Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ice Hockey

Skip to bottom • Start new discussion

Archives
Archive index 2004-06:1 • 2 2006: 3 • 4 • 5 • 6 • 7 • 8 2007: 9 • 10 • 11 • 12 • 13 2007: 14 • 15 • 16 • 17 2008: 18 • 19 • 20 • 21 • 22 2008: 23 • 24 • 25 • 26 2009: 27 • 28 • 29 • 30 • 31 2009: 32 • 33 • 34 • 35 • 36 2010: 37 • 38 • 39 • 40 • 41 2010: 42 • 43 2011: 44

NHL team roster templates

I just wonder, should there be a NHL team roster templates for each season, similar to national team roster templates for World Championship or Olympic games. For reference, you can check the List of Canadian national ice hockey team rosters. Oxozor (talk) 03:24, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Rivalry articles

Almost all rivalry articles are open tasks. For example, the Blackhawks – Red Wings rivalry is an open task and needs to have information added. In addition, you need to see Yankees – Red Sox rivalry article about writing the rivalry between the Boston Bruins and Montreal Canadiens, as it's one of the most bitter rivalries in sports. – SNIyer12, (talk), 02:16, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

New template Template:Student athlete

Feel free to help fill in Template:Student athlete by adding new articles or creating articles for redlinks.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 18:48, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Your opinions and advice

A recently discussion Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals/Women's Sport. Your opinions and your advice are welcome. bon week-end à tous --Geneviève (talk) 14:46, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Non-existent national team articles

So an IP user recently just queried this on a few pages. Within the list of men's national teams we have a few articles on countries that have never played an international ice hockey game and there is no direct evidence that the team has actually been formed by their respected federation. It appears that the creator of the articles has confused the federation and the team as being members of the IIHF. The articles im talking about are:

• Andorra - Prodded
• Argentina - Prodded
• Azerbaijan - Prodded
• Brazil - Prodded
• Chile - Prodded
• Moldova - News article mentions team getting a coach but nothing more, dated from 2008
• Pakistan, article talks about Pakistan application to the IIHF but that would be better suited their Pakistan Ice Hockey Association's article.
• Portugal, have apparently played games but the article is completly unsourced.

So my question is does anyone know of any sources for these teams so the pages can be saved or should they put up for deletion? Salavat (talk) 04:50, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

All the articles above that were prodded have now been contested without reason. I think there is a general misunderstanding that the National Association is the IIHF member and not the national team which is controlled by the association. Salavat (talk) 04:56, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

I contested the prods due to the fact that they are all the teams proded/listed here are members, associate, and/or affiliate members and in the case of Pakistan a future member of the IIHF. I believe that makes them notable, although I am not an expert on international hockey. It might be similar to a pro league having a future/expansion or dormant franchise. Just because they are not playing does not kill their notability. They have potential and there should be some sources since they are affiliated with the IIHF. And esp if the country competes will have more sources. Note: many are unferenced so I replaced the Prod tag with Unreferenced tags. Bhockey10 (talk) 05:35, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

But the teams are not members, their respected association is a member. Take Chile for example, they are an affiliate member meaning they only compete in inline competition. Its unlikely that they have ever set up a national ice hockey team. Salavat (talk) 05:44, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

I believe the affiliate status is because they are not regular participants of IIHF events. Other affiliates have played but not as often as the regulars, some are new National Associations. Like I said earlier, I don't have a lot of knowledge of international hockey, but I took the articles to be comparable to an inactive pro franchise. If those teams want they can participate in IIHF events. Bhockey10 (talk) 19:48, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Wouldn't it make more sense to move the pages to the Andora Ice Hockey Federation (or whatever the official name is) instead of prodding the pages? Being members of the IIHF makes it a notable organization. Once they ice a team, they can be moved back. Also, in Chile's case wouldn't a rename to the Chile men's national inline hockey team be a better idea? Shootmaster 44 (talk) 02:35, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

That sounds better than deleting and something I had in mind too. Move these non-existent team pages to [country name] Ice Hockey Federation or whatever their governing body is. Except from that list at the top if Portugal has played then that just nees a sourcing/cleanup and if Moldova is adding a team than we can build off of those stubs. For the other non-existant- When/if they choose to compete then we can remove the team pages' redirects and expand those as separate articles. Bhockey10 (talk) 00:54, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

These teams don't exist and don't have any indication that they will ever play. They, above all, are not notable in any way shape or form. If anything, they are speculativeand constitute WP:OR--Львівське (talk) 01:15, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Women's Hockey task force

Bonjour à tous, Hello Everybody, that think you of the eventuality of future a women's hockey task force ?

