Talk:Philadelphia Flyers/Archive 1

List of Philadelphia Flyers players

There is a List of Philadelphia Flyers players. When you add new players to the Flyers main article, please be sure to add them to the list as well. Thanks! Masterhatch 8 August 2005

Current squad

moved to article ccwaters 03:21, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

Chuck Gormley says the Flyers bought out Stevenson. Yet after the Flyers removed all the UFA's from their team roster page, Stevenson remained. More confirmation may be needed. --Sparkhurst 18:25, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Never mind. --Sparkhurst 22:39, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Jamie Storr

Ok... Jamie Storr suited up for the Flyers for over a month to replace the injured Robert Esche, but never got in a minute of play thanks to Antero Niittymaki. So the question is: In his careers stats should the Flyers be listed with all zeroes/ dashes, or should that row be deleted altogether. Personally I say keep it: he was there as a Flyer ready to jump in net a any given point. On the other hand, it does look a little odd. (I brought this up here because I figured more pople would be watching this article than his own). ccwaters 16:00, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

The NHL doesn't credit a player with playing time if he never actually steps on the ice, even if he dresses for a game. RGTraynor 22:54, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Ok... to date, he's got no stats as a Flyer in his article. ccwaters 21:27, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

It's actually happened a number of times in history, especially where goalies are involved. Heck, there was an AHL Springfield Falcons game I saw where the two regular goalies were on recall, one of the callups was hurt that morning, and the backup goalie was the starter from a local Division III college hockey team hurriedly penned to an ATO. No doubt he would have been slaughtered if he actually set foot on ice, but he was a better option if and when than seeing if Bruce Landon or Jacques Caron could still fit into their WHA-era pads (options actually considered, as it happens). The fellow was never credited with being a Falcon. RGTraynor 16:04, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Western NE College?? Sorry to be OT: I followed Div III until my alma mater (RIT) went Div I this season... All I know now is Elmira is doing horrible and life is good. Oh, and Norwich's golden boy from my time (Keith Aucoin) just got called up to Carolina. ccwaters 16:25, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

American International College, actually. (Come to that, they're rated Division I, though that's something of a laugher; the Atlantic/MAAC teams would get slaughtered in serious Div I play.) RGTraynor 16:51, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Where's the rest of the article

Someone has erased the bottom end of the article (below the Current Roster section). This makes the article different from the other NHL team articles. GoodDay 03:40, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

I re-added it. Looks like someone messed up the formatting while editing a player sent to the Phantoms, causing the entire bottom part to disappear. --Buchanan-Hermit 16:42, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Summit Series

I think you have to look at that game in light of the times and what it meant to Flyers fans. It was 1976, the Flyers were the reigning Cup champs, and the Soviets, if I remember right, were really doing well against NHL teams. this was before the 1980 "Miracle on Ice"; the Soviets were still respected very much. It was a big thing to win that game. But I will leave editing it to all of you out of respect. --Rev. Peter M. Calabrese, CRSP 03:24, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Heads up: its the 30th anniversary of the Broad Street Bullies literally beating up the Soviet team. Its been a big thing in local media and thus we have this anonymous user insisting on inserting a (plagarized?) 5-6 paragraph account of the game. While it is noteworthy, it certainly doesn't need that much attention in this article. I'll try write up a 1 paragraph summary of it sometime this weekend unless someone gets to it first. ccwaters 16:12, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

One paragraph? About 1-2 sentences is all it merits. This was a single exhibition game, and really, it isn't all that hard for a North American team deciding to thug out in an era where North American referees habitually let them do that. Hell, the Flyers' second Cup victory only has one measly sentence in that article. One would think the Philadelphia Flyer Wiki fans would have better perspective. RGTraynor 21:10, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

C'mon this is the city whose most beloved sport's figure is a fictional boxer. :) ccwaters 21:31, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

The account of the Summit Series seems to put the Soviets in rather a damning light. I'm calling NPOV. Chris 16:53, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Go ahead and fix it. ccwaters 17:14, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Primeau & Hatcher

I've pointed out (at top of article), that Hatcher is serving as captain, in place of Primeau (who's injured with concussion). If anyone agrees/disagrees with my edit, by all means revert it or keep it. GoodDay 23:07, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

