Talk:National Hockey League/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Some stats

Hello. Can someone answer the following two questions? I have searched the internet and wikipedia and have come up empty.

1- Who was the last player to score 5 goals in a game?

2- Who was the last player to score 100 assists in a season?

Thank you--154.20.78.130 (talk) 01:49, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Gretzky was the last person to record 100 assists in a season in 1990-91 NHL season but Thorton came close with 96 recently. As for 5 goals a game that would be alot harder to find. --Djsasso (talk) 02:04, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

With some difficulty, I have the potential answer for the 5 goals in one game question. Of the four players listed in the 2008 Record Book as having scored 5 goals in a game (Peter Bondra, Sergei Fedorov, Mike Ricci, Mats Sundin), all of whom did so just once, this is the dates of their achievement:

Bondra, Feb. 5, 1994

Fedorov, Dec. 26, 1996

Ricci, Feb. 17, 1994

Sundin, Mar. 5, 1992

No one else scored later than Fedorov, so the NHL has gone almost 11 years without someone getting a 5 goal game. Kaiser matias (talk) 04:06, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

And of course that is only players who are still playing as of 2008. Anyone who retired prior to this year could have scored 5 goals in a game between 96 and now. --Djsasso (talk) 04:27, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

I did some looking up for that as well, with mild success. I went as far back as players from 2004, and no one reached that level. Of course that still leaves 8 years and several players unaccounted for. Kaiser matias (talk) 04:51, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Thank you very much to both of you. I kept googling but could not come up with it. Thanks so much! Appreciated.--154.20.78.130 (talk) 18:00, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Marion Gaborik scored 5 goals on December 20, 2007. http://www.boston.com/sports/hockey/articles/2007/12/21/gaboriks_5_goal_outburst_lifts_wild/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.50.246.46 (talk) 00:56, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Re: History

As I understand things, the NHL had a four-division lineup at one time, as the Wales and Campbell Conferences. Smythe Division was one of the four divisions; it included primarily teams in the Pacific Northwest. What were the other three Divisions named prior to the reorganization of the 1990's, which resulted in the six extant Divisions? - B. C. Schmerker (talk) 17:06, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Well the names changed a few times but I believe if you go to the articles for the individual conferences that it explains the history of each of the divisions. But basically they were Norris Division, Smythe Division, Patrick Division, Adams Division. Then they changed Atlantic Division, Northeast Division, Central Division, Pacific Division. After that they changed to the current format. But prior to this there were other divisions as well. -Djsasso (talk) 17:08, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Championship Templates

Hello. The other league all have championship templates to show who was on championship rosters. I think the NHL should also add them.

Agree? Disagree?

Portlygrub (talk) 23:25, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Do you mean a template such as "Roster of 2007 Stanley Cup Winning Anaheim Ducks", etc.? Jmlk17 23:36, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes. It would be like one of these:

Portlygrub (talk) 06:29, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't see why not... Jmlk17 06:32, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

I can see why not. Championship roster templates have been routinely deleted as non-defining, and a risk for ridiculously high overhead (imagine Richard's article with a ton of similar templates) Such templates wouldn't survive much longer than the previous ones have. Resolute 15:56, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Take a look at Bill Russell to see how big a mess these templates can make of an article. That is an absolute joke... Resolute 16:06, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes the hockey project as a whole decided against them and had most of them deleted a few times now. As Resolute has mentioned players who have had a number of cups would start to have rediculously messy pages because of them. When these get created they get deleted rather fast. -Djsasso (talk) 16:16, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

That's what I had thought originally. :) Jmlk17 21:00, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Season Ticket Prices?

I removed the part under "Popularity" that said that the NHL had the highest season ticket prices out of the US big four. The reference that it gave didn't say anything about it, and I did a little bit of my own research (read: googled some stuff) and I don't see any evidence of this being true. If I'm wrong, give me proof and I'll be happy to put it back. Tracer Bullet (talk) 20:22, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree I deleted out that part as well as the NHL fans being more "affluent" than any other sports fans, this seems biased and not fact based. (Rongotti (talk) 21:51, 2 June 2008 (UTC))

And that is your POV. A study was done on this as quoted in the reference which is from a reliable source. -Djsasso (talk) 21:53, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

"Norris House League"

It really isn't made up, either. The Norrises, at one point, controlled both the Black Hawks and the Red Wings, as well as owning significant shares of Madison Square Garden and Boston Garden.  RGTraynor  05:09, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

That's something worth exploring in further depth, and doesn't necessarily mean it's a negative, either. It was their league, they could run it as they chose. My objection was to some user deleting it without explanation, presumably on the grounds that it was a slam, but it's hard to tell, since he didn't say why he deleted it. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 05:22, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

We see people put ‹The template Talkfact is being considered for merging.›  using {{Fact}} in all the time, that would have been more appropriate if there was a concern it was "made up"... am I right?

Yes. But the guy didn't give a reason for deleting it, so it's anybody's guess. If he does it again without comment, then I'll ask him. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 11:37, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

First of all it's not notable in this article. If you want, put it in the History of the NHL article. Secondly, they way it was written was not encyclopedic; especially the "jokingly called" part. Instead just stating that much of the league was controlled by the Norris family would be much more appropriate. Regards, -- Jeff3000 (talk) 12:34, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

And how do you figure it "isn't notable?"  RGTraynor  13:01, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

As I recall, the "classic 6" teams were in a league that operated like a country club. They nearly got caught napping, but they headed off the second-major-league threat by expanding... which of course brought in a bunch of money to the old guard from the entrance fees. Also, they aligned the new teams in a separate division, which essentially made the Stanley Cup finals an exhibition series for the winners of the "classic 6" playoff rounds. Further evolution of the league evened out a lot of that stuff, of course, but there's some intrigue connected with their initial expansion. I noticed there were many references to "Norris House League" in Google, so it's not like this is unknown. Maybe the comment could be written better and/or with more detail, but it's an important part of the nature of the NHL as it existed during that time period. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 13:32, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree "media jokesters" is inappropriate. I think there was better text not that long ago. One sentence is not enough. When the Norrises ran the league, the Blackhawks, Bruins and Rangers were deliberately held back so that the Red Wings would do well. The Red Wings had a farm system, and on and on. It really goes back into the 30s, when Norris Sr. picked up assets on the cheap. Alaney2k (talk) 13:36, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

More intrigue. The Norris House League joke was just the tip of the ice-hockey-berg, as it were. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 14:07, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Luckily, this kind of thing never happens in baseball. Oh, except for the New York Yankees, who managed to get their hooks into clubs like the Red Sox and the Athletics, who at various times essentially served as major league level farm teams to the Yankees. These things don't happen just by pure chance. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 14:10, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

And your revisions are well-done. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 14:12, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Indeed. In fact, the Calgary Stampeders was the first farm team the Black Hawks had, and that wasn't until the 1950s. One of the books I have on that timeframe has people arguing that the Stamps were at least as good as the Hawks... that says something about how mismanaged Chicago had been at the time. Meanwhile, the Edmonton Flyers became the Red Wings affiliate at the same time, and was stocked with several future hall of famers. The after-effects of the Norris House League were felt for some time. Resolute 15:04, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

NHL Teams with the most players from Saskatchewan

Can anyone tell me the top 5 NHL teams in players that were born in/ grew up in Saskatchewan? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.147.119.163 (talk) 23:41, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Mandarin broadcasts

Over the last while, the note about the Islanders broadcasting games in Mandarin has been added and removed from the article several times. While I understand the rational for removing it, seeing how it is only for Islanders games, I would like to show that the CBC Television has been broadcasting games in Mandarin for the 2008 playoffs. It would be a good thing to point out, a way to show that the NHL is trying to reach the Chinese market, and the latter article proves that is not just involving the Islanders. Would like to see what others think of it. Kaiser matias (talk) 18:16, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Current Champion

It says that the Detroit Red Wings are the current champions when that is not necessarily true. The earliest that could happen is Monday, June 2. I have changed it back to the Mighty Ducks. --Striker1057 (talk) 15:07, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

That was just IP address vandalism. He's been warned. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 15:42, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Founded on November 22, 1917?

I've seen it referenced on more than one occasion in my lifetime that the National Hockey League was formed on November 22nd. I noticed that it showed the 26th on Wikipedia, so I corrected it. Unfortunately, although I have published material showing the correct date I am not really familiar with how to place a reference on here using HTML. So... if someone wants to put up a reference I can leave a comment here with the information. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Archangel-22 (talk • contribs) 16:59, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

this page states that "While most historians cite November 22, 1917 as the birth date of the NHL, it wasn't until four days later, November 26, that five clubs officially joined the new circuit." So I guess that is where the November 26 date came from. Thus, the paragraph should be clarified further. Any other thoughts? Zzyzx11 (Talk) 17:16, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes. The 22nd is a bogus date; that was a meeting of the NHA, at which according to Coleman no official report was ever released on the discussions. The 26th was when the decision to form the new league was actually made, Calder was elected president and the franchises were awarded.  RGTraynor  22:57, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

That is my understanding as well. I believe the teams withdrew from the NHA on the 22nd, and created the NHL on the 26th. Inconvienently, I have two different books that quote either date as the NHL's founding date. I trust the 26th better, however, either way, History of the National Hockey League (1917–1942) will need to match what this article says. Resolute 01:44, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

It's a bit more muddled than that. The NHL teams never formally withdrew from the NHA, remaining shareholders to the amount of their respective stakes, and the NHA actually had two meetings a year later, one to suspend operations permanently and the other in December 1918 in an attempt by Eddie Livingstone to get the league's minority shareholders to restart.  RGTraynor  06:31, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Naming

Why is the group called the NHL or National Hockey League, when the NHL clearly covers 2 countries. I know this website obvioudly has to stick with the real world name but has anyone ever wondered why the group don't rename themselves the NAHL (North American Hockey League). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Series premiere (remake) (talk • contribs) 04:06, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

The NHL, when formed consisted of four active and one inactive team, all from Canada. I suppose the same question could have been asked of the NBA, which originally called itself the Basketball Association of America despite being founded with a Canadian team, and today remains the NBA rather than the NABA. Or the AHL, which has consistently had Canadian teams. I suspect the leagues never renamed simply because it was trivial to do so. Resolute

Nope, I've never wondered. Leagues are named what they're named, and not all of them change names at the drop of a hat just because the promoters want to grab a different demographic.  RGTraynor  06:06, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Season Structure Misinformation

I think I'm a bit confused and some things might need to be updated.