The women's taskforce covers:

• All women's hockey players, clubs, leagues and competitions and associated articles.
• Articles associated with women's national teams.
• International women's hockey competitions and matches.

• Article list
• Women hockey players birthday list

Your ideas, opinions, criticisms and advices are welcome. Please add your name if you are interested in women's hockey task force. Thanks, merci, תודה --Geneviève (talk) 13:53, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

• Support - nice broad topic more then enough articles for a task force - even willing to help set up the task force page Wikipedia:WikiProject Ice Hockey/Women's Ice Hockey task force.Moxy (talk) 14:35, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
• Support - I'd definitely be interested, and these articles have a lot of potential. Canada Hky (talk) 14:55, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
• By all means if you want to create one create one, but generally our task forces get created with alot of enthusiasm and then pretty much nothing is ever done on them and die pretty much immediately. Most discussion happens on this main talk page, which isn't all that busy, so I personally don't know that we need to create one when that discussion could just happen here... -DJSasso (talk) 17:11, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
• Comment - I question the necessity of task forces in general. They seem to be very inactive as DJSasso says above, and considering how WP:HOCKEY runs (caveat: as I think it runs, I might be a few years behind the times), wouln't it be more efficient to have one centralised place for discussion? For example, this thread might have been better placed on this page.(En général, je doute la nécessité des sous-projets. Selon moi, ils semblent de devenir très inactifs, rapidement après qu'ils sont formés, et prenant en garde comment le projet fonctionne, peut-être il serait plus efficace d'avoir une place centralisée pour la discussion? Maxim_(talk) 20:22, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
• Support - Between Winter Games, IIHF, NCAA and CWHL, there is enough material for a task force but I agree with Djsasso that it needs enthusiasm. Maple Leaf (talk) 11:28, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

• No consensus and no 5 confirmed members ( reference: the guidelines state that 5 members is a good starting point). It is just to bad for a women's hockey task force in the WikiProject Ice Hockey. I remove my proposition. Thanks anyway for letting me know --Geneviève (talk) 12:26, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Deletion Review of Nail Yakupov

Just a note that a deletion review is ongoing of this page. See the deletion review for details and to place your comments. Ravendrop 18:27, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Protect Canada men's national ice hockey team

There has been a fair bit of vandalism lately and in the past on the Canada men's national ice hockey team article, and I believe we should consider adding some sort of semi-protection onto it. Any thoughts? — Hucz ^{(talk · contribs)} 18:38, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

There hasn't been a lot of vandalism recently -- just a bunch of stuff from mid-to-late March that wasn't reverted timely. I've added the page to my watchlist and I'll keep an eye on it for now. There's just not enough present activity to justify protection. Maxim_(talk) 20:08, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

We'll see. Thanks for watching it. — Hucz ^{(talk · contribs)} 06:35, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

History of the National Hockey League

Just a question regarding the articles History of the National Hockey League (1967–1992) and History of the National Hockey League (1992–present): why was it decided to split the eras at 1992 and not 1991? The San Jose Sharks started play in 1991 and that began the rapid expansion of the league. Prior to 1991 the NHL had one of its most stable periods with 21 teams. I don't really mind this, just find it weird that the latest history of the NHL starts without the Sharks. Jmj713 (talk) 02:28, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

The league's history is divided in 25-year segments. 1917-42, 1942-67, 1967-92, 1992-(2017). GoodDay (talk) 02:38, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

The Sharks weren't the start of the expansion era. They were a product of the Minnesota North Stars sale and breakup. The expansion teams started in 1992. 1992 also marked the end of the Ziegler presidency of the NHL. So it's still valid to split in 1992 on topic terms. ʘ alaney2k ʘ (talk) 16:56, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