[1] ccwaters 00:50, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

I've checked the Philadelphia Flyers offical website, and found that Keith Primeau is still listed as captain , (along with Hatcher) and not a former captain (see Flyers History captains). Therefore in the article , I've put Primeau as Captain 2001- present & Hatcher 2006- present. This can be confirmed by the Flyers website. GoodDay 16:36, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

That's fine. BTW- he's done until next years training camp: http://philadelphia.comcastsportsnet.com/view_content_0p.asp?ID=25813 ccwaters 17:08, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Although Primeau is no longer on IR (see Flyers website); his status for ('06-'07) is still unclear. So, with that uncertainty still present, I've put back Derian Hatcher in the Captain (section with Primeau) since the Flyers website listed both as current captains. Does anyone object? GoodDay 18:28, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

It looks like Primeau is set to retire. The article says Forsberg is expected to be named captain. --Sparkhurst 23:11, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Hmm. I wunder how Hatchy will feel. GoodDay 15:16, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

NHL Lockout

I think there needs to be more on the Flyers pre and post lockout. I rewrote the article containing the Flyers off-season transactions by including the buyouts and trades of the likes of Amonte, LeClair, and Roenick, and omitting minor signings such as Jamie Storr and Jon Sim that aren't really relevant to Flyers franchise history.

Someone ought to write about the current season, such as battling the Rangers for the Atlantic, leading the league in man-games lost to injury, making note of the acquisitions of Nedved and Gauthier from Phoenix, and so on.

--Spark17 23:13, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

A few thoughts... surely there is more that can be written about the early years of this franchise, such as the issue with the Spectrum's roof and being forced to play all the remaining home games on the road. Such as Snider telling Bud Poile to load up with big tough players as a result of the Blues manhandling the Flyers in the playoffs, and so on.

I think too much is made of the exhibition game with the Central Red Army team. I think it's worth a mention since it is emblematic of that team, but not to the tune of three paragraphs. There is no mention of Bob Clarke's first dismissal or his return in '94. What about the Lindros controversy?

As far as recent years, it is a bit lengthy. I suppose that comes with it being recent. It is fresh in our memories. I rewrote 2003-04, the pre and post lockout, and the most recent season. Perhaps we should start the most recent season with post lockout and titled the years after Lindros something else (Post Lindros era, Pre-Salary Cap, Pre Lockout, etc.)?

Lastly, I can't be the only one who thinks the section titled Broadcasts is a waste of space. I personally like the way the NY Rangers page denotes their broadcasters and I think we should follow that example.

--Spark17 18:18, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Go ahead. ccwaters 18:37, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Monster Article

This article has turned into quite the monster since I've been away. Let me first say that whoever went about adding all of this information to the article did one whale of a job and obviously did their homework. However, I've noticed that little mundane details are back, especially in the Memorable Moments section. When I created the said section, I thought it would be a good place to put the more memorable Flyers moments which didn't really fit with the main article, like the Flyers/USSR game or the Flyers/Senators fight night in 2004. I like the Team Name/Logo section. Good job to whoever wrote that; it contains information that I was unaware of or had forgotten, which says a lot. I don't really care for the Close Enough To Cry section. It's true I provided the link for the "Curse of Billy Penn" at the bottom of the page a month ago but I personally think there is no such thing. The Curse of Billy Penn page contains all that is needed on the subject in my estimation. I won't be attempting these changes myself though since I'd like to devote my time to other interests. I figured I'd offer my suggestions to open ears. Oh, and Jamie Storr won't be back next season for the Phantoms. He signed with a German team late last week so stop adding him to the roster. --Spark17 01:19, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Since I had some time I decided to re-write the article. After reading this (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Ice_Hockey/Team_pages_format) I decided to make a few more changes. If you don't understand why I made a particular change it could probably be found there. --Spark17 18:10, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Rivals

