Talk:History of the National Hockey League
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
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). |
| B | This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale. |
Contents |
[edit] On the proposed merge
There's much more useful information here than in the NHL article, and the NHL article is poorly written. Merge that into this, maybe. But dont keep too much of the other one. --CastAStone|(talk) 21:00, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Copyright
The main article appears to be identical with www.barrystickets.com/hockey-tickets/index.php, but I don't know which came first. Woden325 18:39, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
- The Wikipedia article did. According to the Wayback Machine, www.barrystickets.com was created on March 13, 2005, and large sections of that text appeared on edits in the original NHL article before March 5, 2005. That site's cherrypicking without attribution. RGTraynor 05:43, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
[edit] London Lions
I just did a bit of digging, and I can not find a refrence that the London Lions were actually affiliated with the NHL, but just one NHL team owner, Bruce Norris. So, I am removing the paragraph saying they were affiliated with the NHL. -- JamesTeterenko 03:04, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
- Since my edit has been reverted, I have noted that a citation is needed. -- JamesTeterenko 00:52, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
- I've reverted the edit to re-insert the statement. I found what is likely the same page you did, [1], which argues that the NHL itself never proposed such an expansion plan, simply one owner. Given that the paragraph in question is factually inaccurate, it does not belong in this article unless the IP who inserted it can verify it using primary sources. Resolute 05:40, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
- I thought that smelled kind of funny, which is why I never added London to the list of defunct NHL teams in the {{NHL}} template. Doogie2K (talk) 17:08, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
- Okay thanks. I have also removed this information from List of defunct NHL teams and London Lions. -- JamesTeterenko 17:15, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
- I thought that smelled kind of funny, which is why I never added London to the list of defunct NHL teams in the {{NHL}} template. Doogie2K (talk) 17:08, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
- I've reverted the edit to re-insert the statement. I found what is likely the same page you did, [1], which argues that the NHL itself never proposed such an expansion plan, simply one owner. Given that the paragraph in question is factually inaccurate, it does not belong in this article unless the IP who inserted it can verify it using primary sources. Resolute 05:40, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Popularity
I'm gonna cry foul on the affluent fan remark that:
"NHL season ticket prices have traditionally been higher (given the number of games per season) than the other sports."
At the very least this opinion needs a citation, but is probably wrong since the NFL is more expensive per game, and MLB is more expensive per season according to the Fan Cost Index [2]. -- Jeff180 19:52, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Ottawa Senators & Ottawa Senators
Made appropiate edits, showing the 1917-34 & 1992-present teams are 'seperate franchises'. GoodDay 20:05, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
- well, look at it this way. If someone who knows nothing about hockey, started reading about it, what would they say if they could read that there was an Ottawa Senators in 34 and an Ottawa Senators in '92? Your edit is not 'historical' in viewpoint. Sure, the NHL added the Sens in 91, but that adds nothing to the paragraph. You've stripped out information. It should be something like 'revived' the Sens or brought back hockey to Ottawa with a namesake Senators. What you do is minimalize that point, over and over. What is your agenda? Please see what I rewrite before you nuke it. Alaney2k 13:38, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
- The agenda is simple, basic and oft-repeated: that these are two separate teams, and that phrasing that suggests otherwise is inaccurate. RGTraynor 13:54, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
- It is important that it is a revival, or a return to Ottawa. That is also a point that must be made. Saying 'reviving the Ottawa Senators' is much more revealing than 'added the Ottawa Senators'. The first gives the info that there was a previous franchise. The second only states it was added. Do you see what I mean? Why must the 'new' point be made over and over? That's what you two are imposing. Alaney2k 14:29, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
- Definition of reviving... The old team is dead. There's no reviving it. ccwaters 15:18, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
- The point is that the people of Wikipedia are trying to 'swim against the stream' here, by inserting new and expansion at every possible point in the articles, instead of actually adding content. Most of the NHL articles need attributions, people! Alaney2k 15:34, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
- Your definition link actually shows you can restart a franchise: to make operative or valid again Alaney2k 16:23, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
- The point is, you are trying to swim against the stream of consensus. GoodDay 20:31, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
- It's not about me. I know about the consensus around here! You guys are trying to correct the media in your own way. It seems counter-productive when there are so many articles in need of work. Alaney2k 22:17, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
- As long as you continue to make edits that suggest the 2 NHL Senators teams are the 'same'; there's going to be continued complaints. GoodDay 22:55, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
- It's not about me. I know about the consensus around here! You guys are trying to correct the media in your own way. It seems counter-productive when there are so many articles in need of work. Alaney2k 22:17, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
- The point is, you are trying to swim against the stream of consensus. GoodDay 20:31, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
- It is important that it is a revival, or a return to Ottawa. That is also a point that must be made. Saying 'reviving the Ottawa Senators' is much more revealing than 'added the Ottawa Senators'. The first gives the info that there was a previous franchise. The second only states it was added. Do you see what I mean? Why must the 'new' point be made over and over? That's what you two are imposing. Alaney2k 14:29, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
- The agenda is simple, basic and oft-repeated: that these are two separate teams, and that phrasing that suggests otherwise is inaccurate. RGTraynor 13:54, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