The league went from 21 teams to 22 in 1991. That's expansion. oknazevad (talk) 18:24, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Actually, they were from the old Cleveland Barons, who merged with the North Stars in the late 70's. The Barons used to be the California Golden Seals/Oakland Seals franchise. It wasn't an expansion, but a break-up of a franchise that was once merged. Patken4 (talk) 21:07, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Has the NHL actually granted the history of the Barons to the Sharks though? I know that was why Minnesota participated in the 1991 NHL Expansion Draft, but how does the NHL (and the Sharks themselves) view this? Shootmaster 44 (talk) 02:38, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

The NHL certainly doesn't view it as a "demerger" or whatever the partisans call it. The NHL's Official Guide clearly states "Franchise date: May 9, 1990, on its Sharks' page. The year-to-year record clearly starts in the 91-92 season, and the club records clearly omit any reference to the Barons. To the degree to which the legend of a "demerger" is accurate - and the next solid source to NHL officials actually saying so would be the first - it'd be in the same category as the purported "reinstatement" of the Ottawa Senators franchise, a bit of PR fluffery that all parties promptly and permanently ignored.  Ravenswing  05:36, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Exactly. Y'know, if the Gunds had threatened to move the North Stars to any other city besides the Bay or Cleveland (like say, Dallas), and that city wound up with the expansion team, or had it been any other franchise than the Stars, we wouldn't even be having this conversation. And I fail to see how a team that folded while playing in Cleveland is the same one as a new team in San Jose. It makes no sense. It's time for this myth to just die.

This is all a sidebar to the original question, though, which asked why the series of articles on league history breaks at 1992, instead of 1991 when the first wave of the major expansions began. Someone responded that expansion didn't begin in 1991. That is simply incorrect, as the NHL clearly went from 21 teams in the 1990–1991 season to 22 in 1991–1992. Regardless of some myth, the league increased the number of teams. That is expansion. Period. oknazevad (talk) 13:51, 13 April 2011 (UTC) PS The real answer to the original question, as noted, is that it's consistent with the others, each of which cover 25-year periods.

My point was that the teams from 1992 onward were planned. The Sharks are a byproduct of the Gunds/North Stars and not planned but by agreement between the Gunds and the NHL to allow a team in Minnesota to remain. I don't agree that there is any connection to the Barons. If anywhere, that could be property of the Dallas Stars as the Sharks are considered officially an expansion franchise. The NHL was planning expansion from the late 1980s and the Senators and Lightning were approved in 1990. You could argue for that date as the start of the era, although they had been planning it from prior to that date and the teams did not start until 1992. That said, it's probably best to just stay with 25 year segments. ʘ alaney2k ʘ (talk) 14:23, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

It was simply an editorial decision on my part. The first two eras in the league's history broke cleanly, and evenly on 25-year segments: the early years (17-42) and the Original six (42-67). The decision to maintain the 25 year limit on the third was partially for symmetry, and partially because there was no single, clear change, but rather a series of decisions in the early 90s that gradually altered the league's direction: The 1990 expansion plan and first expansion (or de-merger) team in 1991, the 1992 strike and the 1993 hiring of Gary Bettman. For the current article, it is entirely conceivable, however, that we may be better off splitting at a smaller time frame, simply because the coverage is greater, and with 30 teams, there is more to cover. i.e., a split between 1992-2005 and 2005-present may become necessary if the article becomes too big. Resolute 14:15, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

The titles given to the articles in the "History of the NHL" navigation box adds somewhat to the confusion. The 1967–1992 period is labelled the expansion era; it's a bit awkward for the expansion era to span the entire 21-team history of the league, plus one 22-team season. On a side note, the term "modern era" is a bit of a moving target as it has been used to denote the post-Original Six period of the NHL. Perhaps the last article in this series should just be labelled "current era", and whenever the next article of the series gets created, a more definitive name can be devised. isaacl (talk) 15:12, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

True enough, though the 21-team era was only 10 years out of those 25. The "expansion era" is meant to imply the growth of the league from six teams up to 21-22, but if you have an idea of a better name, that would be awesome! Resolute 19:35, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

