Talk:Dallas Stars

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Dallas-Fort Worth, which aims to improve the English Wikipedia's coverage of topics related to the Dallas-Fort Worth Metroplex in northern Texas (USA). If you would like to participate, you can [{{fullurl:Dallas Stars|action=edit}} edit] the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can [{{fullurl:Wikipedia:WikiProject Dallas-Fort Worth|action=edit&section=4}} join the project], check the worklist, or contribute to the discussion.
Start This article has been rated Start-Class on the quality scale.
This article is part of WikiProject Texas, a WikiProject related to the U.S. state of Texas.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
High This article has been rated as High-importance on the importance scale.
This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Ice Hockey, an attempt at building a useful ice hockey resource. If you would like to participate, you can choose to edit the article attached to this page (see Wikipedia:Contributing FAQ for more information).

Ice hockey Portal
Start This article has been rated as start-Class on the quality scale.

Contents

[edit] Professional Ice Hockey Team

The Dallas Stars are not a professional men's ice hockey team, they're just a professional ice hockey team made up entirely of men. Women can play in the NHL - nowhere does it say they're excluded, therefore no team in the NHL can be a professional men's ice hockey team. This should be rectified in the first sentence. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.58.81.61 (talk) 22:01, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] List of Dallas Stars players

I have made a List of Dallas Stars players. As of the end of the 2003-04 NHL season, this list is 100% complete. When new players play for the Stars, it would be a great help to keep the list accurate if the new players were added to the list. Thanks! Masterhatch 15 August 2005

[edit] Dallas Stars 2006/07 Schedule

This is the 2006/07 Stars Schedule just click on the link to get it.

http://www.dallasstars.com/gameday/schedule.jsp

[edit] Recent History

added mention of the 07 all-star game. also did a bit of cleaning up and moved Modano's 500 goal milestone to the Recent History section. took Steve Ott off of IR.

[edit] Logos

The captions make reference to the "alternate logo" and "'controversial' alternate logo". Someone who knows please explain, lest these images both get deleted. Unschool 01:08, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Both are alternate logos, what's more to explain? --Krm500 03:14, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

I've never seen this term used before (not that I'm super knowledgable about such things), but I'm wondering:
  • a) Who's calling them "alternate" logos—the team, or some independent entity?
  • b) If they're "official alternate" logos, when and where are they used, and, (most importantly),
  • c) Why is the one logo supposedly "controversial"?
Just thought it was unusual, I guess, and wondered if someone had just made this up. Unschool 03:05, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
  • a) Well I guess both the team, the league and all the fans call them alternate logos. I have never heard anything other then that. See here for example http://www.sportslogos.net/team.php?t=10.
  • b) The "Texas map" one is used on the shoulder of the jersey, on both sides. The controversial one is used as the main logo instead of the original logo on the alternate jersey or "3rd jersey".
  • c) It's controversial since the logo looks like this and is widely considered as the ugliest jersey in the NHL.

And it's not made up but maybe it should have a better explanation --Krm500 03:22, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for explaining. Of course, I didn't see the uterus until you pointed it out, but my wife, the RN, saw it before I told her what to look for. Maybe it should be mentioned in the caption? Unschool 03:55, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

  Hilarious! But actually irrelevant and the opinion is not appropriate,
whether it has broad agreement or not.Bizfixer 23:05, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] WTF?

Are any of the Dallas fans out there freaked out that the 2006-07 season has eight paragraphs devoted to it, while the franchise's Stanley Cup victory has a single sentence devoted to it?  RGTraynor  03:28, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Though I'm not a Dallas fan, the 2006-07 section is 'way too long'. The Stanley Cup victory season (1998-99) should have the most info. GoodDay 17:51, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
Another non-Dallas fan, but I agree. I wish I knew more about them so I could re-write that part. Maybe I'll do some reading up later, but probably not since I still have to finish off some other stuff on this site before committing to more things. And you wanna know why that section is so long (not sure if it has been reduced since you brought it up or not) it has almost a day-by-day type record. Forgot what they usually call that, but you know what I mean. They're adding every little thing that happens instead of only putting more important things. Bsroiaadn 06:43, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] First Round Draft Picks

Is that section really needed? Seems like a waste of space to me, honestly...either that or someone originally used it as filler. Either way, I don't think it should be there. Anyone else agree? Bsroiaadn 06:38, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

I think it is an interesting bit of data that I have not seen elsewhere.Bizfixer 23:02, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Minnesota North Stars?

