Talk:Edmonton Oilers

Jason Smith

Jason Smith was not the captain we're looking for. Don't have time today to create a proper article for "our" Jason Smith, and not sure how to make it not link to the actor. Kraigus 15:29, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Maybe make an article using his middle name (I don't know what that is) and then have the link point there instead? Kurohone 00:50, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Taken care of Jason Smith, and added Team Records. Good Idea? Bad Idea? 15 May 2005

Good idea, I think, just so's "we" remember to update it when need be. Perhaps an informal (or formal :) ) agreement to check it mid-season and at the end of the season, at least? Kraigus 12:24, 21 May 2005 (UTC)

List of Edmonton Oilers players

I have started a List of Edmonton Oilers players. It would be a great help if when you add players to the main Oilers article that you could also add the player to the list. Thanks! Masterhatch 12 August 2005

Ullman and Plante

Was it really appropriate to remove these two from the list of Oiler Hall of Famers? They did play for the franchise in the WHA, and were major figures in its early history. Perhaps the issue should have been handled with a note rather than by deleting them altogether? Cosh, 27 August 2005

Yes, it was appropriate. Following recent discussions in Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Ice_Hockey#Team_Hall_of_Famer_listings and Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Ice_Hockey/Team_pages_format about trimming superfluities and excess on the team pages - in particular, some Original Six listings were hugely bloated - the consensus was to restrict Hall of Fame listings to players who'd made major, ongoing, multiseason impacts for the teams in question, and who were widely and readily associated with those teams. Neither's the case with Plante or Ullman and the Oilers. RGTraynor 17:47, August 27, 2005 (UTC)

Los Angeles Kings rivalry?

It was prominent in the 80's, but compared to other rivalries (Avalanche, Stars) it's nothing.

Yeah, Is that just a Gretzky thing? Anyway, we plan on cracking down on the rivalry listing. See discussion here: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Ice_Hockey/Team_pages_format ccwaters 22:51, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

Edmonton Oilers Records

The Montreal Canadiens have a separate article called Montreal Canadiens Records for a list of team records. Would it be a good idea to do the same with the Edmonton Oilers? Creating an article called Edmonton Oilers Records would be a good idea because that way it would clean up the main article a little and the records section could possibly be expanded. Any thoughts? Masterhatch 05:52, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

Done. Masterhatch 16:22, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

Well done! Kraigus 02:14, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

Not to be forgotten

I cleaned out the Not to be forgotten section a bit, as per team page format suggestions. Should Zholtok really still be there? Sentimentality says yes, but... hockey players die, and let's face it, he wasn't really a stellar Oiler. Anybody else missing? Mike Comrie maybe? Other guys I left: Arnott (closest to a Calder winner we've seen), Marchant (that OT goal), Klima (ditto), and Tikkanen, are pretty arguable. Kraigus 02:30, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

Players that are questionable about being in the Not to be forgotten can always be mentioned in the main text. A brief mention of Zholtok in the main article would make it so that he didn't have to be in the not to be forgotten. Masterhatch 04:11, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

Zholtok was spectacularly mediocre in his one season as an Oiler, and sad though his death was it doesn't deserve to be mentioned. Comrie certainly has infamy down, but he wasn't good enough for a "not to be forgotten". I can't remember if Tommy Salo is there or not, but if he's not, I ought to add him. I don't think he was last time I looked. Lord Bob 05:03, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, agreed on Zholtok, although I'm not sure about Comrie still. He led the team in scoring his first full year and didn't do too badly his second year. Is NTBF intended to cover only those who made significant contributions to the team, or could it include those with some notoriety as well? Kraigus 19:10, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

Come to think of it, I didn't compile a NTBF list for the Oilers when I was doing other teams. I just did it now and will update the article ... and of course Zholtok doesn't make it; frankly, I can't think of any team for which he should. RGTraynor 13:09, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

If part of the rationale behind NTBF is that the player needn't be mentioned there if they're in the main article body, you put in a bunch who are. So I'll clean those guys out. Kraigus 17:46, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, just saw your new nominees: looks good, Randy Gregg especially.

Retired Numbers

Not sure the addition of the numbers not currently worn should be there. It's a virtual lock that Lowe and Messier will have theirs retired, but Anderson would seem to be unlikely, and it has been worn in the past (Guerin, and Nichols?). And yes, I know that's not a good indication of whether or not a number should be retired. Just not sure 'potential' retirees should be there as yet. Kurohone 05:40, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

I support "Kurohone"'s views. GoodDay 00:29, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

Jersey History

Does anyone else think the logo/jersey section is long and needs to be cut a bit? 74.33.161.233 23:22, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

I realize it's a smidge on the extraneous side, but while buggering around on ClassicAuctions.net, I saw all these WHA-vintage Oilers jerseys, and just felt compelled to give them a kind of story. I have issues with colour, so I'm not sure if that's really red or if it's just a very dark orange, and I also haven't described anything more than the most basic appearance of the jersey, preferring to let the externally-linked pictures speak for themselves. Three questions: (1) Do jerseys fall under the same fair-use policy as logos? (2) If so, can anyone find pictures of modern navy-blue and third jerseys akin to those currently linked? I guess the NHL Store is a possibility, but I'd consider it a last resort, personally. (3) Does anyone have any further details on the changes made to jerseys, including, say, why?