The first expansion era, with the league growing from six to twenty-one teams, could be considered to have ended with the start of a second expansion era (hey, maybe that would be a better name for the period from 1992 to 2005). The new wave of teams, combined with renewed attempts to expand the NHL's audience, characterize these years. Since 2005, the NHL is in a post-strike period, or perhaps in a more positive light, a salary cap period. It could also be thought of as a renewal era, with teams resetting their balance sheets downwards, a focus on building up the existing teams, and holding outdoor games, but to be honest, the salary cap has been the prime influence on the game during this time. isaacl (talk) 22:27, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Article names

Hello. Is there any WPP Hockey convention regarding the article names, mainly the use of diacritics? Thank you. - Darwinek (talk) 15:08, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

The current convention is to use diacritics in appropriate player articles. They're not used in any article on or pertaining to an English-speaking league, but may be used in articles on leagues where the dominant language does use them - the European leagues or the LNAH, for instance.  Ravenswing  15:22, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Do I understand it correctly, that e.g. Czech, Latvian, Slovak or Swedish player articles should have diacritics only if these players appear in the non-English speaking leagues? - Darwinek (talk) 09:21, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Player articles get them if their name includes them no matter what. As long as their name actually includes them, you will need a source showing their name with diacritics. Team/League articles only get them if that league is not a primarily english league. So for example the QMJHL, LNAH in Quebec or any of a number of European leagues such as those you mention. -DJSasso (talk) 13:19, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, I don't support the use of diacritics in general when there is an English spelling, but we've discussed this many times and agreed within the project to treat it as if it was an ENGVAR issue. For North America specific articles, we hide diacritics, but show them for European. We also use them on player articles. Resolute 16:04, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

See here for the exact wording this project uses. -DJSasso (talk) 16:20, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, WP:HOCKEY has settled this long ago. GoodDay (talk) 18:32, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

The commonly used form of name should be used for article names. The use of Diacritics for article names should only be used if it can be demonstrated, by reliable and verifiable sources, that such form of name is the commonly used form. Such reliable sources would include the hockey-related websites eliteprospects.com, hockeydb.com, legendsofhockey.net, nhl.com, tsn.ca, eurohockey.net. You will notice that I have shown that North American and European websites can be used to verify the commonly used name, however, per WP:NONENG, because this is the English Wikipedia, English-language sources are preferred over non-English ones, provided that English sources of equal quality and relevance are available. Dolovis (talk) 14:05, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

And the arguement before and why the consensus we have came to be is that the name with and without diacritics was considered by some to be the same commonly used name since they are spelled the same. We didn't come to a clear consensus that having them or lack of having them constituded a change in one being the common name and one not being the common name. -DJSasso (talk) 14:09, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Template:Stanley Cup Finals

Markup question: any way to have the last row of Finals (2010, 2011) not be centered and align with the others in the block without resorting to visibility:hidden"? Jmj713 (talk) 16:37, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Well there probably is...but I think its centred on purpose. That is how these blocks of years are often done on templates. -DJSasso (talk) 16:59, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

To change it, you change the liststyle parameter at the top of the list. In this case removing "textalign:center" would left align the text as default. I didn't change it as I prefer the centreing, I think it looks cleaner, but for your future reference that's how. Ravendrop 05:41, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

I just find it's better how each block of decades aligns with each other, and the misalignment of the bottom row is a little out of place. It should fall with the rest, preferable. No big deal of course, just aesthetics. Jmj713 (talk) 14:10, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Done. It can be aligned using hidden links to 2012-2029. As we create each year's article, just unhide it's link. Resolute 14:22, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Article structure if the Coyotes return to Winnipeg

There are reports (just rumours) breaking today that the league will announce the Coyotes are returning to Winnipeg once the playoffs are over. If this is true, how should we treat the article structure? Doubly so since it has also been reported that a returned Winnipeg team would not be called the Jets. Given the 15-year break in continuity, if the Coyotes return to Winnipeg under a new name, I would be inclined to create a new article for the new team name, leaving Winnipeg Jets as historical for the team's tenure between 1972-1996. But, if they come back as the Winnipeg Jets, should we use the existing Jets article moving forward, or move it to something like Winnipeg Jets (1972–1996) and create a new Winnipeg Jets for the revived team? Resolute 19:39, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

If this doesn't happen, I will blame you for jinxing things....