I agree stick to the main rivals but realize that Buffalo fans REALLY have it in for the Flyers. I live up here in Western New York and as a Philadelphia expatriate it is really brutal. The sports station, the fans, everybody relishes victories over the Flyers. they even made up a song bashing the Flyers. For the record I just say May 27, 1975 but that is getting old. By the way I am not neutral;-) --Rev. Peter M. Calabrese, CRSP 03:19, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps we should stick to the main rivals? Just because the Flyers recently lost to Tampa Bay and Buffalo in the playoffs doesn't make it a rivalry. I think the rivals should be limited to the Devils, Rangers, Senators, Leafs, and perhaps the Penguins. The rivalry with the Islanders has been dead for a number of years now. As far as the Pens, the reason I'm not sure is because that rivalry doesn't seem back yet. Even the Leafs I question. --Spark17 17:20, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

A few of us have tried (but haven't really had enough people chiming in) to gain a consensus to eliminate the Rivals sections altogether. They're perpetually POV-ridden and always susceptible to the most recent editor memorializing the most recent playoff series in which "their" goon beat up his favorite player. RGTraynor 17:56, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

I'd be in favor of getting rid of it. What is the point if it only causes head aches? I'll take it down from this page, but I'm guessing it will be up 5 minutes later. --Spark17 19:04, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

I think major rivalries, for example Rangers / Islanders and Maple Leafs / Canadiens should be listed, but as said, all others are simply POV. Harrias 18:14, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, get rid of the Rivals section. It invites POV's. GoodDay 14:49, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

I did, but it returned a few days later. Also, I retract my statement above. If rivals are to be listed, it should be limited to the Devils and Rangers only. The Senators don't consider us a rival. The Leafs do but they consider the whole conference plus more to be a rival. Was there ever a rivalry between the Flyers and Penguins? The Penguins have never beaten the Flyers in the playoffs and didn't the Philly fans cheer Lemieux in '97 (Game 5, 1st round)? That doesn't sound like a rivalry to me, at least not one as self-evident as the rivalries with the Devils and the Rangers. --Sparkhurst 08:19, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Someone re-added the Islanders. I would think that they should stay as well. I mean, it may not be active, but think about how many times they met in the playoffs during the 70s. If anyone disagress, please discuss before removing it entirely. Briememory 21:09, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

If there is to be a Rivals tidbit, I suppose the Islanders should be on it. I only started watching the Flyers in '95, so the fact it has been a dormant rivalry of late might affect my judgment. --Sparkhurst 21:31, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

I think rivalries should be pulled altogether on all of these team pages because of the POVs. Most of the time, they just list other teams from the same division. If you're playing teams more often, of course they'd be considered 'rivals.' Being a Pens' fan, there's this animosity towards Philadelphia and the Flyers in Pittsburgh above and beyond all other teams (even others from the old Patrick division) and pretty much relegated to only professional hockey...the battles to us seem more memorable than against any other team (Lemieux's performance in the '89 playoff series when Hextall seemed on the verge of decapitating Robby Brown, Kasparitis' check on Lindros, the marathon playoff game ended by Primeau's goal in 2000, or whatever year that was). Having said that, though, this is apparently more of a one-way feeling, like some kind of regional inferiority complex. I don't know how to properly describe it to convey the feeling...maybe like Eagles' fans hatred of the Cowboys, even though historically everyone thought of Cowboys-Redskins being the big thing. Also, its dissipated a good bit over the years. And I get the sense that's the same for most rivalries, what with free agency and expansion. That's why its a bad idea to keep those up. Of course, this is Wikipedia, so I'm sure these have been wasted words...someone will just throw everything back up again.Exoterrick 16:08, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

History of the Philadelphia Flyers article?

How would people feel about the creation of a History of the Philadelphia Flyers article, kind of on par with the Eagles article? I realize this is a unique idea for a NHL team (browsing through the Original Six teams reveals no history of the franchise articles), but this article is kind of lengthy. Any thoughts? --Sparkhurst 20:35, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

I would be in favor of it, but its a lot of work, and since there are so many incorrect updates on the main page, I would say it might be hard to maintain. Briememory 21:04, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

