious" standard? Then again, unlike some, I believe that it is the job of a Wikipedia editor to "state the obvious" since what is obvious to one, or even most, will not be obvious to all. Cliesthenes (talk) 20:57, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

No comparisons with other teams. Just the facts. I agree with that. It should be simply something like "To provide players for the team, the owners purchased the players of the former Victoria Cougars WHL club. The new Detroit franchise also adopted the Cougars nickname, but Detroit is not a continuation of that team." You could even say just 'purchased the former Victoria Cougars WHL club'. Since it is the key article for the Wings, it should be as short as possible, no? No mention of Canadiens, etc. is needed. It only makes it muddier. The 'pre-NHL Stanley Cup' phrase is just stupid. It's not a pre-NHL Stanley Cup, it's a Stanley Cup won before the NHL existed. There are lots of team organizations that moved to the NHL, Canadiens, Whalers, but this is not one of those. We also should avoid the use of 'considers' wording. That just seems to make it ambiguous, like you could consider it. If Patrick had gotten an NHL franchise and moved his team from the WCHL into the NHL, and it eventually became the Red Wings, then they could count it. ʘ alaney2k • talkʘ 22:30, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

I agree. This is basically what I requested 2-3 posts ago but no one else has commented on. I personally thought the addition beyond the single sentence or change in wording was unnecessary, but added it as an attempt to appease RG. By the way, thank you. I started to think I was crazy as it is such a simple issue and everyone seemed so far against it. It is clearly ambiguous as written, and needs an edit so EVERYONE can understand. Cliesthenes (talk) 04:13, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

I think the point Alaney is that most of us feel that "but Detroit is not a continuation of that team." is unnecessary, because its absolutely clear, even in your example minus that point that the team is not a continuation. -DJSasso (talk) 04:30, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Then there shouldn't be a problem with the compromise I offered on Februrary 7 that has yet to receive a response despite repeated requests, or the compromise above. I really think you, RG, GoodDay, and Resolute have missed the point. Some clarification is necessary, it is simply a question of to what degree. As of right now, the major problem with your "implied" argument is the article never says the Victoria team folded--this is a NECESSARY point, which continues to be ignored, for what reason I do not know. Also, your "implied" argument goes against WP:Obvious, but that is beside the point, as we can work around that. The fact remains, it needs to change, and the unnecessary edits have caused a detriment to the article. To imporve, I previously tried several versions, including one similar to Alaney's version, and RG repeatedly reverted. It is clear the compromise is the best solution, lets move forward. My compromise was: "Frank and Lester Patrick, the owners of the by then-defunct WHL, made a deal to sell the players of the folded 1925 Stanley Cup champion Victoria Cougars to the newly founded Detroit team." Case closed. Lets move on. Cliesthenes (talk) 13:42, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Maybe it got lost in all the chatter above, but I don't think I have seen you make the proposal at all. As well, I don't think it goes against obvious, because the facts would be obvious to anyone reading them, not just myself. -DJSasso (talk) 13:48, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

If it is so obvious, please explain how there are dozens of websites, many of which decent sites, that state that Detroit is a continuation of the Victoria team? This is my issue. It has been stated inaccurately so many times, some clarification is necessary. Additionally, with the misstatements in mind, the argument that WP:Obvious does not apply because "the facts would be obvious to anyone reading them" seems to go against WP:Obvious which simply states: "State facts that may be obvious to you, but are not necessarily obvious to the reader." Given the large number of sites that have this fact wrong, it is CLEAR it is not as obvious as some want to make it. Cliesthenes (talk) 15:13, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

At which point I want to point you back to the fact that there is more than one way to be a continuation. It is clear its not a continuation of the franchise, that much I agree. But it is a continuation of the legacy. This is what most of those other pages you mention are most likely mentioning. The part you quote from WP:OBVIOUS is actually what I was referring to when I said it. I believe they are necessarily obvious to the reader. When you say they bought the players and when they adopted the nickname of team, its is extremely clear that they are not the same team or they wouldn't have bought the players or adopted the nickname. They would have already had both if they were the same team. -DJSasso (talk) 16:01, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

