Talk:Super Series '76

POV

This has a Soviet POV, however I, a Flyers fan, do not find it objectionably biased. Perhaps I'll come back and describe the events in Phila. to balance it out. See if I can be as neutral.--J Clear 16:46, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

This is an article about the USSR tour, so it is highlighting the soviet teams, however I did my best to remove most of the "so-and-so doubled so-and-so" type NPOV while cleaning up the article as a whole somewhat. --Zsinj^Talk 22:40, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

I could say that this is about a series of hockey games in North America, in front of North American fans, but what it was was an international hockey summit, with a touch of cold war thrown in. It just deserves as neutral a POV as possible. The present article is good, except for "dumped" (well there are were a few typos...). Unless that was a shut out or shellacking, then I'd say something factual like shut out or wide margin. PersonallyI think the article could use a section on the political tensions involved with both points of view, but those are hard to keep balanced, so maybe not.--J Clear 03:22, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

I took a look (from an American hockey fan's perspective) and I think it's NPOV now. Somebody agree with me and remove the tag, ok? -- Butseriouslyfolks 08:31, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree, it has a reasonable slant, and should be maintained as a seperate article from the generic Super Series. Also, I created an article which describes in detail the Flyers versus Red Army game. -- 10stone5 10:54, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Merge?

This article isn't going anywhere, maybe should merge it into Super Series? Thoughts? Kevlar67 03:31, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Missing Team Info

It should be noted that the Soviet teams that came over for this series were not the actual club teams they were purported to be. Both teams in this series borrowed players from other Soviet teams to be more competetive--the Wings had an entire line from the national team, as I recall, and the Red Army also had a couple of "guest" players. That skewed the results somewhat and this point should be mentioned in the articel somewhere. It still was a great series. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 134.243.211.185 (talk) 13:57, June 27, 2007

Hmmm...do you have any references for this? Bsroiaadn^Talk 16:21, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

See http://www.letsgosabres.com/pressbox/fullstory.php?newsid=10276

"Beginning just after Christmas 1975, with the Cold War still very hot, two teams from the Soviet Elite Hockey League toured eight NHL cities. This “Super Series” featured the league champion — the Soviet Central Red Army — and the league runner-up — the Soviet Wings. The Soviets also added other league All-Stars to supplement both clubs prior to the tour."

Took me a while to find it. One team had a whole line fron Dinamo as I recall. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.243.211.185 (talk) 23:12, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Spartak

The Red Army was the most dominant team in the Soviet League and the Canadiens were usually the best team in the NHL — both teams went on to win their respective team championships later that year.

CSKA did not go on to win the Soviet league in 1976. Spartak did.

Requested move 1

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was no move. Consensus at this time is leaning toward supporting a page move, but there is a dispute over the target. Please make this request again if a suitable target is supported by consensus. PeterSymonds (talk) 10:04, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

1975–76 USSR Red Army ice hockey tour of North America → Super Series '76 — This article is also about the Soviet Wings tour. Both teams tour were part of the same event. --SaskatchewanSenator (talk) 21:02, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

• Comment 1976 Super Series or Super Series 1976 would be more appropriate than Super Series '76.--Labattblueboy (talk) 04:45, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Why? Super Series '76 is the more popular name. [[1]]--SaskatchewanSenator (talk) 09:21, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Accent-like and/or quote-like characters are generally avoided for the title, as per WP:NAME. --Labattblueboy (talk) 04:55, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Requested move 2

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was page moved to Super Series '76. Although there is something of a stalemate between this title and Super Series 1976, there is scant support for the existing title. I have chosen the option with slightly stronger support as the discussion has stalled and attempts to invite further comment have not succeeded, but I have no objection to this debate being reopened or another uninvolved administrator overturning this decision.  Skomorokh  08:16, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

1975–76 USSR Red Army ice hockey tour of North America → Super Series 1976 — User:SaskatchewanSenator moved the page unilaterally from 1975–76 USSR Red Army ice hockey tour of North America to Super Series 76 without discussion although the move to Super Series '76 had failed. I moved the talk page to Talk: Super Series 1976 but not the main page, a action done in haste on my part. Requesting that the move be finished by being moved to Super Series 1976 as per WP:NAME or reverted to previous till issue can be resolved. --Labattblueboy (talk) 04:25, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

• Comment no consensus was established, so I don't see any procedural reason why a unilateral move could not be done, especially since it was one of the options presented, and no objections were recorded. 76.66.192.35 (talk) 04:48, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

No move was to be suggested until consensus was reached, as directed by the closing moderator. The option presented was Super Series 1976, instead they intentionally omitting the apostrophe from their proposal so they could make the move unilaterally.--Labattblueboy (talk) 05:03, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

The only reason given for opposing the move to Super Series '76 was the apostrophe. With no apostrophe in this title, I didn't think it would be a problem. Why do you think Super Series 1976 is a better name for the article?--SaskatchewanSenator (talk) 07:38, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't understand this 2nd request. Ya's want to move Super Series 1976 to Super Series 1976? GoodDay (talk) 17:13, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Actually per WP:COMMONNAME it probably should have the apostrophe. WP:NAME doesn't forbid them and the series was never known as Super Series 1976, it was marketed and remains known as Super Series '76. I will move back to the original name until consensus can be reached on a new name. -DJSasso (talk) 16:32, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