I have put together a little preview of what such an article would look like and it seems fine (it will need a little tweaking). I basically took what is located in franchise history and made what I figure to be appropriate sections. I'm thinking of creating it just to see how it would look (I'm guessing it can be deleted if necessary). As far as how I would see the main article changing, the franchise history would be a synopsis of the teams history (probably limited to the Bullies, the streak, Lindros, and perhaps a little on the present such as Forsberg) and a section to elaborate on the Team Name/Logo, which would include the 3d logo and perhaps mention of those silly pants from the early 80's. --Sparkhurst 21:57, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

The Flyers history article has been created and I trimmed down the franchise history on this page. I think the writing on the latter could use some improvement but I need to get away from the computer for a while. --Sparkhurst 23:45, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Sparkhurst - great job with the new "history" page. Having a separate page to put the history of our beloved franchise on was a great idea, so we don't clutter one page with too much info. I've made some (ok, quite a few) contributions to it. Hope you like it. (Darthflyer)

Seeing just how short the body of the article concerning the Flyers themselves is now that the repetitive "Facts" section has been removed, I can't help but ask about, at least from what I see, a bit of an overemphasis on the "History of ..." article on the Flyers. If a separate article for this team is needed (and I won't argue that so much as I did the article concerning the Devils history, since that one never got updated and was defunct), I wonder if there is any possibility that someone here with a better grasp on the team's history can expand the section in the team's actual article. At the moment, the amount of franchise history touched on in the team article is somewhat underwhelming in the amount of info it has.--Resident Lune 16:23, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

I suppose you are right. Take a look at the New England Patriots article, a featured article by the way. I should've went by that model. Instead I went by the model of the Philadelphia Eagles page, thus the underwhelming nature of the Franchise history section of this article. --Sparkhurst 21:58, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I see what you mean with the article on the Eagles. I think the difference is that the Eagles article -- while it also has a smaller section on the team's history -- also has several sections which greatly add to the bulk of the article. They have whole things on Eagles pop culture, fan behavior, and even a section on their fight song. So while the article skimps on history, it makes up for it in other content. Resident Lune 13:37, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

I've expanded the franchise history section. The section on the Bullies is the same as it appears in the History of the Philadelphia Flyers article (at the moment) with the exceptions of the first and last paragraphs. I figured adding the pop culture tidbits would be of interest. If any changes need to be made, make them as you see fit. --Sparkhurst 20:26, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

John LeClair

Unless somebody spoke to Bobby Clarke and/or Ed Snider and has inside information, please stop referring to LeClair's #10 as being out of circulation due to its impending "retirement" when LeClair retires. He's only been gone for one season. It's highly unlikely that it will be retired, in my opinion, unless LeClair is inducted into the Hall of Fame. Then maybe it would be considered. Give it time; somebody will get it eventually, especially a free agent who would want it. (Darthflyer)

I wouldn't be totally surprised if there was a retirement for #10, i mean John LeClair is statisticaly the greatest US born player there is (if I'm not mistaken he's got the most points or assists or something of all-time of all US born players). And if Charles Barkley (pardon the city/sport change) can get his number retired in phoenix, why wouldn't LeClair in Philly? Mumbaki 03:30, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

You're mistaken. Joe Mullen pips LeClair in all statistical categories; he's got over a hundred goals and assists on LeClair, and Phil Housley has nearly five hundred assists ahead. Whether LeClair is likely to have his number retired ... we'll see. On form I'd say not; counting Ashbee as a seperate case, the Flyers have yet to retire a non-Hall of Famer's number, and LeClair just isn't getting to the Hall. RGTraynor 04:20, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, i wasn't totally positive about the all-time part. Still, since his stats aren't any thing to scoff at i would hope that the Flyers would do somthing for him, not that i'm a fan or anything :) Mumbaki 04:17, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

In my opinion, the Flyers are simply not issuing his jersey number. My guess is they will wait until he retires before they make that number available again. I don't expect the Flyers will issue Rico's number this year either. I personally think retiring jersey numbers is silly and I prefer the way the Maple Leafs handle it. It is the crest on the front that matters, not the name or number on the back. Count on LeClair being in the Flyers Hall of Fame. --Sparkhurst 06:51, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Broadcasters

I know that this article used to have a section on the Broadcasters and that it is isnt there anymore. But if someone eventually re-adds it, please read this article first. Briememory 15:33, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Logo Talk