Why are the Dallas Stars and Minnesota North Stars pages separate? the Minnesota Wild makes no claim to the North Stars history. There is no reason for them to be separate. --Kitch (Talk : Contrib) 14:05, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Because all the 'relocated' NHL teams are seperated. It cuts down on page lengths. Also, the Minnesota Wild page makes no claims of being linked to the North Stars. The Minnesota North Stars and Dallas Stars pages cleary explain each other connections. Thus no need, for merging. GoodDay 14:22, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong oppose to a merger. There is no good reason to combine the articles, and WP:IDONTLIKEIT is not nearly good enough. While they may be different aspects of the same franchise, they are historically distinct. It is completely ridiculous to attempt to condense 26 years of history to three or four paragraphs on another article. Resolute 14:53, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
There is no need to compress their history in the Dallas Stars article. The old history can remain perfectly intact. In addition, there is a good reason to keep the Quebec Nordiques/Colorado Avalanche, Hartford Whalers/Carolina Hurricanes, Winnipeg Jets/Phoenix Coyotes and Atlanta/Calgary Flames articles separate: they were in the World Hockey Association. That reason is not valid in this case, as the North Stars are an indigenous NHL team. There are not separate articles for the New York Baseball Giants, the Brooklyn Dodgers, the Boston Braves, the Philadelphia Athletics, the Kansas City Athletics, the Los Angeles Rams, the Los Angeles Raiders, the Houston Oilers, the Minneapolis Lakers, the Vancouver Grizzlies, or any other current team that has moved elsewhere and is still extant. The only precedent are teams that existed in other leagues. --Kitch (Talk : Contrib) 15:27, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
The Flames franchise was never in the WHA. GoodDay 15:59, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
Their history can remain perfectly intact as two separate articles as well. So really, what is your reasoning for a merge, aside from WP:IDONTLIKEIT? Resolute 16:12, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong Oppose: Such separation is the standard throughout the Wikiproject, whether in NHL, WHA or minor league articles. There are several reasons to keep the status quo. (1) As we've seen, recentism glorifies the past handful of seasons, while ignoring much of a team's past; until quite recently, for instance, the Philadelphia Flyers' 06-07 season received much more ink than both the team's Cup wins combined. Combination would swiftly marginalize the earlier history of the franchises; (2) The prior incarnations of longstanding teams have their own independent identities and fanbases; (3) Oh, yeah, article size :) ...  RGTraynor  15:30, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
Rebuttal As I explained, I am not proposing merger of the former WHA teams. And this separation is only used in the NHL, not in the WikiProjects for any other North American sports league. --Kitch (Talk : Contrib) 15:33, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
In addition, your first point endorses the other person's opposition (that merging may needlessly discount the history of the North Stars) as a reason to oppose it. Forgetting the past is not a good reason to keep the status quo. Keeping the full history in the merged article will permit the preservation of a full singular history for a single team. --Kitch (Talk : Contrib) 15:37, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
Rebuttal To say only the NHL does it is not true. It also is done to MLB and NBA articles. And the point on losing history is a valid one as article sizes are supposed to stay around a certain size at which point you either cut out information (which we don't like) or you separate the information out into its own article.(which is already the case) --Djsasso 19:23, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
Reply: And not only to sporting articles. Buick and Oldsmobile have their own articles, detailing their histories beyond General Motors. Filene's, Kaufmann's and Jordan Marsh haven't been turned into paragraphs of the Macy's article. And so on and so forth ...  RGTraynor  20:55, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong Oppose, per RGTraynor. GoodDay 15:47, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment such a proposal, would have to include the Golden Seals and Barons in a North Stars merger to the Stars. GoodDay 18:56, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong Oppose, per RGTraynor. BsroiaadnTalk 18:12, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong Oppose This has been gone through or various teams in various leagues before. And it comes down to there is too much info to merge. When articles get large you split off pieces to new articles, that is normal Wiki procedure. This is no different. We are just splitting off the Minnesota North Stars history. --Djsasso 19:21, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong Oppose for all reasons stated above. Merging would be an idiotic move, at best. Gmatsuda 19:34, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose - All previous incarnations of a team should be separate pages, to differentiate their histories. I note, however, that hockey is the only sport on Wikipedia that does this; all other sports have redirects to the current franchise, which I disagree with. The history of the Oakland Athletics is long enough; when you try to encompass not only Oakland, but Philadelphia and Kansas City before that, it becomes unwieldy. I think all versions of a franchise should be separated, with limited exceptions (the Oakland/California Golden/Regular Seals/Whatever they called themselves being the primary example). Anthony Hit me up... 19:48, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