Doogie2K 17:47, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

A few less-than-official thoughts. First off, I know the fair-use thing is fuzzy as applied to jerseys; most people are covering themselves by using artwork of the jerseys as opposed to photographs. As far as details of changes go, ye gads, uniforms change every couple years now. Aside from commemorative patches of one sort or another, I can think of eight noticeably different jersey shifts for the Bruins alone in my lifetime. RGTraynor 20:37, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

I fixed up a few things in there...the Oil haven't had a tremendous number of jerseys in their history yet (5 since 72), so I think it's worth keeping for now. I fixed a few changes...the jersey color in 72 was orange, not red, and ALBERTA was written for only a few games while the intent was still to split the games. Also, the 75-79 home jersey did have a white oildrop...it's clearly visible in the photos linked, so that was a curious comment that it was lacking. Kurohone 05:37, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for that. I thought it was simply a slightly darker orange (if you look at the Jacques Plante Oilers pictures on that same site, it seems more orange than red), but the photographs I initially saw seemed to vary--I blame the lighting of the photographs and my difficulty with some shades of colours. As for the white oildrop, I didn't notice it at all, probably for the same reason. Much appreciated, again. (Edit: I noticed you missed one place in correcting the red/orange confusion, in the caption of the first logo. Fixed. Also, is the field of the '75-'79 jersey also dark orange, or is it, in fact, red?) Doogie2K 06:30, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

Michael Peca

The Edmonton forward with the number 37 on his back is the greatest thing to happen to Edmonton since Wayne Gretzky and Mark Messier. Although he isn't getting alot of points. He still pwns — Preceding unsigned comment added by Peca37 (talk • contribs)

Riiiiiiiiiiight. Doogie2K 15:46, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

I'd say he isn't even the greatest thing to happen to Edmonton since Fernando Pisani. Lord Bob 02:07, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

You got something against Fernando Pisani, boy? (j/k) Doogie2K (talk) 00:07, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Dallas Rivalry?

I noticed Calgary and Vancouver - it seems that Dallas would be a good choice given their recent playoff matches. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.226.18.177 (talk • contribs)

It actually did say Calgary and Dallas before an IP went and changed it. Fixed.

Also, welcome to Wikipedia! Just so you know, when you're on talk pages, it's etiquette to sign your posts with four tildes (4 x ~). Thanks for bringing this up. :) Doogie2K (talk) 00:05, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Current Squad

Just curious; should Jeff Deslauriers (who's just an Oiler draftee), be included on the Current Squad list? GoodDay 12:55, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

He should. He's been called up (along with guys like Brodziak, Roy, et al.) to enjoy the playoff atmosphere from the press box. Lord Bob 13:26, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

No he shouldn't, hes not exactly "playing" with the team as of yet. Don't include him. Affiliates should not be added to the "Current Squad"Max.pwnage 22:48, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Back room boys

http://www.nhl.com/features/lowe_qa092004.html http://www.blademaster.ca/Skate_Sharpening_Tips.pdf

In addition to Joey Moss, Barrie Stafford and Sparky Kulchisky would be worthy candidates for a mention in this article. 24.68.159.182 03:15, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

NHL League Champions

@ Zzyzx11. On the 29th you combined the NHL league champions and presidents' trophy tables, stating that they weren't technically league champions, only regular season champions. While this is technically true, the winner of the regular season was in fact titled the NHL League Champion prior to the introduction of the Presidents' Trophy. There hangs a banner at Rexall Place stating "1983-84 NHL League Chamions". See Presidents' Trophy I have changed it back to the way it was before your edit. JesperLærke 19:43, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Although I would agree that they should be listed seperately, there should be consistency in both Presidents' Trophy and all of the NHL team articles. The current heading on Presidents' Trophy says "Regular season champions prior to the 1985-86 NHL season". You see, another point to consider is that the newbie (and remember, Wikipedia is international and readers come from all over the world) who may be unfamilar with NHL will read the phrase "NHL League Champions" and automatically misinterpret that as winning the championship for the entire season, not just the regular season. So you if you want to use the phrase "NHL League Champions", you are going to have to use a footnote or an asterick explaining that it was just the regular season, and not going all the way to win the Stanley Cup. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 20:07, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Noted - I will add a footnote, then. JesperLærke 20:08, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Facts section

I just want to point out why I believe that the changes made to the facts section should be reverted to what they were (as I have done). 1) Adding a "runners-up" column is redundant, as it's kinda obvious that the years we won the conference but not the Stanley Cup we finished second. Also, runner-up is not an actual award. 2) NHL League Champions and Presidents' Trophy winners are not the same thing. Yes, it took the same to win them, but they are still different awards and should be written as such. The Oilers have not won the League Champions/Presidents' Trophy thrice, but the League Champions once and the President's trophy twice. There's a difference.