DJ, the sites say the ENTIRE FRANCHISE MOVED and began playing in Detroit. And no, despite what you may believe to be their intentions, that is not the case. Take a look for examples: [8]. Now, you want to claim a fact that it NOT obvious to hundreds of others is obvious on here despite the article never stating the previous franchise ended? Hello? Have you actually thought about this for more than a second? A league folds, a team buys all of its players and moves them across the continent, the team begins playing with those players under the previous team's name and YOU feel it is obvious that these are different franchises? Really? That idea is asinine. Hey, but let’s ignore the similarities and assume everyone will figure it out despite a clear guideline that says to do the opposite, and the reality that not everyone will read it as closely as you seem to think they will (this one reason why WP:Obvious was created). I apologize if I may seem rude but your argument is irrational, especially when the solution is the addition of a few words. I know Wikipedia is known for unnecessary bureaucracy, but this takes it a bit too far. Think of it this way, some people will come to the page with the belief the franchise was moved from Victoria. Those people will not read the article the way you read it. They will read the roster sale as a sale of the franchise, and the keeping of the name as an honor to the franchise’s movement from Victoria. These are both logical conclusions and due to RG’s actions of removing vital information, the article will suffer, thus nothing is “obvious.” Cliesthenes (talk) 20:55, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

I !vote thatof we have a sentence stating the obvious --that Detroit is not a continuation --. I don't know why that would be a big deal. Really. What bugs me is all of the other stuff about Montreal, etc... If we state unequivocally that it is not a continuation, then the rest is superfluous. (used my quota of big words today) ʘ alaney2k • talkʘ 16:19, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Proposal subheading

• Well, some of us disagree that we need to beat people over the head with it, or that we need to cater to the lack of historical knowledge of a handful of fan websites. But let's cut to the chase. There are two sentences to which I object:

Proposal 1: Strike the following sentence: "Like with the other teams that folded and whose players were purchased by the NHL, the Red Wings do not consider itself to be a continuation of the Victoria franchise, and thus officially has no pre-NHL origins like some other Original Six teams."

1. Support:  Ravenswing 
2. Support -DJSasso (talk) 17:49, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
3. Support, as of the current NHL franchises, the Habs & Leafs are the only ones who existed longer then the NHL. GoodDay (talk) 17:55, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

   Incorrect. The Torontos were founded in 1917 along with the NHL. The Habs are the only existing team that pre-dates the NHL, while three defunct teams did as well. Resolute 23:19, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

4. Support with stipulation, as I have repeatedly said, assuming there is some type of a statement that the Wings are not a continuation of the Victoria franchise remove what you want. I also find it interesting that now--despite repeated revisions to the contrary and several offers of compromise that would have removed these two "issues"--that these are the only two issues. I guess some times it just takes a 3rd party to push things through and make people realize change is needed. Thanks Alaney. Cliesthenes (talk) 20:34, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

   You're missing the point. It's not so much that I object to the particular wording of that sentence. I object to any explicit mention of the painfully obvious fact that a team in one city in one league, where the franchise was granted BEFORE THE SECOND LEAGUE OFFICIALLY FOLDED, is a continuation of the second team in another city in another league.  Ravenswing  23:48, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

   RG, then we will have to agree to disagree. If you don't see the relevance, the current problems with historical accuracy on the topic through varying sources, the ambiguity, that the current article does not mention the folding of the Victoria franchise, or that the edits you have made are factually innaccurate (the folding of the team for one); there is not much more I can point out to you to change your mind. I tried having you offer a compromise but instead you blew me off. Well, we appear to have moved it to a second step, and the vote so far is fairly close. Cliesthenes (talk) 02:31, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

   I'm afraid I don't equate "compromise" with "The other guy gets to have things his way." There is a .sig I use on forums that runs "It's not that I don't understand what you're saying. It's that I don't agree with what you're saying." My position on this issue has not wavered, no evidence has been proffered that has budged it, and if after a week of oft-heated discussion this has finally become unavoidably apparent, that's a good thing.  Ravenswing  08:07, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