I think if they come back under a different name, I would leave the Jets history alone. If they come back as the Jets, I would cram everything into one article. Canada Hky (talk) 20:00, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

I agree. If the continuity is resumed, one article, if its a new name and new era, make it a new article--Львівське (talk) 01:13, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Actually, someone I know with connections is pretty convinced that it would be the Thrashers moving to Winnipeg, which would make the article naming easy. Resolute 20:14, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Unless Manitobans decide to call them the Jets too... Canada Hky (talk) 20:19, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Save all your breaths, the NHL Board of Governors have no intentions of expanding to Canada or re-locating any franchises to Canada. GoodDay (talk) 21:03, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

The tiniest little parade will bring someone out to rain on it. Canada Hky (talk) 23:12, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

With all due respect, GoodDay, your constant "I hate Bettman" posts add nothing to these discussions, and only distract from the relevant topics. Resolute 23:41, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Actually, this whole thread is a blog, as the Coyotes haven't been re-located. PS: Note that I said the Board of Governors, not Bettman. GoodDay (talk) 01:32, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

(outdent)Considering it was Doug MacLean reporting this, I'd be inclined to think the exact opposite is happening. That said, if Winnipeg and/or Quebec City were to get a team, I'd create a new article for them. We've done that for any franchise relocations, and assuming thats how those cities would acquire a team, I'd stay with that format, even with the same name. I'd then go ahead and rename the present Jets/Nordiques articles as "Winnipeg Jets (1972-1996)" (and likewise for the Nordiques). But I am rather pessimistic about this going through, especially at this point. Kaiser matias (talk) 01:02, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Won't happen. The NHL will expand/re-locate teams to Europe or Mexico, before Canada. GoodDay (talk) 01:34, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Cut out the forum-type posts or I will begin to remove them. This is a discussion about what to do with an article set if an event comes to pass. Your opinion of the odds are not relevant, and your continued posting of them are disruptive. Resolute 02:14, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

If it were the Coyotes that moves to Winnipeg and they were to call them the Jets again. I would make it the same page. If the Coyotes were to move to Winnipeg and call it something else (which I think is extremely unlikely) then I would make it an outright new page. If it were a completely different team like the Thrashers moving to Winnipeg and using either the Jets name or another name then I would make it an outright new page. -DJSasso (talk) 13:56, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Luke Schenn

This article was recently archived after a run through at FAC, due to lack of support. If any of you hockey writer types wants to take a gander at it, I would appreciate it. The FAC discussion can be found here (Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Luke_Schenn/archive1), if you are so inclined. Thanks! Canada Hky (talk) 23:15, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

NHL team season articles

Is the 2004-05 lockout, counted as an NHL season? I need to know 'cuz there's discrepancies in the numbering on the NHL team season articles. GoodDay (talk) 02:04, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Officially it was a season, but I suspect there will be ambiguities amongst how teams individually treat it. 04-05 was Calgary's 25th season, for instance, but since it was lost, they celebrated their 25th in 05-06. They celebrated 30 in 09-10, which would include the lockout. For the 05-06 season, I treated the Flames article as "26th season, 25th of play", but afterwords used the straight count. Resolute 02:19, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

I wish we could have something to make them consistant for all the post-lockout seasons. For example, we've got 18th season in the 2010-11 Ottawa Senators season article & 20th season in the 2011-12 Ottawa Senators season article. GoodDay (talk) 02:30, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Easily done. Dolovis is correct that 2011-12 is their 20th Sens season. Correct 10-11 to be the 19th, and work back to the lockout. Resolute 02:44, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Dolovis is incorrect. It will be Ottawa's 20th year since establishment, but their 19th season. There was no season during the lockout. Here's what a "season" is: "In an organized sports league, a season is the portion of one year in which regulated games of the sport are in session." There were no games. No season. Jmj713 (talk) 14:07, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Ah hah, that's what I was wondering. The going backwards solution. GoodDay (talk) 02:46, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

The solution is to look for reliable sources to support any corrections to articles, and then act boldly to fix them. I am relying on the NHL Official Guide and Record Book which explicitly states that the 2010-11 seasons is the Senators' 19th season, and I added that reference to support the change I made. I used the same source to correct the seasons for most of the other teams, and did not face any opposition until GoodDay started to reverse some of my referenced corrections. The seasons should be renumbered as needed, and the change referenced to a reliable source. Previous year versions of the NHL Guide should provide the verification required to support the corrections. Dolovis (talk) 05:28, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