Of course you are welcome to disagree with me. If you do, let's have a debate about it here. I should add that I have no opinion about whether the Avalanche should be counted as a rivalry. JesperLærke 01:05, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Those edits you reverted were mine, so I shall explain why I made them. 1) The "Stanley Cup Runner-up" line may be redundant on this page, but it certainly isn't for teams that existed before the 1974-75 season. Look at the edits I made on Detroit Red Wings and Boston Bruins, for example. I felt consistency was important. "Runner-up" may not be the best word, but deleting the whole sub-section instead of changing that one word is a bit harsh. Also, I don't buy your argument that it is "kinda obvious" that when "we" (are you a player or member of the coaching staff?) won the Conference but not the Cup, that they finished second. You have to compare the lists and make a mental "diff" to figure that out. Hardly "kinda obvious". I think it is significantly clearer to enumerate the lists so that you can see that they were 5-1 in final series. Again, explicitly stating that list is much more significant for team pages such as Detroit Red Wings, where it is instantly obvious that they were 10-12 in final series. 2) I agree that the "NHL League Champions" and "President's Trophy" are different awards, which is why I went to the trouble to provide explanatory text (in full font size, and not a footnote either). We can tinker with the wording, but I strongly believe that they should be linked together better than it was before. Again, look at my work on the Detroit Red Wings, Boston Bruins, New York Rangers, Chicago Blackhawks pages. I am attempting to make all the NHL team pages consistent, which I believe should be a hallmark of Wikipedia, superceding the edits by fans of only one team, that alter common conventions. Lastly, the rivalry line is extremely POV, so I can see that section being continually edited and debated. For example, why not include the Islanders? They were easily the biggest rivals of the Oilers for a 2-3 year period. In the current case, I think only the Flames ought to be listed, with a link to Battle of Alberta. I can see reasons for Dallas' inclusion or exclusion; if they don't meet again in the playoffs soon, I would tend to delete them in a year or two. Certainly, it makes no sense to blindly list all division opponents (e.g. adding Colorado and Vancouver). Certainly there has to be some rivalry with all division opponents, but in those cases, it pales in comparison to the Oilers-Flames rivalry. Andrwsc 19:09, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Andrwsc, I appreciate your point of view. But I have to disagree with you on whether Edmonton's facts section adheres to the general design of facts sections of NHL teams. In my opinion there is no consensus on facts sections. The Boston Bruins page lists in great detail all cups and awards the team has won down the name of the division they played in the year the won the division title. On the other hand it fails to mention who the radio broadcasters or the local television network are. Buffalo Sabres list every single playoff appearance, something I haven't seen many other places on Wikipedia. The Montreal Canadiens on mention 24 Stanley Cup wins, not mentioning in which years, and gives no detail on runner-up seasons, or division or conference championships. Toronto Maple Leafs list the dates of their 13 championships, but like Montreal they fail to mention division or conference championships. New Jersey Devils list both Stanley Cup championships (3) and final appearances (4), rather than runner-up years. So do New York Islanders. Also, there is no consensus on whether the seasons should be written as 2006 or 2005-06. Of course, an agreement on the design of the facts section for hockey clubs in general would be nice, but I think that's better suited for Wikipedia:WikiProject Ice Hockey, or the NHL talk page. Finally, I agree with you that Colorado Avalanche should not be listed as a rival. I didn't want to delete it because I only wanted to revert the section to what it was, not alter it further. But I think only Calgary and Dallas should count as rivals. Dallas and Edmonton still has a history, and maybe in five or ten years' time it won't be very important, but for the moment it should still count. PS No I am not a member of the Oilers organisation, but fans do, always have and always will identify themselves with their teams. It's part of the sports culture to refer to the team as we, and essentially it's the bread and butter of the sports teams. And I believe it is and should be perfectly acceptable, as long as it's "we" when the team is losing as well. JesperLærke 11:32, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

JesperLærke, you say that "there is no consensus on facts sections" and cite several examples. That's precisely my point! I'm trying to create a more uniform look to the 30 team pages (and the 88 NHL season pages too, for that matter). I have only touched a handful of team pages, but I think the intent should be clear, that some sections have a common format among all the pages. I will look at the WikiProject, but (in the true spirit of Wikipedia) I'm also inclined to jump in and immediately try to improve something that I think is ugly, unclear, or misleading (as I did with Detroit Red Wings. Andrwsc 21:29, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Messier?