In the NHL article:

Currently, of the 82 games, teams play 32 games within their division (8 games against each team in the division)...

In the Season structure of the NHL article:

Beginning in the 2008-2009 season...each team plays 6 games (3 home, 3 away) against the other teams in its division (a total of 24 games).

What is the schedule format exactly? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.150.190.50 (talk) 05:52, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Inconsistency

I think the section describing the number of teams that started the league could be tightened up. The intro says there were four teams, but then under history it names three teams under which the league started. Following that it refers ambiguously to some unnamed Toronto team which may have been the fourth team?--Skarsa72 (talk) 19:13, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, three active NHA teams formed the NHL with a new team in Toronto that had no name. It is my intention to look over this article once I'm done with the NHL history articles.  :) Resolute 19:37, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

In the meantime, I've reworded the passage you expressed concern over. Hopefully it will be less ambiguous. Resolute 19:41, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Intro

The introduction says "the percentages of American and European players have increased because of the NHL's continued expansion into the United States". However, in the link provided, there was nothing about the higher percentage of American players. I would have guessed the percentage of American players has dropped off over the last ten years. Hence I believe this should be re-written. Any objections? Canking (talk) 03:12, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

I might suggest rewording it to set a finite time period. i.e.: The percentage of Europeans and Americans in the NHL has increased since 1980. That statement remains true. I can't cite it, obviously, but based on the increasing numbers of Americans playing in the Western Hockey League, especially from California and Arizona, I would believe the number of Americans in the game is either steady or increasing. Resolute 05:01, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

North American

Greetings, I agree to use the word "American" to refer to the United States citizens in English, what I see in the top US-Canada leagues (not just NHL) is the omission of the other top-leagues in the rest of North America. However, many of your reverts omited more correct stataments for example, the NHL is "not" the only league to field teams that play in two countries' capital cities, the Central American League for Clubs include more than two countries' capital cities. The NHL games in fact can be seen on SKY Latin America. JC (talk) 21:15, 6 November 2008 (PST)

This is a tough one — I see Jcmenal's point here; I certainly consider Mexico to be part of North America. However the article is written in Canadian English, and my experience is that in Canadian usage, North America almost uniformly means the United States plus Canada (OK, Canada plus the United States :-) ). Still, it would be better if the term could be avoided in contexts where it excludes Mexico. --Trovatore (talk) 06:11, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

On the statement of how the NHL is the only league to field two teams in capital cities, I've always found it ridiculous, trivial and pointless. I'd say to simply remove it. However, many of your changes of "North American" to "American/Canadian" were pointless and unnecessarily confused statements. Whether or not there is a team in Mexico, the NHL is still a North American league, and most of the statements you changed are correct as is. About the only other statement I would change is the lead to state that the 30 teams exist in Canada and the United States, simply for clarity. Also, for an encyclopedic tone, "American" probably should not be used as a synonym for "United States" in any statements that are revised. They are not technically equal. Resolute 06:38, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

American is the adjective for the United States; there isn't another one. This is pretty much settled throughout the English Wikipedia, and for that matter the English language — it's very rare in English to use it to refer to inhabitants of the Americas in general. (In some other languages it's quite common, but that doesn't matter here.)

Where United States, used appositively, can be substituted without coming off awkward, fine. But if you talk about, say, American players and Canadian players, it doesn't really work to say United States players. --Trovatore (talk) 06:44, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Trovatore. In English, American is perfectly acceptable as an adjective to refer to the United States. I seem to recall that this issue has come up many times in the past on Wikipedia, an the consensus has always in the end been as Trovatore describes it. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 13:22, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm with Resoulte on this one. That there are no teams in Mexico does not make the league a non-North-American league; all of the teams are in North America, and cover most of North America. Regards, -- Jeff3000 (talk) 13:30, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Point taken, Trovatore, though I do think there should be care taken in whether to use American or United States in each statement. It would depend on context. Resolute 17:38, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

People, this is not about the "American" word usage, as I said before I have no problems to use it as an adjective to refer to the United States, this is about the exclusion of Mexico, Central America and the West Indies as North American entities. I admit it, I changed more "North America" than need it, and I'm agree, NHL is the top hockey leagu not just in North America, it is the best league of the world. BTW, Mexico is going to start the MHL (Mexico Hockey League) the next summer. JC (talk) 19:00, 7 November 2008 (PST)

I've randomly visited the talk pages of the North American Big 4 sports leagues, and since this page has the longest discussion I'll post my thoughts here.

The fact that this league is played in North America (U.S.+Canada+Mexico+Central America+West Indies) means it is correct to label this as "North American." If we're going to this logic, the phrase "India is a South Asian country." is wrong since India doesn't occupy all of South Asia. –Howard the Duck 11:20, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Definition of "Throughout"

The NHL's 30 member clubs are all certainly located only "in" North America,, it is grossly inaccurate and misleading to state that they are distributed "throughout" North America which overtly implies that there are clubs located in México, Central America, and the West Indies (all of which are also part of North America) as well as the United States and Canada. NHL fans certainly know this is not the case, but Wikipedia is read world wide and many outside on the NHL sphere could well be mislead by using the unnecessarily overbroad term "throughout North America." Centpacrr (talk) 01:21, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

No throughout only means that they are located in a number of parts of North America. Throughout all of would imply that they are in every country of north america. -DJSasso (talk) 01:24, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

I am afraid that this is where you are mistaken. The dictionary definition of "throughout" encompasses "all" or "every" which in this case would be "all" the countries in North America, to-wit:
through⋅out  [throo-out]
–preposition
1. in or to every part of; everywhere in: They searched throughout the house.
2. from the beginning to the end of: He was bored throughout the play.
–adverb
3. in every part: rotten throughout.
4. at every moment or point: following the text closely throughout.
Origin: bef. 1000; ME throw out, OE thurh ūt through and out the other side (of).
Unabridged Random House Dictionary, © Random House, Inc. 2009.))

If you want to claim the the NHL's franchises are located "throughout North America" then you are going to have to come up with a reliable source that says just that (i.e., that there are teams in every part of North America), and I doubt there are any. (There are, of course, thousands of reliable sources that say that the NHL's franchises are located only in the United States and Canada.) Using your logic and definition of "throughout" it would be equally proper usage to say that the NHL's 30 franchises are located "throughout the Western Hemisphere" which, of course, is also misleading. While they are all in the Western Hemisphere (as well as in North America), the NHL's 30 teams are certainly not located throughout the Western Hemisphere.

I have worked in professional hockey at all levels for more than forty years and have written three books (as well as many many hundreds of published articles) about the history of the game and the NHL. (My other two books are on railroad history.) I have never heard of any NHL franchise (or any other similar NHL operation or entity) located anywhere other then the US or Canada. . Centpacrr (talk) 01:58, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

I'd recommend turning down the rhetoric a tad. And if you did write some books, great. That does not give you a trump card to win your edit war. I'm not really opposed to your POV on this, but frankly, you make it extremely difficult to support your position with your current attitude. Try discussing with people rather than ordering them around. Resolute 03:06, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

If you were to read my comments above (as well as my detailed contemporaneous "edit summaries") you would have seen that this is exactly what I have been trying to do, but so far the only justification that has been advanced for using the word "throughout" is based on a abject misunderstanding of the broad scope included in the actual dictionary definition of the word ("in or to every part of; everywhere in") which, when applied to the context of the article, makes the existing language ("throughout North America") misleading and inaccurate. There is NO reliable sourcing provided to support using the word "throughout", nor, for that matter, can there be because there are no NHL teams located anywhere in North America outside of the United States and Canada. (There is plenty of reliable sourcing, however, to support the language that I had substituted stating that the NHL's 30 franchises are located "in the United States (24 teams) and Canada (6 teams)." If any editor believes that this is a false statement then please explain the basis for that conclusion. (In the absence thereof I will understand that the accuracy of this statement is not in dispute.) It should also be noted that "...throughout the United States and Canada" would not really work either as 33 of the 50 states in the US (66%) and nine of the 13 Provinces and Territories in Canada (69%) have no NHL franchises in them either.

I think that it would be much more helpful in discussing questions such as these if all editors would actually address the issue that is being posed (to-wit: why the expression "throughout North America" is inaccurate and misleading) as opposed to instead raising nongermane matters of process or speculating as to the motives of other editors. I am constrained to observe that I find it a constant puzzlement when editors (and especially administrators) indicate that while they are (or may be) in basic agreement with an argument being made they nonetheless choose instead to reject helping to apply the fix because they have decided that its original proponent is perceived as not being sufficiently obsequious in making his or her case. This is an approach which seems to me to be inimicable to advancing the goals of the Wikipedia project. Please, therefore, limit comments to the issue of how to most accurately describe where the NHL's franchises are located. If "...in the United States (24 teams) and Canada (6 teams)" is objectionable for some reason then please feel free to suggest an alternative. For the reasons I have advanced above, however, the phrase "...throughout North America" is clearly deficient and unencyclopedic because it is overbroad and, in fact, also objectively inaccurate.

The bottom line question, then, is the following: Which of the following two phrases more accurately and unambiguously describes where the 30 franchises of the NHL are physically located and distrubuted?

• A) "...throughout North America" (even though these 30 franchises are located in just two of the forty-one independent countries or territories which make up the North American continent, and accepting this phrase as more accurate would be akin to saying that the 24 teams of the Kontinental Hockey League were located "...throughout Europe" even though they are in only four (Russia and three former Soviet Republics, Latvia, Belarus, and Kazakhstan) of the fifty nations that comprise the European continent; this phrase is also unsourced), or;
• B) "...the United States (24 teams) and Canada (6 teams)." (Source: 2009 NHL Record Book & Official Guide, pp. 7, 9-10. New York: National Hockey League)

I will await with interest the views (and reasoning therefore) of any editors who may wish to comment on this matter before making any further edits to this section.