If you are unwilling to budge, we will move forward without you. At the very least, there will be some mention of the Victoria franchise folding, which is all I have repeatedly been asking for, yet you and others, until now, have been unwilling to provide. It seems now that a compromise vote is imminent. Are you going to get on the bandwagon? Cliesthenes (talk) 15:58, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

1. What bandwagon would that be, and who is this "we" to whom you're referring? It looks like both my proposals enjoy consensus support.  Ravenswing  19:39, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

See below for the answers to ALL of your questions and to see that my proposal also has "consensus." Cliesthenes (talk) 20:14, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

1. Support ʘ alaney2k ʘ (talk) 21:16, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
2. Support Resolute 23:19, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Proposal 2: Strike the following sentence: "In fact, unlike the Montreal Canadiens which count their pre-NHL Stanley Cup championship, the Red Wings do not count the Stanley Cup title from the Victoria franchise despite the Red Wings having its original players come from the team."

1. Support:  Ravenswing 
2. Support -DJSasso (talk) 17:49, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
3. Support as Habs are a bad comparison. They've existed since Dec 1909 (8-years longer then the NHL). GoodDay (talk) 17:55, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
4. Support with stipulation, as I have repeatedly said, assuming there is some type of a statement that the Wings are not a continuation of the Victoria franchise remove what you want. I also find it interesting that now--despite repeated revisions to the contrary and several offers of compromise that would have removed these two "issues"--that these are the only two issues. I guess some times it just takes a 3rd party to push things through and make people realize change is needed. Thanks Alaney. Cliesthenes (talk) 20:34, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
5. Support ʘ alaney2k ʘ (talk) 21:16, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
6. Support. This was the one sentence that always bugged me. — Muéro^(talk/c) 23:07, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
7. SupportResolute 23:19, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Proposal 3: We place a sentence stating the obvious --that Detroit is not a continuation of the Victoria franchise thus allowing the remainder to be treated as superfluous.

1. Support: Cliesthenes (talk) 20:37, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
2. Conditional Support, only if a simliar sentence is added at Chicago Blackhawks, concerning the Portland Rosebuds. GoodDay (talk) 20:58, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

   I have no problem with that for every franchise that bought players. (I even attempted to it myself until DJ asked me to stop). Cliesthenes (talk) 21:04, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

   Consistancy is my main concern. If it's allowed at the other pages, then it should be allowed here. GoodDay (talk) 21:12, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

3. Support ʘ alaney2k ʘ (talk) 21:16, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
4. Oppose: Errr, I can't understand those supporting #1 but also supporting this one. #1 clearly moots that there should be NO statement that Detroit is not a continuation of the Victoria franchise, period, end of statement. I likewise oppose any suggestion that this mess should be spread to other articles.  Ravenswing&nbsp 23:46, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
   1. Comment What is there is not very good. Simple as that. ʘ alaney2k ʘ (talk) 22:02, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
5. Oppose I have to agree with RG. I really think #1 makes this one moot. Any other arguements you can see from my pages of text above. -DJSasso (talk) 03:21, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Proposal 4: Change the wording to "Frank and Lester Patrick, the owners of the by then-defunct WHL, made a deal to sell the players of the folded 1925 Stanley Cup champion Victoria Cougars to the newly founded Detroit team." Cliesthenes (talk) 20:37, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

1. Support: Cliesthenes (talk) 20:37, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
2. Oppose as it's too cluttered. GoodDay (talk) 20:58, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
3. on the fence - replace existing sentence with a sentence better than the above. ʘ alaney2k ʘ (talk) 21:16, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

   Any ideas? Cliesthenes (talk) 02:27, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

4. Oppose especially since it is factually incorrect. The WHL was not defunct when the teams were sold, it ceased operations as part of the sale. Also, the league ended in 1926, so the 1925 Victoria team is irrelevant. Resolute 23:19, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

   The parts you oppose are what is currently in the article and were not added by me. While, I agree that the section is badly written and creates many ambiguities due to rudimentary writing and factual problems, those are seperate points from the edit at issue here. Any ideas to improve the article? Cliesthenes (talk) 02:27, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