Has there been a formal announcement that his number will be retired in '06-'07? If so, a citation is needed. If not, that should probably be removed as conjecture. 136.159.225.209 15:55, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Unbalanced?

Is anyone else bothered that the amount of space devoted to the 2006 playoffs is about equal to the space devoted to all the Oilers' Cup wins combined? I know, I know, what just took place on TV sets is ever much more exciting and important than boring old history, but sheesh. Barring any (unforeseen) excellent reasons why a failed Cup run not only deserves more attention than five actual Cups but needs to duplicate the already-existing 2006 playoffs article, I'm trimming this back dramatically. RGTraynor 05:36, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Too late - I just moved it to a separate page.:-) So to answer your question - yes, anyone else IS bothered at how big it is.Michael Dorosh 05:47, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Just reduced it down even more - all the information has been captured on the new page, which links to the 2006 playoff page as well. As it stands, the section on 2006 is still longer than past Stanley Cup season info, but those could be expanded, or this page could be trimmed more. The article is supposed to be encyclopaedic rather than read like THE HOCKEY NEWS in any event.Michael Dorosh 07:01, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

When something new happens, it always overshadows stuff that happened before there was a Wikipedia around to write on excitedly. Time, and the natural selection of good editing, will reduce the balance problem. Lord Bob 14:05, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Beyond that, though, it's sad that those Cup wins have about a sentence apiece, and I'm sure some Oiler fans should get a crack at that before this Bruin fan does :> RGTraynor 15:04, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Speaking of the 05-06 season, I think it's really odd that the mediocre regular season has been given some 20 lines, while the amazing cup run has been given 10. It should be the other way around, or maybe the two should be written together to form a section of about 20 lines. JesperLærke 15:12, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

That I disagree with: the regular season was just another season, but the playoff run was special and exceptional. Coverage should be weighted accordingly. Lord Bob 00:39, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Facts section, once again

I have reverted the facts section to what it was, once again. Not because I feel that the way it was presented was wrong in any way. I personally liked the old one (the one that's there now) better, but that isn't the point. The point is that a major reworking of that section should go through the talk page, which it hasnt. Even better, if you (whoever changed it) feel that your design should be standard for NHL teams' pages, let's have a discussion about it in the NHL talk page, or another relevant place. Then let's agree on a design to use for all pages. JesperLærke 11:50, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

2006 Off season

Agree wholeheartedly with the decision to jettison this portion of the article.

The incredible, yet ultimately unsuccesful playoff run of 2006 was met with much discontent from within the team following the season. Of an impressive list of impending unrestricted free agents, many stars, including, Jaroslav Spacek, Sergei Samsonov, Dwayne Roloson, Michael Peca and Chris Pronger showed very little interest in remaining with the team. Peca did very little during the season to mask his distaste for the organization and it's fans. Despite being handed a secure starting job, Roloson also remained ambiguous on his future with the team. The most surprising development of the off season however, was Chris Prongers decision to ask for a trade from the Oilers. Many Oiler fans immediately placed blame upon Chris' wife, who had been living in St.Louis since early November. However, as of recently more fingers have been pointed in Prongers direction. It is rumoured that Pronger has relations with Edmonton CityTV personality Christie Chorley (http://www.citytv.com/edmonton/personalities_11461.aspx) resulting in an unexpected/unwanted pregnancy. According to individuals close to the Oilers organization, Chris was left with an ultimatum from his wife; request a trade from Edmonton or divorce. Thus leaving general manager Kevin Lowe with a difficult conondrum, the solution of which remains to be seen. All we know now, is that the Edmonton Oilers will be a radically different team next season.

The deficiencies should be obvious - the extremely POV intro ("incredible"? What defied credibility?) leads into rumor, unsourced statements, poor use of language (what other kinds of conondrum(sic) are there?) and conversational tone ending off with speculation and sweeping generalization. Not to pick on anyone, but I think this is a very good example of how to write for a sports magazine, and how not to write an encyclopedia article.Michael Dorosh 17:43, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Back when I did sports writing, that would have been considered a poor example for a magazine article too. "Many Oiler fans immediately placed blame?" Is there any actual evidence of this, or a presumption? Beyond that, from where does this rumor come? Googling their names together gives exactly one hit, a now-deleted post on the Oilers fan forum that seems to suggest Pronger dump his wife for Chorley. You would think that if there was an actual rumor going around to that effect, a superstar of Pronger's stature would provoke newspaper columns from here to Moscow. RGTraynor 18:37, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Can someone revert it again. I can't: I'd be a 3rr vio. BTW: this has been ignored thus far: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RR#User:Aksarben reported by User:ccwaters ccwaters 12:54, 30 June 2006 (UTC)