• Support moving to 'Super Series '76'. GoodDay (talk) 17:08, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

  Do you have a reason for that choice as opposed to the actual name of the series which was Super Series '76? -DJSasso (talk) 17:22, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Oh, I didn't know there was an 'actual' name. GoodDay (talk) 17:45, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

• Comment the proposal for Super Series 1976 was based on a basic search or books that could be used a references in the future. I couldn't finda single book that cited the series as Super Series '76 but found almost a dozen that used Super Series 1976. So frankly I don't think WP:COMMONNAME is valid. Besides, what sports or event article applies such a naming mechanism. It's always... always the full year. Find me a single article that uses an apostrophe in replacement of 19 or 20.--Labattblueboy (talk) 22:06, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
  • What books did you look at? I just did a google search and found articles from the NHL, IIHF, various news and hockey sites, a couple DVDs of the series that use that title. This isn't about just shortening the name, its about using the official trade name of the series. If it was just using the year to indicate that it was the Super Series that occurred in 1976 I would agree with you. However, this is the name the games were marketed as. Heck I even have a set of hockey cards in a trunk somewhere at my parents place that is named that. Its the same as how we named the articles Stanley Cup Finals or Stanley Cup Playoffs instead of using a lower case for the word finals or playoffs, because that is the official names of the series of games. -DJSasso (talk) 02:09, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

• There been no demonstration that Super Series '76 is in fact the official name. --Labattblueboy (talk) 06:40, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
• I've seen a variety of terms used; "75-76 Super Series"[2]], "Super Series 1976"[3], "First Super Series"[4] [5], "Super Series '76"[6] and "1976 Super Series"[7]. 1976 Super Series would likely be most appropriate the naming inline with the similarly named 2007 Super Series, while Super Series 1976 would be appropriate to be in line with fr.wikipedia[8] and de.wikipedia[9]. The only way I would be convinced the "Super Series '76" is the official name is if you have the document of agreement between the NHL and HC CSKA Moscow. Short of that, I believe employment of the full year is appropriate. --Labattblueboy (talk) 07:28, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

• And almost none of the sources you provide above would pass RS muster or aren't specifically naming the event but mentioning it was the first of the Super Series which is a completely different context than actually naming it. And since the event was sanctioned by the IIHF then the IIHF is the most reliable of the sources and guess what it called it? That being said its probably not worth my time arguing it. -DJSasso (talk) 14:25, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

• They are just examples but your RS point in nonetheless valid. I think only 3 might pass as RS. The only true RS that I've found is that of the NASSH, because it's an academically reviewed publication.--Labattblueboy (talk) 20:17, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

• Labattblueboy, what do you mean by "So frankly I don't think WP:COMMONNAME is valid."?--SaskatchewanSenator (talk) 08:59, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

• WP:COMMONNAME functions on the basis of common naming in reliable sources. Presently, we face a notable absence of reliable sources. For this reason, I don't think you can use a WP:COMMONNAME argument in favour of Super Series '76.--Labattblueboy (talk) 20:17, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

• The only exception to using the common name is when the "subject is too rarely mentioned in English to have a common English name." That is not the case. As I had linked in the previous move request, there are over 60,000 uses of Super Series '76. [[10]]--SaskatchewanSenator (talk) 23:47, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

• Not quite. "In determining what the name is, we follow the usage of reliable sources, such as those used as references for the article". "It may also be useful to observe the usage of major international organizations, major English-language media outlets, quality encyclopedias, geographic name servers, major scientific bodies and scientific journals". In the cases of "subject is too rarely mentioned in English" "the official name as defined in a legal context" is to be used. If you are going to employ a search engine test, do so under the terms of Wikipedia:Search engine test.--Labattblueboy (talk) 20:40, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

• I don't understand your point. All you have said is "Not quite" and then quoted several sentences from WP:COMMONNAME. The Common Name policy applies to this article and the common name is Super Series '76.--SaskatchewanSenator (talk) 21:33, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
• I have followed WP:Search engine test. If you have concerns, please identify them.--SaskatchewanSenator (talk) 21:33, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose move to Super Series 1976. The only source provided in support of the move to "Super Series 1976" [11] refers to the "1976 NHL- Soviet Super Series" not Super Series 1976--SaskatchewanSenator (talk) 19:48, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

page 30 - "Dubbed the "Super Series 1976," the Soviets claimed the eight-game hockey tour..."

page 31 - "focus on the seven games of Super Series 1976 played of American soil."

SaskatchewanSenator is correct that the title of the paper is Defending Canada's Game...in Philadelphia: Seven Nights of the 1976 NHL- Soviet Super Series but incorrect that the paper contains no mention of Super Series 1976.--Labattblueboy (talk) 20:23, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for those quotes. It's not very definitive if it uses more than one name for the series.--SaskatchewanSenator (talk) 21:38, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

• Comment I posted a message at WP:HOCKEY for people to come and comment since this discussion is currently at a bit of a stalemate. It should definitely be one of the two names. I've already stated my thoughts above but with more eyes comes better discussion I hope so consensus can form. -DJSasso (talk) 20:01, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Location, location, location!

Unfortunately, as detailed as that page looks, there seems to be missing a key ingredient: WHERE were played each of those games. Don't you think it's important?!... --AlainR345^{Techno-Wiki-Geek} 15:12, 23 April 2022 (UTC)