I think this discussion was raised before. A season is a season of play. No team played during the lockout. Pretty cut and dry. It does get confusing, though, because there was still team and league business. For instance the Rangers are not celebrating their 85th season this season, but 85 years since establishment of the franchise. Their 85th season of play will be next season. Jmj713 (talk) 14:00, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

The NHL Guide states at page 91 that the 2010-11 season is the Rangers "85th NHL Season". Dolovis (talk) 14:09, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

They're wrong. Jmj713 (talk) 14:11, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

As Resolute mentions we have avoided this in the past by saying things on the milestone years like "26th season and 25th season of play". Because different teams have handled it differently. The Flames as mentioned have handled it both ways. They did their 25th season celebrations on their 26th season. But did their 30th year celebrations only 4 years later on their 30th season. Basically just tailor the sentence to how the team has promoted the season to avoid issues. -DJSasso (talk) 14:17, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Why don't we all come to consensus, maybe have a vote, I don't know, but decide this in a uniform fashion for all teams so that we don't have these discrepancies of teams having more seasons than they should. This has been a peeve of mine ever since the lockout. I have already stated my position above. I believe it's logical to not count the lockout as a season because there was no season. Jmj713 (talk) 14:22, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

If the NHL Official Guide and Record Book is wrong, then please provide a reliable source to verify your assertion. Although no NHL games were played in the in 2004-05, it was still a season (albeit one with no game play). Dolovis (talk) 14:25, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

I have to agree with Dolovis here, I personally still consider it a season as the season is more than just the games being played. There are things like drafts and league busines that still happen during that season. All the negotiating etc would all still have been league business that occured during that season of business. -DJSasso (talk) 14:26, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Ditto. Team business happened in 2004-05, even if no games did. It was a season, and is treated as such. This year is the Rangers 85th season, and that is remarkably easy to prove. Even the Rangers themselves say so. Resolute 14:29, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

They are wrong, and we shouldn't propagate incorrect information, even if it's coming from an official source. Take a look at 2004–05 NHL lockout: "The 2004–05 NHL lockout was a lockout that resulted in the cancellation of what would have been the 88th season of the National Hockey League" - is this wrong? The season was cancelled. Here are some reliable sources that state it was CANCELLED: USA Today, NPR, Daily Mail, Washington Post... they all state the season was cancelled, thus no play took place, thus you can't count it as a season. To do otherwise is illogical and wrong, even if the NHL's Guide book says the opposite. Jmj713 (talk) 14:35, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

The season of play was cancelled, but that wasn't the only season. The years 2004-05 didn't magically disappear, the business entities still operated and still had to file taxes for that business season. A season isn't just games. Our article on the lockout should say that it would have been the 88th season of play. -DJSasso (talk) 14:37, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I don't dispute that, but a season in sports is a season of play, not a season of time. Jmj713 (talk) 14:40, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

But clearly it isn't, the league and the teams don't think so. -DJSasso (talk) 14:41, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

So they can't be wrong? How can the Senators celebrate 20 seasons in the NHL next season if they only played 19? Jmj713 (talk) 14:44, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Not that they can't be wrong, but that they can decide what they consider a season for their league. They are the ones who call the shots when it comes to their league. They could declare 1 game to be a season if they wanted to. The NHL decided that even though no games were played that that constitutes a season. Whether we like it or not, it is within their power to decide that. -DJSasso (talk) 14:47, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

It really is semantics, imo. A season of existence and a season of play aren't necessarily the same thing. The Sens will be entering their 20th season as an organization next year, even if it will only be the 19th that they have played. Resolute 14:52, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

In that case I propose for each season after the lockout we state it's the team's, say, "95th season in the NHL, and the 94th season of play". Otherwise it creates confusion and incorrect information. Jmj713 (talk) 14:50, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Yes, the 87th season was played, the 88th was cancelled, the 89th was played. Resolute 14:39, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Much better way to explain it than my bumbling attempt. -DJSasso (talk) 14:41, 14 April 2011 (UTC)