I like the tidbits about the logo. Do any sketches of rejected logos exist? If someone had that it mught be nice for this article or the History of the Flyers article. --Rev. Peter M. Calabrese, CRSP 03:32, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Salary cap

This website lists the Flyers cap hit at $41.896 million with $2.104 million in cap space. It should be noted that they forgot Mark Cullen and that they list Primeau as injured and have not included him in the total. With Primeau, the Flyers are at $45.063 and are $1.063 million over the salary cap. --Sparkhurst 05:13, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Primeau and Hatcher captaincies

With Primeau announcing his retirement this week and no captain named otherwise, I've listed Hatcher as the team captain. Does anyone object to this until an official captaincy change is made? (Darthflyer 03:37, 13 September 2006 (UTC))

Yes, I object. It's reported Primeau will retire, however that not confirmed, only until Keith Primeau annouces his retirement, should Hatcher be listed as captain. Also reportedly, Forsberg is to get the captaincy upon Primeau's retirement. Again let's wait until KP makes its official. Be patient. GoodDay 15:12, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

When/if Primeau annouces his retirement, there shouldn't be anyone with the "C" until the next captain is named.Medeltid 17:06, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Umm... maybe the Flyers will address the captaincy issue along side the retirement announcement. Who knows? The only thing known for certain is Primeau and Hatcher are the current captains. Can we just leave it at that until things become official? There is no prize for getting the first scoop. ccwaters 19:38, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Concur; until any such announcement is official and (more to the point) verifiable, any such change violates policy. RGTraynor 08:19, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, his done it (Keith Primeau) has announced his retirement (see TSN & Philadelphia Flyers official website). GoodDay 15:54, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Tomorrow, it will be Forsberg: http://www.philly.com/mld/philly/15518735.htm Please avoid temptation until then. ccwaters 17:36, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

The Flyers have just named Peter Forsberg captain, Derian Hatcher and Simon Gagne alternate captains. See TSN & Flyers official website. GoodDay 22:33, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

New Jersey Devils

The Devils article achieved featured article status recently. Perhaps the format of that article should be used to improve this article? --207.69.136.203 06:31, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

I created Philadelphia Flyers notable players and award winners, which is basically the same as the Devils version of the same name. --Sparkhurst 08:08, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Famous Players section

The semi-new renamed section, seems to appear like a Flyers fansite? GoodDay 01:04, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

I've removed the 'Famous players' section, put back the 'Retired numbers' section. GoodDay 16:22, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Here's another reason why. See Wikipedia: WikiProject Ice Hockey/Team pages format. GoodDay 16:35, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

If you will look at the topic directly above this one you might have an idea as to why it was changed in the first place. --207.69.138.6 20:39, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

I've put back the 'Famous Players' section. See reasons on Talk:New Jersey Devils. GoodDay 21:32, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Team captains

I've listed the captains by season, instead of by players. See Talk: Buffalo Sabres#Team captains (consesus) for my reasons. GoodDay 19:51, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

It's fine the way it was before. Who cares how Buffalo does theirs? Darthflyer 07:02, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

The consensus on the Buffalo page, was for ALL 30 NHL team pages. Furthermore you're copying directly off of the Flyers official website. This form of 'Plagerism' is frowned upon, at Wikipedia. GoodDay 19:49, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Darthflyer, you're going against consensus. GoodDay 20:17, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

The notion of a Team Pages Format on this Wikiproject involves conformity among the various Team Page articles. The listing here conforms not only to Buffalo's article but to the other 28 teams as well. There was a recent discussion affirming consensus for this version, and if you'd like to change that, feel free to head over to the main project talk page and raise the issue once more. RGTraynor 20:18, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

'Darthflyer' read your recent Edit summary rantings. Yes, your work on this page is very dedicative. However, just because of the work you've done, your edits have NO authority over other Users edits (particularly, when opposing consensus). In other words 'Darthflyer', you don't own the Philadelphia Flyers page. GoodDay 22:59, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Darthflyer, I've just reported you to Adminstrators. You had removed my (above) posting, on this 'discussion' page. GoodDay 22:21, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Good for you. I'm glad you have that precious time to spare in your life.Darthflyer 19:52, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Just as much precious time as you had, removing my post. GoodDay 22:53, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Naming conventions

Taken from Wikipedia:Naming conventions (ice hockey)

Guideline in a nutshell Hockey article titles should use the most common spelling in English as described by reputable reference books and media outlets. In most cases this means the omission of diacritics and other characters not commonly found in English.