Centpacrr (talk) 05:00, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

While I have no problem with a wording along the lines of "...in the United States and Canada" rather than "throughout North America", I've reverted your POINTy fact tag that you placed because others object to your rigid interpretation of a word. FWIW, I do agree that the proposed wording is more accurate, but lets see what others think. Resolute 15:00, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

What I pointed out about "throughout" is not some abstruse or narrow "rigid interpretation" of the word, but is just the standard dictionary definition of it which is that it refers to being "in or to every part of; everywhere in." The misinformed contention of the complaining editor that "throughout only means that they are located in a number of parts of North America. Throughout all of would imply that they are in every country of north america." is just plain incorrect and is a misunderstanding of the actual dictionary definition of the scope of its meaning. "Throughout all" is therefore simply a redundancy as opposed to a different, more inclusive state then "throughout" standing alone as that word already encompasses the concept of all inclusiveness by definition. Achieving "consensus" is certainly a valuable tool in building Wikipedia, but applying it to arbitrarily alter the long established dictionary definitions of words is certainly not a reasonable or proper use for it. Centpacrr (talk) 15:36, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Corrections made to into per above. Added information (with linked ref) from NHL Constitution defining what the league is. Centpacrr (talk) 05:59, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Waivers System

Is there currently anywhere in Wikipedia where the NHL waivers system is covered? I was looking and couldn't find anything- it isn't listed on the waivers (disambiguation) page if it exists. There seems to be even split between leagues that cover the waiver system in their own article, and those that cover it as part of the article on the league- not sure where it would belong for the NHL. --Clay Collier (talk) 12:59, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

The differences between the one-way and two-way contracts could be covered, as well as the teams acquiring a player before he clears waivers only paying half the salary. It's a pretty extensive subject with many subtleties that could use a page.Kingdomcarts (talk) 00:16, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

inter- / intra- in "Season Structure" section

Wiktionary defines these two prefixes as:

• inter: A prefix signifying among, between, amid, during, within, mutual, reciprocal
• intra: A prefix signifying inside, within, interior, during

I am well aware "INTER-CONFERENCE" is the common way in any sport to discuss teams in opposing conferences, but that doesn't mean it's correct. As far as I can tell, these prefixes mean the same thing. I know "EXTRA-CONFERENCE" sounds weird, but it may be the accurate adjective. I have seen the term "INTER-LEAGUE" play, but that doesn't denote games outside of a team's own conference either - just within the same league.Kingdomcarts (talk) 00:11, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

The big difference is inter means "between" if you look at the definition above. Inter-conference would mean between conferences. Intra-conference would mean "within" one conference. You could say Inter-League play to signify between two leagues, or Intra-League to signify within one league, but as far as the NHL is concerned you would never talk about inter-league or intra-league because unlike baseball the NHL is a single league. -Djsasso (talk) 01:00, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Origin of players

With all due respect, claiming that the NHL draws player from all around the world is just silly. Out of the 941 players in the last NHL season 937 (99.6%) came from North America or Europe (with large parts of Europe not represented. A meager 4 (0.4%) came from Africa, Asia, Oceania, South America and Central America combined. And even that figure of 0.4% is inflated, as it includes Canadians born outside Canada but having lived almost all their lives in Canada. To the best of my knowledge, there isn't a single player in the NHL who has started to play hockey outside North America or Europe or has lived outside these regions for any significant amount of time. Based on this, it seems pretty thick to claim that the NHL draws player from all around the world. JdeJ (talk) 10:34, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Indeed. "From all parts of the world where ice hockey is popular" or something like that would be more correct. -- Jao (talk) 12:32, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

However, it would not be an incorrect claim as there are players from all four corners of the world. Maybe not alot of them but there are some. -Djsasso (talk) 13:23, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Pretty much. We don't want to come off as pedantic.  RGTraynor  18:16, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

I would disagree with Djsasso. Every single player in the NHL is of European or North American descent, or raised in any of those two regions. The four (4!) players not born in North America or Europe were all born to Canadian or European parents, and moved to Canada or the US when aged three years of younger. It would be great if hockey became more popular, to the extent that the NHL would became truly global in the sense that the major soccer leagues are. In the meantime, I don't think we should pretend that it already is when there's not a single player of African, Asian or Latin-American descent born in any of those regions playing in the NHL. It's still an exclusively North American and European league, and even that's a bit of a stretch as more than half the countries in Europe have never had a single player playing in the NHL. JdeJ (talk) 19:12, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

I definately see what you are saying, however in terms of wiki when we use the word "from" we mean where in the world are they are born. And there are a pretty big number of players who are or have been born in places other than NA or Europe. While alot of them definately are from Canadian parents that doesn't really enter into it. There are atleast two players born in Africa, and there are a number from Asia. Atleast one from South America. I guess it really comes down to what you consider the word "from" to mean. In most cases in wikipedia we refer to from as meaning where they were born and not where they were raised or where they currently live. -Djsasso (talk) 19:20, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

I have changed the sentence under discussion to read "In addition to Canadian and American born and trained players, who have historically composed a large majority of NHL rosters, the NHL also draws players from an expanding pool of other nations where organized and professional hockey is played." which I think better and more accurately makes the point of the international character of the makeup of NHL rosters. (Centpacrr (talk) 19:44, 17 December 2008 (UTC))

Works for me. -Djsasso (talk) 19:55, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree, that works fine. JdeJ (talk) 22:29, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

There is an inaccuracy in this section with regards to the Winter Olympic years. The NHL does NOT suspend the season in these years, rather, it merely suspends the All-Star game for that year. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.50.199.90 (talk • contribs)

Actually its correct. They cancel the All-Star game, but they suspend (aka pause the season) while the olympics are on. -Djsasso (talk) 12:30, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Inconsistency

In the box on the top right it says Most Championships: it lists the Montreal Canadiens with 23. In the box just below it it says Montreal has 24 Championships.

They in fact have 24 Stanley Cups so the top box needs to be fixed. Pelicanking (talk) 19:59, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

They only have 23 cups while in the National Hockey League however, one was won before they joined the league. -Djsasso (talk) 20:22, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

NHL Championships

This page is about the National Hockey League, and the number of NHL championships won by the Montreal Canadiens is 23. This article is not about the number of Stanley Cups won. The primary number on this page should be connected to the primary subject of the article. Regards, -- Jeff3000 (talk) 18:20, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Yup, you are correct. This page is specifically about the NHL and while in the NHL Montreal won 23 cups. On the Montreal page and the Stanley cup page it lists the totals correctly at 24. But on this specific page the proper number is 23. -Djsasso (talk) 00:49, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Yeah. You're right - this has been discussed this many times. - Rjd0060 (talk) 01:46, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

You know, I think we are all wrong. The Canadiens have only 23 Stanley Cups in the NHL, however the Stanley Cup hasn't always been the NHL championship trophy. The Canadiens were also the league champion in 1918-19 (Spanish flu cancelling the SC finals) and 1924-25 (lost SC finals to Victoria). As such, I think it should read that Montreal has 25 league titles. Resolute 06:14, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

You know I was just thinking about that last night and was going to check this morning when I got online. We would also need to modify the championship box in the article also to mention the wins for teams that were non-cup wins. -Djsasso (talk) 15:24, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

The Stanley Cup box? We could, but at the same time, it clearly states SC wins rather than overall championships. I think, however, that those two Canadiens' seasons were the only two where the NHL team did not also win the SC, so at worst, we'll just have to expand the asterisked note for the Canadiens. Resolute 16:32, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

It is clear you are right, I was just going on the spirit of the box rather than the letter of the box. But you are probably right that it is only the Canadiens that have had that issue. -Djsasso (talk) 17:54, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

By the way, I don't know if they won two other championships (that was not Stanley cups), but one thing is sure, is that they won 1 Stanley cup before they joined the NHL (so, officialy, they got 24 Stanley cups). I know we can't put it in this article, as it is related to NHL, but I just wanted to make it clear. Happy New Year to all, Jimmy Lavoie × Vive le Québec! ^talk 22:46, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Both the NHL's official publication, the 2008-09 NHL Record Book and Guide (at page 240), and the Canadiens' publication, the 2008-09 Montreal Canadiens Media Guide (at pages 352-53), list the Canadiens as having won 23 playoff championship titles as an NHL club (the first in 1924 and the last in 1993) which is how the template lists the category in question (i.e., "Most championships" by an NHL club, not "Most Stanley Cups"). If you mean "Most championships" by an NHL club and "Most Stanley Cups" to be synonymous (which, of course, they were not prior to 1927), then the number of Cups won by the Canadiens would only be 24 (not 25) as, has been well noted, their first one (in 1916 over the PCHA Portland Rosebuds) came before the NHL was formed out of the defunct NHA in 1917. While the Canadiens finished first in regular season NHL play in 1917-18 (13-9-0) and played in the flu shortened Stanley Cup series with Seattle in 1919 (in which there was no winner), neither the NHL nor the Canadiens lists either of these in their guides as being an "NHL Championship" (nor do they list any regular season titles as "championships"), therefore the correct number of "championships" for the Canadiens as an NHL club is 23, and not either 24 or 25. As the Wiki article in which this appears is the National Hockey League article, not the Stanley Cup article, then "23" is the only correct and properly sourced number that can be listed for the "most championships" won by a team in the NHL. (Centpacrr (talk) 23:32, 11 March 2009 (UTC))

I don't have either handy, but does it say playoff championships? If so then that is different than championships, as was mentioned above the NHL didn't always have a playoff after the regular season. -Djsasso (talk) 02:51, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