:Seing as the 'consensus' is clearly against 'merging', can we remove those 'Merge Tags' now? GoodDay 20:32, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

  • Strong Oppose --Krm500 22:53, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong Oppose per RGTraynor. Also I have failed to see any reason listed that gives this idea any credit. Kaiser matias 02:15, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose. For the reasons already stated. There is enough material for two great articles, and no pressing need whatsoever to merge them. The notion of a "singular history" in one article makes no sense to me. Skeezix1000 11:52, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong Oppose. There is more than enough information for the North Stars to have their own article. --myselfalso 15:03, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose as per everyone else's arguements. Dknights411 03:02, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment I am not for merging the two articles, however I think title information (Division, Conference, Stanley Cup) should include the MN years on the Dallas article. Perhaps an asterisk could denote that those specific years were as North Stars. That would not create a longer article, and provide more fluidity between the two articles. Afterall, franchise information is included in the right hand box, so why shouldn't title info? And on a side note, the Indianapolis Colts article includes all information relating to their 53-83 Baltimore era. Bdsnook 13:27, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Stats

Is all the NHL stats taken from hockeydb.com? Because NHL´s official guide and record book has Basil McRae listed at 382 pim in 1987-1988.

Most of the stats were likely taken from hockeydb. If the official guide has a different number, please feel free to make the correction. Thanks! Resolute 16:24, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Jersey Section, and more

Needs to be a Jersey section. Also, the entire article is awful short for a professional sports team. Their Cup win in '99 is hardly explained at all, as if it has no real significance. Does the team have a mascot? If so, it needs to be mentioned. Overall, much more needs to be done here. Love each other, or perish. ~Auden 00:36, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Stupid Grammar Question

Okay, so, link-hopping, reading the article, and I find the following sentences:

In 1993, amid further attendance woes and bitter personal controversy, Green obtained permission to move the team to the Reunion Arena in Dallas, Texas, where they were renamed, 'specifically', the Stars. The NHL, to quell the controversy, 'promised' to the fans of Minnesota to return in the future with a new franchise.

I was just wondering about the reasoning for the single quotes around "specifically" and "promised" (especially for the latter, considering that the next sentence informs the reader that that promise was indeed fulfilled). --Umrguy42 (talk) 00:23, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Because people have this funny notion, in the last few years, that putting quotes around a word means emphasizing it and constitutes good grammar. I'd be quite content for them to go away.  RGTraynor  04:41, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Longest games

Where, if anywhere, would be the best place to note that the Dallas Stars have played in the 4th-, 6th-, and 8th-longest NHL playoff games (2nd, 4th, and 5th in the modern era)? Collegebookworm (talk) 06:56, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Also, hmm...should Sergei Zubov be listed as born in 1970 Russia or 1970 USSR? To me, the USSR would make more sense, but Sergei's page shows Russia...is this stylistic, or agreed convention for Wikipedia? Collegebookworm (talk) 07:01, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

The Wikipedia-wide convention (and, indeed, a convention followed in almost all encyclopedias) is that the country is that at the time of birth, which in Zubov's case would be the Soviet Union.  RGTraynor  09:04, 5 May 2008 (UTC)