5. Conditional Support: If not this, some similar phrase, because that does address what happened.  Ravenswing  23:46, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
6. Oppose As Resolute mentions this wording is factually incorrect, however something like "To provide players for the team, the owners purchased the players of the former Victoria Cougars WHL club. The new Detroit franchise also adopted the Cougars nickname." would address what happened and clearly states "new detroit franchise" which should i would hope solve your issue. -DJSasso (talk) 03:21, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

The problem with opposing this due to "factual changes" is that the addition suggested above are not the facts. The current facts are in the article. However, I think you finally touched upon the missing piece of logic in your argument. Cliesthenes (talk) 14:03, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Proposal 5: Change to "To provide players for the team, the owners purchased the players of the former Victoria Cougars WHL club. The new Detroit franchise also adopted the Cougars nickname" while also correcting the NUMEROUS factual problems that have slipped by in the openning."

1. Support: Cliesthenes (talk) 14:03, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
2. Support Oh thank god you finally agree. -DJSasso (talk) 15:00, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

   Actually, THIS is what I have been saying all along. Your "logic" didn't make sense since the article never said the team folded. Without that, which was already my compromise--which I have now repeated for the fifth time, a more definite statement was needed. Can we finally agree that one or the other needs to be added after the deletions changed the article? Cliesthenes (talk) 15:56, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

   I actually made this suggestion way up the page. :P -DJSasso (talk) 16:11, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Lol! That is a major part of the reason why I was so confused by the fight against the change. Besides this, the article needs major work. This talk page has clearly shown that. There are numerous factual problems, to say the least. Cliesthenes (talk) 17:09, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

1. Support this is acceptable. GoodDay (talk) 18:04, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
2. Conditional Oppose: Wording to this effect is already in the article, and quite explicitly. This is also an incomplete proposal; precisely what "numerous factual problems" are being referred to here?  Ravenswing  19:42, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

   This is the bandwagon I was discussing. From your response, I am guessing that you are not on it. As for what factual changes, see above for some very specific examples that you and other editors missed and are dragging the page down. The changes should be VERY clear. If you want input into these changes, now is the time to work with other people. Otherwise, it appears consensus is being built. Cliesthenes (talk) 20:11, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

   This is a replacement of that wording, achieves what both sides wants, bereivity and clairity. Come on guys this is starting to get rediculous. -DJSasso (talk) 20:50, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

   Actually what is there now isn't that bad. Didn't notice you already changed some. -DJSasso (talk) 20:56, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

   Yet it STILL does not indicate the Victoria team folded, along with containing factual problems. I am correcting per consensus. This should solve the issues, eliminate the ambiguity while also more closely following the model from the Blackhawks page. In other words, everyone wins. Cliesthenes (talk) 22:00, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Curse of Detroit?

I removed the link to the "Curse of Detroit" on the related articles section because the page it led to List of Sports Related Curses does not feature this curse. It does feature a curse relating to the Detroit Lions but that is a different team. If somebody can provide information for this curse put it back up. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Somerandomguy123455266737 (talk • contribs) 03:44, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Biased

I'm as big of a Red Wings fan as anyone, but even I find this article biased in their favor. I will try and sort some things out over the next few days, but I welcome others to help, especially if you have no ties to hockey. That will help ensure that everything I change and everything else in the article conforms to NPOV. Thanks. FunBob1986 (talk) 23:21, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

• Go for it! We can always use an extra hand.  Ravenswing  16:17, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Current Roster

In the Current Roster section Henrik Zetterberg is listed as captain, I can not find any reference of this anywhere not even on his wikipedia page. Am I just not seeing this or could it be a case of wishfull thinking? C6grenda (talk) 02:34, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

How many division championships?

There is a question as to how many division championships the Red Wings have won. Some say 29, some say 19. In order for the number to be 29, we would have to count years in which the NHL had no divisions and the Red Wings finished first in the league. Personally, I say 19, because it doesn't make any sense to me to claim those years as there were no divisions then.