No, those guides list the number of Stanley Cup championships, not League championships. The Canadiens also won the NHL championship of the time (the O'Brien Trophy) in 1919 and 1925. This is a matter of historical fact, even if the league chooses simplify down to just Stanley Cup championships. The Stanley Cup was not always the NHL championship trophy, and we would be presenting a blatant falsehood to suggest otherwise. Please do not present what is quite blatantly incorrect information until you can prove to me that a team other than the Canadiens won the NHL championship in 1919 and 1925. Resolute 04:33, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

And a cite for it: MacFarlane's 100 Years of Hockey' lists Montreal as the 1919 NHL champion (p. 15) and the 1925 NHL champion (p. 21). Or are you going to try and argue to me that the Victoria Cougars were the 1925 NHL champion? Resolute 04:42, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Think we can IP lock the article to stop this from happening on the daily basis it does?--Lvivske (talk) 05:58, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

A change every few days isn't enough to warrant protection. It's not that big a deal to revert as needed at this point. Resolute 15:42, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

The NHL Recognizes 24 Stanley Cups by the Habs. Therefor the number should be 24. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.230.197.40 (talk • contribs) Resolute 06:05, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Actually, it shouldnt, unless you think the Habs won an NHL title before the NHL even existed. Also, please do tell me who the 1919 and 1925 NHL champs were then? Resolute 06:05, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

What is the definition of NHL Championship? Is it the winner of the stanley cup? Is it the winner of the NHL playoffs (prior to the NHL taking over the cup)? Is it the Regular season champion, as some years there were no playoffs? I understand that there are situations that Stanley Cup winner and NHL Champion are not always synonymous, but we should be using the current standards accepted by the organization that the article is about. The regular season champion is now gets a trophy called the presidents trophy, it was not so before 1986, so are we supposed to ignore those regular season champions? --Never give up! Never surrender! (talk) 04:41, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

It is a pretty simple thing... the league champion in each year. From 1918-1923 would be the O'Brien Trophy, from 1924-1926 the Prince of Wales Trophy and from 1927 to the present day, the Stanley Cup. These were the trophies handed out to the league champion in those respective periods. This is simple history, and not something open to reinterpretation. Resolute 06:05, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Actualy no it's not a "simple thing", like I was trying to point out. The definition of NHL champion has been vague, over the years the winner of the regular season was called the league champion. (See Presidents'_Trophy#History) I do not necessarily disagree with you, but we need to make sure that we explain the standards used to come up with the tallies. There is a Montreal Canadians Template, that incorrectly lists 34 stanley cup playoff apearances. Yes Montreal appeared in 34 stanley cup finals, but not all were the canadians. Even though the Canadians team of today tend to incorporate the wanderers and the maroons, they were distinct and sometimes even rival teams of the Montreal Canadians. Even if the crown is not coming off of Montreal in the near future, and for people who see different information from different sources it should be clarified.--Never give up! Never surrender! (talk) 12:39, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

The Canadiens did make the finals 34 times. That is not a combined total. -Djsasso (talk) 13:24, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

LOL! As Djsasso notes, the Canadiens history does not incorporate a single Wanderers or Maroons game or season. Three separate franchises. And trust me, the NHL champion is a very easy thing to determine. I have not come across a single history that claims the first place team in the regular season as being the league champion in a year where a playoff was held. 1920 was the only time in NHL history that a playoff was not held, and that was only because Ottawa won both halves of the season. In the end, this debate is exclusively about people who think the Stanley Cup has always been synonymous with the NHL championship. These people have very little understanding of the NHL's early history. Resolute 14:01, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

"I have not come across a single history that claims the first place team in the regular season as being the league champion in a year where a playoff was held." In the Soviet League, the team with the best record in the regular season was called the "Champion of Russia" while the winner of the playoffs would win the "USSR Cup"; food for thought --Lvivske (talk) 21:33, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

You seem to think that I somewhat disagree with you? I am simply sating that prior to 1985, the regular season "winner" was also referd to as the NHL Champion. See the President's Trophy History section right here, also The Canadiens Box is incorrect by listing for one, the 1918 year as a year that Montréal going to the Cup finals. Instead of thinking that everyone knows as much about hockey as you seem to, try speaking to people in a less demeaning way. Having grown up near Montréal where hockey was everything, and living in Detroit now, I have a fair amount of hockey knowledge, but I do not assume to know everything, and I do not assume that (and treat) eveyone who doesn't know as much is an idiot, like the two of you do.--Never give up! Never surrender! (talk) 20:00, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

If you notice a mistake that was added less than a month ago by an anonymous IP, why did you leave it there? Obviously to try and stir things up. And I would note, I think its rather demeaning to assume that a reader wouldn't understand champion to be playoff champion which is the general usage in mainstream sports. For someone to be confused between "League Champion" & "Champion" would take someone who knew enough to know thats what they called the regular season champion prior to the presidents trophy which in turn would proably mean they understand we are talking about playoff champion. -Djsasso (talk) 21:01, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

I did not notice anything other than that the years in the info box were links to non montreal canadiens playoff apearences, thus the reason I bring it up. I do not spend my time beeing a wikinazi like some others. Like I said, you should not treat everyone like idiots, The box says champion, not everyone has the same level of "mainstream" sports knowledge as you seem to have, what happens on the "American" continent is not what happens all over the world. So instead of demeaning people, and assuming that everyone knows what you know, why not try thinking (and looking at things through a diferent perspective) before you go on a rampage. The league champion used to mean the regular season champion, not stanley cup champion. The two are now synonomous. --Never give up! Never surrender! (talk) 21:19, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Fixing a page is hardly being a wikinazi. Secondly you can't explain everything in detail in a summary which is what that box is, the whole idea of Wikipedia is that if you need more information you click on a link and go to another page that explains it more in depth like say the President's Trophy article for example. I don't assume anyone knows anything, however wikipedia is not written for the lowest common demoninator, it is an encyclopedia and as such assumes the reader has some knowledge on the subject they are looking up. As for your "American" continent comment, I was actually referring to sports around the world and not those in North America. I would also suggest you read WP:CIVIL as you long ago crossed the civility line. -Djsasso (talk) 21:29, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

There is too much inconsitency with this subject, this page counts championships one way, the All-time NHL team performance list counts championships another way, Prior to 1986 the regular season champion was called the NHL League Champion (sounds like champion to me!), There is too much ambiguity in the term championship, that is what I was trying to point out.People use an encyclopedia to learn about things, not to read about things they already know. I am sorry to have stirred up so many arrogant views on what people should know. We live in a global world, and need to stop assuming that everyone knows and sees everything through the same perspective.--Never give up! Never surrender! (talk) 21:38, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Well I can explain part of the inconsistancy. The idea to stop using just the Stanley Cup as a measure of the having won the championship only happened a short while ago, some of these other less watched/edited pages were just never updated when the main league page was. That is sort of what happens on wikipedia, there is a lag in making sure the less edited pages catch up to changes. Not saying thats a good thing or anything but it is a reality. -Djsasso (talk) 21:41, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Indeed, I never even knew that article existed. I've clarified the situation on that article as well. Resolute 00:16, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Understandably confusing for people when there is different information even within the same "Encyclopedia", and frustrating for people who try to "correct" information based on other pages and just get beat up on. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mrboire (talk • contribs) 02:47, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Team Logos / Symbols

I am trying to locate images of NHL team logos / symbols. I was surprised to instead find flags of state / province on Wikipedia's NHL page.

Perhaps someone could add logos / symbols in the “Team” column next to each team name (the same way that state / province flag images are located in the “City/Area” column, next to the city names). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.72.122.61 (talk) 21:17, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

The team logos are copyrighted, and thus can only be added to a page, if there is an appropriate fair use rationale. For this page, the team logos would not meet Wikipedia's requirements for fair use, and thus can't be added here. Regards, -- Jeff3000 (talk) 21:21, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Corporate structure and head office move

I'm adding this note to three talk pages: the talk pages for the NHL, the history of the NHL, and the history of the NHL 1967-92. Please post any responses at the third of these locations, as this is the most specific of the three pages.

---

I've just added a short section to the two history pages about John Ziegler's move of the NHL head office from Montreal to New York. It strikes me as an action of considerable symbolic importance, but I've been able to find very little in writing about it, so I can't provide details or a usable cite.

A friend in New York phoned the NHL head office and was told it moved there in 1977 after Ziegler took office. My friend searched the New York Times online at his library using ProQuest and I searched the Globe and Mail the same way. I found that the exact date Ziegler's presidency began was August 26, 1977, and we both found articles from earlier that year speculating that if Ziegler got the job then he was likely to move the HQ out of Montreal, but it wasn't clear where to. Whether because ProQuest searches are not entirely reliable or because nothing further was reported or because we both missed something, neither of us found any further details or confirmation of the move.

Besides the symbolism of the move, there is also a legal issue: corporations can't normally just move from one country to another. (The NHL must be a corporation, because it gets sued on occasion.) Did the move involve reincorporating the NHL, or did it already consist of separate companies in each country and their relationship changed, or what? I haven't found anything at all in writing anywhere that covers the NHL's corporate structure, and that seems like a topic that belongs on the main NHL page.

--208.76.104.133 (talk) 05:36, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't have a cite, but I believe how they got around it was they have a dual head office set up. Toronto is I believe their true head office while New York works as a satelite office. However, for all true purposes New York is the main head office. -Djsasso (talk) 13:08, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Moved Djsasso's comment to the main discussion. — Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 01:13, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

On page 2 of his June 9, 2009, Declaration filed with the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the District of Arizona, NHL Commissioner Gary Bettman states the NHL Structure to be as follows:

"The NHL is an unincorporated association, organized as a joint venture to operate a League consisting of thirty Member Clubs, including the Phoenix Coyotes. The NHL's headquarter offices are in New York, New York. The NHL has other offices in Toronto. Ontario and Montreal, Quebec, Canada. Each Member Club operates a professional hockey team in North America. The NHL teams are located in a diverse group of cities throughout the United States and Canada."

The same language also appears in Articles I and II of the NHL Constitution. Centpacrr (talk) 00:44, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Player Statistics explanations

Hi,
Is there a Wikipedia page with an explanation of player statistics? This would help new people to hockey. And a link from this page to my proposed Explanation of NHL Player Statistics page would help.
I was trying to review some player statistics and wanted to understand them better.
What do these acronyms mean?