Hockey article titles should use the most common form of spelling found in English publications. Hockey links going to hockey articles should use the most common spelling in English, situation appropriate, of course. Hockey articles should show the native spelling of the subject in the first sentence (as per Wikipedia:Naming conventions#Use English words "Name your pages in English and place the native transliteration on the first line of the article unless the native form is more commonly used in English than the English form." After which, all other mentions of the subject should revert back to English spelling. A redirect using the native spelling should be created.

How about we start following these guidelines, eh? --Sparkhurst 11:28, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Agreed, wholeheartedly. Those diacritics were annoying. GoodDay 19:37, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Oh no, the diacritics are back. GoodDay 03:46, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

So we excise them again. I rather resent revisionists telling us how English is supposed to be rendered. RGTraynor 05:55, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Though it may be futile, I'll revert all 30 NHL team article 'current rosters' -removing the diacritics as the consensus called for. While doing so, pro-Euro language editors will give me heck. GoodDay 00:55, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

They're complete (almost), I didn't know the English version for some of the names (hence, why I oppose diacritics). GoodDay 01:48, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't see much reason to listen to the pro-diacritic crowd. Their version of things isn't used by the NHL, isn't used by the media, isn't used by the team web sites or publications, doesn't appear on the backs of players' jerseys, isn't used in the entire English language, here or in Europe. It is seven shades of arrogant for them to demand that the English language be changed to suit their own unilateral notions of orthography, layered by the fact that with but a couple of exceptions, the only times they contribute to project articles involve pushing their typographical POV. That's considered votepacking everywhere else on Wikipedia, and the views of perps discounted or ignored outright. RGTraynor 03:09, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

While I do not have particularly strong feelings one way or another on this issue and thus will not engage in either adding or removing diacritics, it seems to me that any and all that do (and thus presumably also want to engage in the debate to reach a consensus to settle this or any other matter of style) should at least be willing to identify themselves as opposed to making changes anonymously behind a transient IP (such as "86.198.206.162"). Centpacrr 18:41, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Agreed, the more so when an anon IP puts forth a position on "consensus." RGTraynor 18:45, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

I wunder, do the European Wikipedias allow English names to be printed in English form? (no diacritics). GoodDay 21:10, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

It varies. In many cases, especially where proper names are concerned (for place names and titles, for instance), they use their own national translations. RGTraynor 07:31, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Just to let you guys know, Wikipedia:Naming conventions (ice hockey) has been marked as {{historical}} for about 3 and a half months, so it's not a guideline. -Royalguard11(Talk·Desk·Review Me!) 01:11, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Peter Forsberg

Re-added -injury- tag, Forsberg suffered a concussion. GoodDay 00:48, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

He was traded last night, so he's no longer the captain, nor is he a member of the team. Someone needs to edit this to reflect that trade.

The Flyers article has been updated. Hatcher, Gagne and Kapanen will serve as the alternate captains. GoodDay 17:43, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

PS- Can we please, leave Forsberg's captaincy tenure as 2006-07 (leave off the 'February' thing). GoodDay 21:13, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Famous Players

Though I like the idea (of moving this section). Where's the consensus to do so. GoodDay 22:47, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Where's the consensus for removing the Famous Players section. GoodDay 23:02, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Revert anon-users recent edits, there was no consensus for them. GoodDay 23:45, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Again, reverted anon-users recent major edits. He didn't seek a consensus for them. Example: removing the 'Famous Players section'. GoodDay 21:50, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Due to the fact only 2 NHL team articles have or had 'Famous Players' section. Plus there's no 'Famous Players' guideline at WPT. I've taken the 'Famous Players' matter to WPTT to get 'opinons' on Devils article concerning 'Famous Players' questionable section. GoodDay 05:55, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

There are a few things I'd like to point out. When was the last time the WikiProject Ice Hockey team format page actually updated? From what I can tell it was long before the Devils page received FA status. The list of things that have been updated since includes the additions of a new team infobox, the removal of the facts section, an updated team standings table, the addition of team records, etc. It is my humble opinion that once the Devils article received FA status it became the new standard for all hockey team pages.