The Detroit Red Wings 2013 Media Guide, page 240, lists 20. This is a typo as they claim the 1934–35 season- the Wings finished fourth that year and didn't even qualify for the playoffs. On the other hand you can go to http://www.hockey-reference.com/teams/ and see that they list 29. I would go with the club itself. The Detroit Red Wings themselves do not claim to have won 29 division titles. Please discuss. Regards, Rejectwater (talk) 12:01, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

The reason for seeing discrepancies is that the NHL has changed how a division winner was crowned a few times which has caused some sites to miscount. In some cases years it was by finishing first in the regular season in others it was winning it in the playoffs. And to muddy the waters up even more some teams claim to have won them in years when they didn't per how the league determined it. But I do believe the 19 is the correct number. -DJSasso (talk) 13:55, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

And even then, it wasn't consistent, as there are seasons where one team claims a division banner for the regular season, and another for winning the divisional playoff. As to this discussion though, hockey-reference is simply, and flat-out wrong. It looks like they simply got lazy and counted finishing atop of any standings table as a division win, even when there were no divisions. (side note: H-R also states the Flames have won six division titles for the same reason, though the Flames themselves claim only five.) Resolute 14:09, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Move to East

Their move to the Eastern Conference is official on NHL.com under team sites link.

Split into List of Detroit Red Wings award winners?

I was bold and created the page List of Detroit Red Wings award winners, however that new page duplicates much of the information that is currently available on Detroit Red Wings, making it, in reality, a split.

To make a long story short we should reach a consensus on whether to Keep or Delete the existing split. If we keep it a fairly large overhaul of the existing page will need to be done to delete the duplicate material. My opinion is to Keep as there is clearly plenty of material to justify the stand-alone list, and I have it in mind to bring it up to Featured List status sometime this year. Also, if we delete the list, that will make me sad.

One thing to consider, I feel, is that the team page in it's existing form does not appear to meet the standard set for team pages at Wikipedia:WikiProject Ice Hockey/Team pages format; keeping the split and updating the page as necessary would take care of this as well.

Looking forward to your input, Rejectwater (talk) 11:51, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

• There are a number of such lists, and I see no reason not to Keep. The way to handle this is, simply, to strike most of those entries, perhaps keeping only the most significant: Detroit's Cup wins, and the individual winners from (say) the Hart, the Ross, the Norris and the Vezina, done in line fashion rather than list fashion ("Four Red Wings have won the Art Ross Trophy as league MVP: Ebbie Goodfellow in 1940, Sid Abel in 1949, Sergei Fedorov in 1994, and Gordie Howe, who won the award six times -- the second-most in history -- in 1952, 1953, 1957, 1958, 1960 and 1963.") Ravenswing 12:44, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

• It's been over a week with no additional comments so I went ahead and did it. I'm sure others can improve upon what I've done. Rejectwater (talk) 13:52, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

Scotty Bowman as GM

I am trying to find a source to show that Scotty Bowman was ever GM of the team and I am coming up blank. Throughout the project the tenth general manager of the Wings is listed as either Jim Devellano and Scotty Bowman or Devellano, Bowman, and Ken Holland. This is seen in the list of gm's, the gm template, succession boxes on individual pages, etc. But there's never a source. The only sources I know of for this are the NHL Guide and Record Book and the Detroit Red Wings Media Guide: however, neither list Holland or Bowman for this period (1994-95 to 1996-97), only Devellano. Regards, Rejectwater (talk) 18:53, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

Not sure if you have access to Highbeam, but two relevant articles:

[9] "Detroit also will have its first general manager since 1994 in Ken Holland, who will be promoted from assistant general manager, the team said."

[10] "Given the keys to the kingdom, with all the power and authority of a general manager, Bowman began nearly a year ago preparing for this very moment with the first of a series of moves, several of them widely unpopular."

Reading those, two links, it appears that Detroit had no official GM during that time, but that Bowman had power equivalent to a GM. Resolute 19:28, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for that info. It sounds like we can stick with Devellano and Bowman for that period. Regards, Rejectwater (talk) 12:28, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Request for review of List of Detroit Red Wings seasons (FLC)

List of Detroit Red Wings seasons has been nominated for Featured List status and is in need of reviews. Please, if you can, take the time to review the page and offer any comments you may have. Please don't forget to express either Support or Oppose, as appropriate, if you have an opinion either way. Regards, Rejectwater (talk) 17:02, 1 September 2013 (UTC)