	GP  	G  	A  	P  	+/-  	PIM  	PP  	SH  	GW  	S  	S% 

I'm sure I could figure it out eventually, but it seems like a good Wikipedia page.
Thanks.

-Jtmoon

—Preceding undated comment added 02:17, 10 April 2009 (UTC).

There are individual pages for each of the statistics. -Djsasso (talk) 03:45, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

List of NHL statistical leaders by country

A large table has recently been moved from List of NHL statistical leaders by country to this article. I think the best place for that level of detail is in the previous article and not in this one. This article should be in summary style. Regards, -- Jeff3000 (talk) 19:41, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree, but Twas Now seems to have some good plans for the list's previous location so maybe you should comment on List of NHL statistical leaders' future in this discussion. —Krm500 ^{(Communicate!)} 20:11, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Yeah I don't think this table should be here. -Djsasso (talk) 01:10, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Teams' Jerseys

I wonder if anyone would be interested in looking at a detailed history of the NHL Teams' jerseys throught the century. If not here on the article, perhaps in each team's article. Link: http://www.nhluniforms.com/ --137.186.226.111 (talk) 19:29, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Blocking IP Editors

Can somebody block "IP" editing of the NHL page for awhile to cut down on the constant vandalism? Thanks. (Centpacrr (talk) 21:14, 5 May 2009 (UTC))

Televison Broadcast of NHL

Although I agree that FSN is the largest broadcaster of nhl games, they IMHO can not be called a nation televison partner, they televise the games in "home markets" but not at a national level, In other words you can't watch a game unless it is the NHL team that plays in that market. They do not show one game (lets say a playoff game for example) on all their affiliate stations. The, NBC as an example, will show one game nationwide, regardless if the local team is in the game or not. Another, albeit small, reason is that FSN is not in all markets, so it couldn't broadcast "Nationwide" even if it wanted to.--That's Life, "Stuff" happens, people die, life goes on. (talk) 17:52, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Yup, that's pretty much the way I see it and I think the rest of the project sees it. Just remove it when you see a new editor/IP editor add it. -Djsasso (talk) 18:07, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Territorial Right Map

There should be one just like in the MLB page.

Expand tv also would be a good idea. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.59.81.187 (talk) 01:16, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

In a map of North America it wouldn't really show up since their rights only exist 50 miles from the edge of the city limits. Would only really be a dot on a map. -Djsasso (talk) 03:26, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of oldest NHL players

FYI Ikip (talk) 02:34, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Is that really necessary? -- ISLANDERS27 06:12, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes, its considered general courtesy. And why are you commenting on something 3 months old? -DJSasso (talk) 13:27, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Team Map

The map is out of date. The Devils have moved to Trenton which is in the western side of Central New Jersey. The map still indicates them at the Meadowlands in Northern New Jersey.Mustang6172 (talk) 05:24, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

The NHL Devils have NOT moved to Trenton. The Devils team in that city is their ECHL farm club. The NHL Devils moved to the Prudential Center in Newark which is less than ten miles south of their former home at the Meadowlands located in East Rutherford, Centpacrr (talk) 13:05, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Centpacrr. They never moved to Trenton, Mustang. -- ISLANDERS27 15:41, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Has this been discussed? There is an SVG to replace the PNG for the team map. I can't tell if it is better from I see on my screen. Alaney2k (talk) 16:30, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Proposal on Naming Conventions

Hello, all!

Please join me here for a renewed discussion on relocated sports teams. Thanks! BigSteve (talk) 15:07, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Formatting of NHL and hockey infoboxes; Headquarters of the NHL

I've often considered the offices were located within Gary Bettman's head. Anways, it's surely nothing to spat over. GoodDay (talk) 15:42, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

That was never actually what my issue was with anyways. -DJSasso (talk) 15:46, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

I see now, he made changes without seeking a consensus. GoodDay (talk) 15:50, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Note: See here and here for the earlier background discussions relating to the following two questions:

1) Is there consensus to treat the infoboxes for the NHL and other hockey leagues with member clubs in more than one country differently than consensus format used on Wikipedia for the infoboxes for leagues in all other sports?

A claim has been made that there was a previous discussion which affirmatively established a consensus that listing countries based on the descending order of the number of franchises located in each country somehow constitutes unacceptable POV and therefore they should be listed alphabetically even if that would cause in a case such as Major League Baseball that a country with just one member club (Canada) to be listed before a country with 29 clubs (United States). MLB and the NAB in fact lists the countries in its infobox based on number of fanchises in each country (i.e. United States first, Canada second) whereas the NHL infobox differs in that it lists the United States last even though 80% of its franchises are in US cities (and a majority of its franchises have been so since 1928) and Canada first with 20% of the member clubs located there. (When I requested to be directed to the alleged earlier discussion on this issue no such link was provided.)

2) On another topic, a claim has been made that the "head office of the NHL is in Montréal" because the league is "registered there as a Limited Partnership" in that city whereas the NHL Constitution states that the league is "an unincorporated association, organized as a joint venture to operate a League consisting of thirty Member Clubs" which, according to a statement on page 2 of a June 9, 2009, Declaration filed with the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the District of Arizona by NHL Commissioner Gary Bettman, is legally "headquartered in New York City."

Again when I requested a reliable source be provided to support the contention that the NHL is still headquartered in Montréal because it is legally structured as a Limited Partnership registered there, one was promised but none has been forthcoming. If anyone has such a source which contradicts Article I of the NHL Constitution and Commissioner Bettman's June 9, 2009, filing with the US Bankruptcy Court in Arizona I would appreciate it if they would supply it. Centpacrr (talk) 20:44, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Again you have missed what I was trying to tell you and instead have aimed it as an attack again. I am trying to tell you to have a consensus discussion NOW. Reguardless of what it was in the past. This way you have an up to date consensus on the situation. Instead you have formed your writing in a way as if to attack. Perhaps if you were a little less hostile this could have been settled days ago without wasted kilobytes of writing? And a note to #2, why does it even matter? This has nothing to do with the issue at hand on what order we should put canada and the US. We have for over 5 years had it listed Canada first and US second. This fits both alphabetical order, numerical order, and cronological order. Which I think is more important that matching other leagues or satisfying some American nationalistic pride. -DJSasso (talk) 20:49, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

With respect, I looked at how the infoboxes for the other major league professional sports were formatted when I made my original edits some months ago, and based on what I found elsewhere (such as with the NBA and MLB) it appeared to me that the established consensus format was to list countries in descending order based on the number of franchises in each country. When I restored this order when you changed it with the only explanation being your edit summary "(actually it probably should be in alphabetical order.)" many months later, I was immediately accused of "edit warring" and was told that there was some other established consensus. I am perfectly willing to accept that as the case if you would direct me to the discussion that you claim established this different treatment of hockey which is what I have asked you to do several times now, as well as for you to provide me with a source for your other claim that the NHL is legally headquartered and structured as a "limited partnership registered in Montréal." which you promised to do. I have given you the reasons and sources for my positions.

I am sorry if you confuse my request for you to support your contentions as "hostility." (It was not I who made an accusation of edit warring.) I made a good faith effort to understand the consensus for the formatting of the infoboxes for professional sports leagues and made my edits accordingly. All I have asked for are the sources and/or links that support your positions. I can't really accept, however, an otherwise unsupported claim of "that's the way we do it" as such a reliable source, however, nor would I expect that you or any other editor (especially one as experienced as yourself) would either if that's the only reason I gave for my actions. Centpacrr (talk) 21:39, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Except that, that's the way we do it is a legitimate way of having consensus on wikipedia. In order to change something you must show that opinions have changed. If something has been the same way for a very long time consensus can be assumed. All I have wanted from the begining was for you to discuss your requested change rather than revert me and explain in edit summaries. MLB and NBA are very different from the NHL in that those sports expanded into Canada whereas the NHL originated in Canada and expanded into the US. Which makes the listing on this page alot more touchy than it would be on those pages. This is why such edits on highly visible pages should always be discussed. -DJSasso (talk) 21:44, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

As I said earlier, I based my understanding of "that's the way we do it" in this case by looking at the infoboxes for other major professional sports leagues and found teams to not be listed based on "nationalistic pride" (which certainly would be POV), but based on a real structural attribute, i.e., in descending order of the number of member clubs in each country which seems to me to much more logical because it is based on the actual structure of the league as opposed to an arbitrary ordering based on English spelling.

That's why I am raising the issue for discussion here now (which is also what you have asked me to do as well). My position is that a listing based on the actual structure of an organization as opposed to the arbitrariness of the English spelling of nations (which provides no information whatsoever on how the league is structured) seems much more logical and, for that matter, "encyclopedic." (Your argument that the nation in which a league was originally founded should be considered doesn't really seem to work as the AHL was founded in New York City in June, 1938, with no member clubs in Canada and yet uses the same alphabetical listing (as opposed to structural) in its infobox despite the vast majority of it its franchises and its headquarters having always been located in the United States.)