From what I've read the reason for a change from the style that current reigns unchallenged on the other 28 NHL team pages to the Famous Players section was that a prose section would look better compared to more trivial lists that serves no real purpose to a layperson. A breakaway article was even created to place such lists.

Other than reverting the edits made by someone who didn't care to discuss removing the disputed section, I have one suggestion. Since there seems to be unease about the title "Famous Players" I would suggest changing it to Honored Players or Honored Members, especially the latter if you wish to include the coaches and owners. --207.69.138.143 14:29, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

The thing is, these sections are yet to be added to the other 28 NHL team pages. All 30 team pages should be 'in sync'. GoodDay 18:15, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Why do I have this funny feeling an 'edit war' is gonna breakout soon (not by me) at this article? GoodDay 19:03, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Once again, separate pages for additional information is unnecessary. Putting it on one pages - like all the other NHL teams do - is all that's needed. The "History" page is the lone exception, because of the sheer volume. This is getting ridiculous. Darthflyer 01:56, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

There's a 'consensus buidling discussion' taking place at WPT concerning this 'Famous Players' debate. Anyone can give their imput. This will effect ALL 30 team pages. GoodDay 18:49, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Interim tag on Hatcher's Captaincy

I know his captaincy has been discussed before. But checking the Flyers official website, they make no distinction, and he is part of their normal succession of captains. I propose that the interim tag should be removed from Hatcher's name in the captain's section. What does everyone else think? Bjewiki 22:20, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Keith Primeau was the Flyers captain until his retirement. The Flyers never stripped Primeau of his captaincy (while he was 'inactive'). Had Primeau not retired and began play this season ('06-'07), his captaincy would've been listed as (2001- present). I do see what you mean though, Hatcher was declared the 14th captain, not just acting captain. What makes this more confusing, is sports medias have often referred to Primeau (during the 2005-06) as Flyers captain & Flyers former captain. Guess it's up to the Wiki community. Ask yourself this question, had Primeau not retired & returned for the '06-'07 season, how would Hatcher have been listed? See Chicago Blackhawks article for Adrian Aucoin & Martin Lapointe situation. GoodDay 22:42, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree there are certain cases, like when someone is injured, and a player gets the "C" for a couple of games (although this doesn't happen a lot). But in this case, Primeau missed the entire season, and Hatcher is listed on the official flyers site as being a flyers captain. But I agree, the community should decide. I clearly vote that we should trip off the "interim" label. Bjewiki 22:46, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

All the -interim- captains listed on the NHL team pages have worn their team's 'C' for at least half-a-season. I think 'all' interim tags should be moved from all NHL team pages' captain lists. GoodDay 22:59, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Other Professional Hockey Teams in Philadelphia

Why is this on the flyers page? I can maybe see it being included as part of a template (like the sports teams in/around philly box). But i don't really think it belongs as part of the main Flyers page. Bjewiki 20:33, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

This information is appropriate because while there are two pro hockey teams in Philadelphia currently, few people realize that the history of hockey as a pro sport in the city actually extends back to 1927. I have, however, moved my list to the Flyers history page where it is probably more appropriate. Centpacrr 23:43, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

NHL captains, 2004-05

According to Darthflyers views on the Hurricanes captains & Blackhawks captains. Keith Primeau's captaincy should be listed as 2001-04, 2005-06 (since as DF points out, the 2004-05 season didn't exist). GoodDay 01:59, 10 March 2007 (UTC) :Forget it, do what you want. GoodDay 02:33, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Gene Hart Award

The Flyers have added another award, the Gene Hart Award for work ethic and dedication.[2] Someone might want to create the article for it. --207.69.138.141 17:19, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

It's not really notable beyond the team article, IMHO.  RGTraynor  20:31, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps it would be a good idea to combine all the Flyers team awards into one page such as Philadelphia Flyers team awards? --4.239.168.110 14:40, 8 April 2007 (UTC)