As for the issue of the league being legally structured as a "limited partnership registered in Montréal" is your claim, not mine, and is not supported by the NHL Constitution. I do not claim that it is headquartered in New York City out of any "American nationalistic pride" but instead because that's what the sources support. You are, of course, free to disagree personally for whatever reason (or no reason) you want to (even nationalistic pride), but that would have to be your own POV. If you now choose to not provide support for this contention that is up to you and I won't ask you for it again. Centpacrr (talk) 22:17, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Put USA before Canada, what's the differance? PS: Get a consensus before doing such changes though. GoodDay (talk) 23:17, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Howabout rotating the entries? Canada/USA this month, USA/Canda in December... (etc). GoodDay (talk) 21:49, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

A quick note: Please understand that my position on this has nothing whatever to do with my personal nationality, or that of any other editor. The OHL, QMJHL, and WHL, for instance, all have teams in both the US and Canada as well, but I absolutely support listing Canada first in the infoboxes for each as the vast majority of these circuits' member clubs are located in Canada. The purpose of my position is to have the order of listing reflect the actual structure of each individual league, not the arbitrariness of the English spellings of the countries the member clubs are located in which has no relation to each league's structure. I have worked in professional hockey at all levels for more than forty years and know thousands of people in the game from many countries. Their national origins are of no concern to me one way or the other, nor, for that matter, is mine to any of them. My aim is to make the infobox listing informational as opposed to arbitrary. Nothing more, and nothing less. Centpacrr (talk) 23:52, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Nice quote box, but your rationale for this is beyond silly. Listing one nation's teams and then the other is no more or less informational than listing them in reverse. Using the supposed "structure" is no more or less arbitrary than alphabetizing it or basing it on which nation has the most teams. Your argument basically tells me that you are fighting simply because you want your way, as you have provided no other valid reason. To reiterate what I said on DJ's talk page though, who gives a damn? It is a lame thing to fight over, on all sides, and a waste of time and energy. My vote is to pick however it was on some random day in the past - say March 17, 2005 - and go with what it was then. Resolute ^{Lest We Forget} 23:57, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

By listing the countries in the descending order of where teams are located form most to least provides the information visually as to how the league is structured geographically. An alphabetical listing of nations tells you nothing about structure or anything else except English spelling of the names of these countries. This is the way (descending order by numbers of teams) infoboxes on Wikipedia for the leagues in other sports are structured. Is it really your position that a listing that provides less information is somehow better? Centpacrr (talk) 00:17, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Put the 'United States' first, 24 teams to 6 teams is a good enough reason for me. GoodDay (talk) 00:19, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

This may seems silly, but: Howabout we delete Canada & United States from the Infobox & replace them with 'North America'? GoodDay (talk) 00:08, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

This issue ("North America") was dealt with above some time ago. Centpacrr (talk) 00:20, 5 November 2009 (UTC))

Ahh, I see. PS: Give it time, Bettman will have'em in Central America. GoodDay (talk) 00:24, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Right but by listing them Canada first and then US, we can show how the league historically has developed. How is geographically any more relevant than historically? I would also note the order in which you list them does not give any more information about the league that the numbers of teams beside them doesn't already give, so technically your way doesn't provide any more information. If anything it provides less information than the historical order I mentioned. Which I mostly just threw out there for arguements sake, I do have to agree with Resolute, that it does seem like a my way or no way situation. -DJSasso (talk) 04:21, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

I agree. -- ISLANDERS27 05:21, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Geographically is more relevant than "historically" because the info box is meant to describe the league as it is now, not in 1917. If you want to use the "historical" argument, then you need to change the order in the AHL infobox because "historically" it is a league founded and still based in the United States with a few Canadian members from time to time, but then that would violate your consensus argument for alphabetical listings.

The only reason that there are currently numbers of teams next to the names of each country in the NHL infobox, by the way, is that I put them there two months ago. I have explained in great detail my reasons and logic for using a descending order based on the number of member clubs in each country, and that this has nothing to do with "nationalistic pride" on my part. Instead it is based on over forty years of experience in working in, researching, writing about, and broadcasting professional hockey at the NHL, AHL, and other levels. Centpacrr (talk) 06:17, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

This is getting to be WP:LAME. It was fine the way it was, and nobody seemed to have had a problem with it, and then it was changed unilaterally. I have no strong feelings either way, but there seems to have been consensus earlier, people were fine with it, and one editor likes it another way. BTW, an argument from authority is not much of an argument. Dbrodbeck (talk) 11:51, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Djsasso and the others in this discussion. There are many ways of ordering the infobox, and the current one, which has consensus, is good as any others. The current number of teams in parenthesis gives all the information needed, and that's it. Regards, -- Jeff3000 (talk) 13:26, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Actually the infobox is supposed to summarize the article, not talk about the NHL at any specific point in time. -DJSasso (talk) 14:23, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

I agree. -- ISLANDERS27 07:37, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

The actual historic consensus

Apparently the "long term" consensus claimed for the alphabetical listing of nations in infoboxes in hockey articles for North American leagues with more teams in the US than in Canada never existed. A review of the pages about three other such North American pro leagues reveals that the AHL's box had the US first and Canada second from the time it was first added on November 11, 2006, until July 18, 2009, when it was unilaterally and arbitrarily changed without the seeking of consensus for the change. The infobox of the ECHL was also added on November 11, 2006, with the US listed first and Canada second and remains that way today three years later, and the infobox for the defunct IHL added on January 23, 2008, has also always listed the US first and Canada second. (All of these leagues have always had more teams in the US than in Canada). Thus the only infobox for North American leagues in hockey with more teams in the US than in Canada that seems to have been historically out of step with "the way we do things" has been on the NHL page. Centpacrr (talk) 22:28, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

You've convinced me, change the order in the Infobox. GoodDay (talk) 23:20, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

You want the change, it is your responsibility to convince people to support it. So far, I would suggest that consensus as shown in this discussion is presently running against you. Resolute ^{Lest We Forget} 01:36, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your view of the current status of the ongoing discussion. Should I understand from this that you are also proposing to go back to the previous alleged "consensus" that the NHL operates "throughout" North America? Centpacrr (talk) 03:02, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

No, I still maintain that you are expending a lot of effort on a trivial issue. If you wish to battle everyone over it, that is your right. Resolute ^{Lest We Forget} 03:39, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

What Resolute said. Dbrodbeck (talk) 03:54, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

The underlying issue may be "trivial" but as a professional writer, researcher, and historian I believe that the process of discussion and the principles of logic and accuracy in encyclopedic writing are not. Just because I don't get "paid" for what I do in here doesn't mean that I should abandon those processes and principles and instead treat Wikipedia as a casual hobby. Centpacrr (talk) 04:03, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

As noted earlier, the argument from authority is not an argument. I too am a published author, a scientist a hockey fan and I make a killer martini. That has no bearing on anything here. Dbrodbeck (talk) 04:17, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

With respect, sir, you are missing my point. I am not saying that you should believe what I say because of my professional background, although I see that you include your own qualification as a psychology professor at Algoma University and other information about your interests on your own userpage (I was also able to find more information in a Wikipedia article about you as well), but that I should not abandon my approach to research and writing here just because I am not being paid for my contributions. I'm sure some editors here treat Wikipedia as a hobby. I don't, although I would not continue here if I did not enjoy it. But that does not mean that I should not take it seriously, apply my skills to the fullest, and be willing to both defend what I believe in and hold others to the same standard. As a professional academic I'm sure you know this better than I do. I mentioned my background here only to explain the reason behind my approach to editing, and why I don't treat Wikipedia as a casual hobby. If I didn't feel it was worth doing right, then it wouldn't be worth it to me to be doing it at all. Centpacrr (talk) 05:12, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Not to nitpick but I don't see his article on his userpage. Nor do I see that he wrote said article. Now I hope you didn't try to imply he was using his article as an air of authority...since he never mentioned it. Nor does he link to it from his userpage. -DJSasso (talk) 05:24, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

It's hard to tell what the origin of the article and information is because it is completely unsourced, was primarily written by unidentified "redlink" or IP editors who have contributed to almost no other articles, and contains a good deal of POV such as in the "Personality" section. While it is not linked to his userpage, it was easily found with a quick Google search based on that page. The point still is, however, that if you are going to contribute to Wikipedia you should do so seriously, apply your best efforts, be willing to defend your positions (even "trivial" ones) on the accuracy of the information you post, and hold other editors to the same standard. I only provided my professional background to explain why I take that approach, not to use it as a reason that anyone should accept my postings if I am not willing to support them with sources and/or my reasons for doing so. Centpacrr (talk) 05:50, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

I had nothing to do with the article about me. I have been pretty damned careful about that actually. I have never mentioned it, once. You have missed my point, I understand that you care, that is good, but you need to get a consensus here. I really don't care one way or another, but mentioning that you are an author or whatever is not an argument. I do take this seriously as we all do. Please, enough with the ad hominem attacks. Dbrodbeck (talk) 12:13, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

We all have our own opinions of what "doing it right" constitutes. There are things that we, both as the hockey project and Wikipedia in general do that I do not consider "right", but I don't go around telling everyone that my way is the way it should be. I accept what the consensus determines. Resolute ^{Lest We Forget} 14:31, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Again you are both using my statement about my background as a "straw man" argument by implying that I mentioned it as a reason that other editors should accept a position of mine. Again that is NOT my position and never has been. What I said was "The underlying issue may be "trivial" but as a professional writer, researcher, and historian I believe that the process of discussion and the principles of logic and accuracy in encyclopedic writing are not" and "to explain why I take that approach, not to use it as a reason that anyone should accept my postings if I am not willing to support them with sources and/or my reasons for doing so." As for the matter of consensus, what I pointed out above is that a review of the history and status of other infoboxes in both hockey and other sports reveals that the actual state of consensus on their formatting is not now, nor has it ever been, as the original complainant represented to be. Centpacrr (talk) 16:02, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Everybody understands your points and you don't need to constantly repeat them. The point is people disagree with you, and there is current consensus that the current situation is fine, and should stay. Regards, -- Jeff3000 (talk) 16:10, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

And this current discussion, now shows that there is. -DJSasso (talk) 17:36, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm pleased to learn that at least one person understands my points. (I have only restated them when they were repeatedly misrepresented by others.) What now do you claim the "consensus" to be? The historic one revealed and supported by a review of how the listing of countries in hockey and other sports infoboxes are actually listed (descending order by number of teams), or some other formatting? Centpacrr (talk) 17:40, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

On this page, the consensus is that the current ordering as of 19:00UTC is fine. Consensus on other pages may or may not be different. Regards, -- Jeff3000 (talk) 19:02, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

I don't mean to bother you, but I support a minor change in the consensus, that the historic one is better. -- ISLANDERS27 06:14, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Stanley Cup wins

I noticed that the Canadiens has 25 Stanley Cup. But is that really correct? Haven't they "only" 24 Stanley Cup, with 23 in the NHL? 80.84.45.196 (talk) 09:10, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Changed to 24 --NeilN ^{talk to me} 13:23, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

It's not actually Stanley Cups. It's NHL Championships, which were two different things for awhile which is what the discrepancy in the numbers is. There is a note attached next to the number that mentions that. -DJSasso (talk) 14:06, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Gotcha. Thanks very much for correcting my mistake. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:14, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Yup. The Canadians do make this a bit confusing, as their 1916 Stanley Cup would be irrelevant to the NHL, but they did win the NHL title in 1919 (no SC Champion due to Spanish Flu) and 1925 (lost SC final to Victoria) before the NHL took over the trophy and made it their league championship trophy. So yeah, 25 NHL titles, 24 Stanley Cups, 23 Stanley Cups in the NHL. Resolute 23:22, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

What is the claimed rationale for retaining Commonwealth spelling in this article?

What (if any) is the claimed rationale for continuing to use Commonwealth spelling in the NHL article? The subject organization is headquartered in the United States where it is legally organized and does business as an "unincorporated not-for-profit association" which operates a major professional ice hockey league as a "joint venture" for its self perpetuating membership of franchised clubs of which a majority (currently 24 of 30 representing eighty percent of its membership) have been located in the United States continuously since 1926. Retaining Commonwealth spelling would thus seem to be in clear contravention of Section 16.10.2 of the Wikipedia Manual of Style relating to "national ties to a topic" which states that "An article on a topic that has strong ties to a particular English-speaking nation uses the English of that nation." Centpacrr (talk) 23:52, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Good grief.... The majority of players come from nations where Commonwealth English is used as opposed to the American dialect, and there are still six Canadian teams in the league (in case you forgot). Both today, and historically, the ties to Canada are at least as strong as they are to the United States, if not moreso. WP:ENGVAR also says that lacking an obvious reason to change, the dialect used is to be retained. You aren't even proposing an improvement to this article, just trying to force change for the sake of change, yet again. Resolute 00:08, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

I think it's pretty silly to count clubs and argue from that that the NHL has strong national ties to the US over Canada. The relative importance of hockey to Canadians, compared to its importance to Americans, would argue strongly the other direction, as anyone who's spent any time in the two countries must surely know.

One little nitpick though — Canadian English != Commonwealth English; it's more like a compromise between Commonwealth and American English, with of course some fraction of purely Canadian stuff mixed in. For example any reference to aluminum in this article should be spelled with only the one i. --Trovatore (talk) 01:31, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

While the majority of NHL players at one time came from English speaking communities in Canada (as opposed to Quebec and the French speaking portions of the Maritime provinces), this is no longer the case as that group (native English speaking Canadian nationals) now represents less than 50% of current NHL players. (In addition to native French speaking Canadians, the vast majority of the remaining players come from the United States, Scandinavia, the former East Bloc countries, and Western Europe.) That, however, is really irrelevant as the article is not about the origin of NHL players, but the business entity called the "National Hockey League" which is headquartered in New York City, NY, and operates a league in which the majority of its member clubs have been located in the United States continuously for 83 consecutive years (since the 1926-27 season).

Please also note that the NHL itself long ago adopted American English grammar and spelling (as opposed to either Commonwealth or Canadian English) as the style used in ALL of its publications, news releases, league operated web sites, forms, correspondence, contract language, legal filings, and all other written or published documents and/or communications issued under its own imprimatur. Centpacrr (talk) 03:14, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

The article is really not about "the business entity"; it's about NHL hockey. The NHL as a business entity is of interest to hardly anyone other than its employees and stockholders (if it has stockholders?) and maybe B-school people. Now, who is it that's interested in NHL hockey? People from lots of places — but most passionately in Canada. By a large margin. --Trovatore (talk) 03:41, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Blah, blah, blah, blah. We are well aware of where the NHL's corporate headquarters are located, given you bring it up every single time in any argument as if it is some kind of trump card. However, no, this article is not about the "business entity", it is about the NHL as a whole. That includes history, teams, players, awards, business, etc, etc, etc. By no stretch of the imagination does the topic have an overwhelming tie to the United States such that there is a need to change the dialect to EN-US. And wow, there have been American teams in the NHL for 83 years. Do you realize just how poor an argument that is? There have been Canadian teams in the NHL for 92. I guess that one has been trumped. Resolute 03:46, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Nevermind the fact that he is incorrect in that the NHL adopted US-EN. Some of the publications like their website use it and other publications of theres do not. I am currently looking at a rule book written in CAN-EN. Also Commonwealth english is the english used in alot of the Scandinavian countries that players come from so if you are going to start arguing percentages then you better be lumping those countries players in with the Canadian players. You will also want to note this article as has been mentioned above is about NHL hockey, not the corporation of the NHL, and if you ask anyone (who knows what hockey is) what country hockey (and specifically NHL hockey) is associated with and they will say Canada. If you think otherwise you are fooling yourself. Even most Americans will say the NHL is more strongly tied to Canada even if there are more teams in the US. I am assuming good faith here. But it looks an aweful lot like a you are fighting a WP:POINT battle constantly here trying to elevate a pro-America bias into the article. -DJSasso (talk) 04:31, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

French Canadians when they learn English typically learn English Canadian spelling, Oh and ditto to what djsasso just posted. Oh and the NHL has had teams from earth since the beginning, and most English speaking earthers use commonwealth spelling.... Dbrodbeck (talk) 04:54, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

• • I would certainly be most interested to be referred to whatever reliable source on which is based the otherwise unsupported claim that "most English speaking earthers use commonwealth spelling" although that is really a straw man argument as the dialect(s) spoken by NHL players would seem to have no relevance whatsoever as to the structure, organization, and location of the NHL, its offices, and member clubs. That is purely a matter of geography. Centpacrr (talk) 11:22, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Actually something over 60% of all English-as-a-first-language speakers are from the US. And ENGVAR does not consider the preferences of non-English-speaking countries, so the Scandinavian countries don't enter into the equation. The key thing here is the very strong association between hockey and Canada. --Trovatore (talk) 04:57, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

• • It is certainly true that there is a "...very strong association between hockey and Canada" however the subject of this article is not "hockey and Canada" but the "National Hockey League" which has a far larger presence in its administration, the location of its member clubs, and overall operations in the United States than it does in Canada. (Curiously 18 of the last 20 winners of the Stanley Cup have also been teams based in the US.) Centpacrr (talk) 11:22, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

That percentage is thrown off because a number of countries have multiple official languages. As is the case with numerous hockey playing countries in Europe. Either way my point was that his less than 50% of NHL players point was moot. And the percent you would want anyways was what percent of english speaking players if you were going to go by numbers. Which we shouldn't be. There are many other factors which come into it like you mentioned. -DJSasso (talk) 05:01, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Hmm? The percentage is not about official languages; it's about native speakers. I agree with you that the article should be in Canadian English. But this notion some people seem to have that Commonwealth English is somehow "world English" is just flat wrong; I can't let that pass. --Trovatore (talk) 05:05, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

I am not saying Commonwealth English is world english. What I am saying is American english is not world english. When you start adding together all the varients such as Aus-EN etc. They add up quickly. I just don't like when people try to discount say someone in Switzerland (random country) who uses something other than US-EN when they are communicating in English but they don't count because they first started speaking french. Even though they are just as fluent in english as they are in french. Really I am just tired of the can-en/us-en/aus-en/comonwealth debate. It gets brought up far too often. And usually only by people trying to push an agenda. -DJSasso (talk) 05:13, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. Though the concept of "Commonwealth English" in this debate is fair, given the majority of hockey related articles will be written in EN-CA or EN-UK given those are the dialects used by English speaking individuals in Canada and Europe, regardless of the national languages. I don't think this little discussion is part of the tired debate of English Wikipedia vs. American Wikipedia, however. This seems yet another battle of some broader, and more vaguely defined war that only Centpacrr really understands. Resolute 05:22, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

There have actually been NHL teams in the United States since 1924, but the point I made is not which country had NHL teams first, but that the majority of NHL member clubs (currently 80%) have been based in the United States every season since 1926. Of the 47 clubs that have played in the NHL since 1917, a total of 34 of them (72.3%) have been located in US cities as opposed to just 13 of them (23.7%) which have been based in Canadian cities over that period.

Also left unaddressed is my point that the NHL itself does not use Commonwealth/Canadian English as the style or spelling in any of the league's own publications (such as its annual "NHL Official Guide & Record Book," "NHL Rule Book," or "NHL Media Directory") or in its news releases, on league operated web sites, forms, correspondence, in its contract language, legal filings, or any other written or published documents and/or communications issued under its own imprimatur. That being the case, I repeat my original question which is what is the claimed rationale for using an entirely different grammatical and spelling style here then the league uses to represent itself?

Again it would appear some sort of "nationalistic" motive is being ascribed to my asking this question which, as I pointed out in my earlier discussion on the order of listing of countries in sports leagues with teams in more than one country, is just not the case. While I do live in the United States, many generations of my direct ancestors were Canadians (primarily from the Niagara-on-Lake and Montréal areas) as are literally many hundreds of my best friends in hockey at all levels with whom I have worked professionally over the past four decades. Centpacrr (talk) 05:55, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

• I can't say I'm going to fight this one hard, because the Canadian nationalists always go nuts over the very suggestion that every hockey article doesn't belong to them by divine right, but come on. The ONLY argument you have is that the league was founded in Canada, but if you're claiming an article about a league which has been majority American for 90% of its history, which is based in the United States and which does its business and issues its publications in American English should be in en-ca solely because of the location of its founding, then I presume you're all perfectly fine with me barging in on the Calgary Flames article and changing it to en-US; the Flames, of course, were founded in the United States.
• While the en-ca partisans claim that WP:ENGVAR is on their side, no, it really isn't. Turn your attentions to WP:RETAIN, which holds "If an article has evolved using predominantly one variety, the whole article should conform to that variety, unless there are reasons for changing it based on strong national ties to the topic. In the early stages of writing an article, the variety chosen by the first major contributor to the article should be used." This article was in en-US until August 2005, nearly four years after it was created. It should never have been converted in the first place, nor the conversion allowed to stand.  RGTraynor  08:31, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

• • Thank you, RGT, exactly my points. Centpacrr (talk) 11:22, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Does it really matter? Neither is wrong. I don't really understand what the big deal is. I'm from the US, too, so if I were to be bias, it would be against the current state. Just don't see the point. - Rjd0060 (talk) 13:37, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

That is mostly my point. The people that only ever want to change it are people that want to put in a bias. How does the fact that maybe 20 words in an article are spelled slightly different than you like really matter? And in reference to the publications being in us-en. This again is simply not true, I have the NHL rule book for this year sitting in front o me in can-en. I also have numerous other books here which use can-en. While this doesn't show that can-en is their only variant used (its not). It does show that they don't have one preference over the other. -DJSasso (talk) 13:41, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Regretfully, when it comes to spelling, neither Canadians 'or' Americans have control over NHL related articles. GoodDay (talk) 14:46, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Whatever the earliest stages were, the article is currently EN-CA, and has been for over four years now. Centpacrr's arguments simply do not stand up to history. For all he whines constantly about how the league is HQed in the US now, it was HQed in Canada for the majority of its existence. The majority of its players have come from Canada. The majority of its executives have come from Canada. The league was founded in Canada. It's roots are Canadian. By no stretch of the imagination can any rational person claim that the topic has an overwhelming tie to the United States. Moreover, Centpacrr seems to think that if he ignores everyone else's arguments (as usual) and brute force repeats over and over and over what percentage of teams are based in the US, he is right. I see he lost his WP:LAME war over which nation is listed first in the infobox, so I guess he chose to pick another fight to push his POV. It becomes tiring, and wastes everyone's time. Resolute 14:49, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

What I did was to pose a question in Talk and gave the reasons why I asked it. I have not changed anything in the article itself. Anyone who feels that it is a "waste" of their time to respond to it or engage in the discussion is perfectly free to ignore it, of course. (Once one decides to take part in the discussion, however, then "whining" about doing so seems to be a pretty empty complaint.) Despite the contentions of some who have responded above, this is not a matter of "winning" or "losing" to me, and it would be more helpful (and less of a "waste of time") if the discussion were limited to the actual issues raised as opposed to speculating about why they were and attributing false motives to other editors for doing so. Anyone is free to either agree or disagree with my arguments on their merits or lack thereof. That's the whole point of Talk pages. Contrary to the speculation above, however, I am not "ignoring" the arguments of others in here, just asking that once advanced that the editor(s) doing so provide reliable sources to support the claims they make with actual verifiable facts.

I always assume (at least at first) that anyone who chooses to comment in here on others' postings do so in good faith and not to "waste" either their or other editors' time. I find the exercise most productive, however, when such postings address the actual issues and questions raised as opposed to projecting speculative views about why other editors have arrived at the positions with which the responding editor might disagree. That being the case, I would much appreciate it if Resolute could please reconcile his statement above that "By no stretch of the imagination can any rational person claim that the topic has an overwhelming tie to the United States." with the facts that the "topic" (which is not hockey but the "National Hockey League") that the HQ NHL has been based in the US for more than 30 years, and since 1926 the majority of its member clubs have been based in the US as well. This would seem to me to be sufficient to constitute grounds for a rational (and neutral) observer to adjudge that the NHL and its operations has at least one "overwhelming tie" to the United States. Centpacrr (talk) 19:00, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

It's all in the tone you used to "pose the question" it was clearly an attacking tone. What you have to do is ask yourself why is the NHL notable. And the reason is because its the premier ice hockey league in the world. Which means the primary topic of this article is ice hockey and how the NHL fits into that topic. It is honestly laughable to think that the US has an overwhelming tie to the topic matter compared to what Canada does. -DJSasso (talk) 19:22, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

I have already reconciled my statement, and if you can't be bothered to either read or respond to it, preferring instead to pretend that the argument is not already there, then I can't help you any further. Resolute 19:25, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

I thank both Resolute and DJSasso for their replies which seem to perfectly reflect exactly how much they both misunderstand what I have said above. Res ipsa loquitur. Centpacrr (talk) 19:35, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

And I thank you for, again, choosing to willfully ignore the rebuttals. Nobody has said there are no ties to the US for this topic. What has been said is that the ties are not so overwhelming so as to justify changing the dialect. I've already explained the very strong ties Canada has as well, which you willfully ignored. We've pointed out that there is no justification for changing the dialect, which you willfully ignored. But I am certain you will tell us, again, that 80% of the teams are based in the US. What you don't seem to comprehend is that repeating the same argument over and over until people just give up responding is not an effective way to convince people of your POV. It is, however, very typical of how you operate, which leads people to get very tired of it very fast. Resolute 19:42, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

• I have never, EVER, said that either ice hockey or the NHL don't have an "overwhelming tie" to Canada so please don't ascribe that to me. I have worked in the hockey professionally (more than 3,000 pro games) at both the NHL and minor league levels, and have written three books on hockey and hockey history. I am certainly well aware of Canada's place in hockey history. On the other hand unsupported claims that "By no stretch of the imagination can any rational person claim that the topic (which in this case is the NHL) has an overwhelming tie to the United States" and that the "NHL" and "ice hockey" are the same topic is, with respect, really just pure sophistry. And now I am off to the pond to work the telecast of the Penguins@Flyers game which curiously is being played in the United States, a nation to which neither club (or the league they play in) presumably have any "ties." ;-) Centpacrr (talk) 20:13, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Did you even read what he said? He specifically said that there are ties just not overwhelming ties. Its like you don't even read what people write. -DJSasso (talk) 20:27, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

• I certainly did read and understood what he said about "no overwhelming ties" to the United States. What I then asked him to do was to support that claim in the light on the of the oft actual verifiable "overwhelming" evidence to the contrary (i.e., majority US based NHL club membership since 1926 which is now at 80% with 18 of the last 20 SC winners also being US based teams, etc). Centpacrr (talk) 20:37, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Right..and he gave you many many more which show strong ties to Canada. The idea behind overwhelming ties is that there is no question that it is tied to one and not the other. Clearly you have been shown that there are a large number of ties to Canada as well as the US which means neither has the overwhelming ties. Which means per standard that the variant does not change. -DJSasso (talk) 20:50, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Clarification: is this basically about whether or not we should have defencemen or defensemen? GoodDay (talk) 19:47, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Basically. There are other words with different spellings as well. -DJSasso (talk) 19:50, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

And I have to agree with Resolute. I am not saying there are no ties to the US. I am just saying it doesn't fall into the territory of being so overwhelming that anyone who thinks of the national hockey league automatically thinks American. So it doesn't pass the test to merit changing the dialect. -DJSasso (talk) 19:50, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

If this discussion is about spelling on Ice hockey related articles-in-general, shouldn't we be having this discussion at WP:HOCKEY? -- GoodDay (talk) 19:56, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

No because its just related to this page. The project mostly agrees to follow WP:ENGVAR for all articles. Centpacrr is just having another rant about making the US more visible on this page. Not really much to see here. -DJSasso (talk) 19:59, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

I've no problem with Centpacrr's proposal, as both spellings are so close. As for which country has more influence on the NHL? IMHO, it's the USA. The fact that neither the Predators, Penguins or Coyotes re-located to Hamilton, proove that to me. GoodDay (talk) 20:03, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

There is no doubt the business is heavily Americanized. But its not just about the business of hockey. -DJSasso (talk) 20:27, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

If Centpacrr want to change the article to American spelling 'or' in the Infobox, put the USA flag above the Canadian flag; that's no prob with me. Such changes isn't gonna effect the article a whole lot. GoodDay (talk) 20:30, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

So really you don't care which way it is then? -DJSasso (talk) 20:55, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

• Resolute's Law: As an argument on this talk page grows longer, the probability of Centpacrr bragging about his credentials approaches 1, while the probability of him introducing a new talking point approaches 0. Resolute 20:43, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

I too was wondering when he would pull the credentials card. -DJSasso (talk) 20:50, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

IMHO, the credentials stuff is irrevelant. If anything, it would hurt Centpacrr's case, as CoI might come into play. GoodDay (talk) 20:52, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

That is sort of our point. Every time he doesn't get his way he starts trying to use his credentials as one upmanship. -DJSasso (talk) 20:55, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Does it matter that the majority of wp:hockey editors who work on the article write to ca-en rules? Alaney2k (talk) 22:08, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

No, it doesn't matter. The points that Djasso and Resolute raise are quite germane that and show that link the NHL and NHL hockey is much stronger to Canada than the US. The league started in Canada, has most of it's players in Canada and is the primary sport watched in Canada, while it's a distance fourth and possibly fifth or six major sport in the US. The notion that there are teams in small markets in the US doesn't raise the connection to the US, and in fact lowers it, since those teams are struggling with a fanbase. Regards, -- Jeff3000 (talk) 22:47, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Well, that isn't entirely fair either. I'm not arguing that the ties to Canada are so much stronger, simply that they are strong enough to justify the use of "Commonwealth English". The dialect of this article is easily supported, and thus, a change is not warranted. If the situation was reversed, and it was in EN-US, I wouldn't be fighting to change that either as there are very obvious ties to the US as well. Ultimately, however, the dialect is fine as is. Resolute 23:43, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

The ties to Canada are very strong and I would say ARE much stronger. Although the league headquarters is in NY, there are league offices in Montreal and Toronto. Toronto is the base of operations. The NHL's NHL Home Ice/XM/Sirius radio network is based out of Toronto. The NHL Network TV network is based out of Toronto, and it repeats Hockey Night in Canada into the States, even. More viewers are watching through the Canadian networks than the US, no? More people watch the outdoor game, even though it originates in the States, from Canada. Never mind the founding, the NHA, the Stanley Cup, and links back to the amateur days, the trophies mostly are named after Canadians, the Hall of Fame is in Canada. And to cap it all off :-), the best crowds in Tampa are when the Habs come to town and get all the retired snowbirds out to watch. :-) Alaney2k (talk) 00:04, 18 December 2009 (UTC)