Talk:2011–12 Calgary Flames season

What are you talking about?

Resolute, What do you mean I am fairly certain all teams will attempt to qualify?! The word could is better because you don't know what the flames may look like during the season. They could get the worst record in NHL season, Or the best in NHL. You just never know what the future may look like. So leave it alone!— Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.228.248.208 (talk • contribs)

I would have thought my meaning was self-evident. Stating that a team will attempt to qualify is not the same as stating a team will qualify. The Flames, like 29 other NHL teams, will attempt to make the playoffs. Your change is actually fairly ridiculous as it implies the team might not bother. Resolute 16:32, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

I see that this IP editor has made this change on every single 2011-12 team Season article. Ugh. Echoedmyron (talk) 18:03, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Ok you made confused. You said "Your change is actually fairly ridiculous" Than you said "as it implies the team might not bother." It's not ridiculous and you are using thinking errors. In other words you are fortune telling. So do not use the word "Will" Use "could". And i don't care what you say it's not going to happen.So, Get it over with Resolute understand?! No, I am not fortune telling. The goal in hockey is to make the playoffs. So yes, every team will attempt to qualify. Nobody is stating or implying that they will achieve that goal. So in this case, "could" is inaccurate and implies far more than I believe you are aware. "Will attempt" is more accurate than "could attempt". Resolute 02:14, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Ok you proved me worng Resolute. I will not Change the word could because you said "The goal in hockey is to make the playoffs." So now you can unprotect the page. I'm not Lying. Trust me Resolute, I will not Change the word could. Ok?

I'm sorry Resolute, if changed the word from will to "could". I thought it would make more sense. You know what they say: Everybody makes mistakes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.228.248.208 (talk) 16:52, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Pre-season

Recent IP edits adding the pre-season schedule were made by me, I wasn't logged in. I've kept the format consistent with last year's article. Same goes for the reference links (note: only the schedule is up yet, player stats and standings are available once the regular season starts, hence I commented them out for now)--Fogeltje (talk) 10:43, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Jokinen as A-captain

I noticed someone just deleted Jokinen as Alt because he's only filling in. I don't want to start an edit war, so I'm taking it to the talkpage first. Whether or not he's filling it, I think he should be listed. He's wearing the A right now, that's what a viewer sees. If it were only for one or two games I might be inclined not to list him, but Gio seems to be out for a longer period of time. I see no reason not to list Jokinen. Back when Calgary had rotating Alts next to Regehr we also listed them all while they only wore the A for a limited period. I'm not saying this is a reason to keep Jokinen, I say we should remain consisted. Either keep that old article this way and add Jokinen, or remove Jokinen here and removed the alternating alts from the old article for consistency. As a compromise, if Gio returns and if Jokinen has to return the A, we can put the period he wore the A in brackets behind his name.--Fogeltje (talk) 08:05, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

That someone is me. The Flames official website, doesn't have him with an A. It's been the practice on this articles to not list fill-ins. Can you imagine how filled-up 2011-12 Montreal Canadiens season article would be, if we did added fill-ins? GoodDay (talk) 16:40, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

In the case of the rotating alternate captains of the past, those guys weren't fill-ins when they wore an 'A'. They weren't wearing the letter because somebody was injured. GoodDay (talk) 16:42, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

We are not talking about the Montreal Canadians article but about this one. But apparently your concern is length of the infobox yet you had no problem with a lenghtly list in previous years (due to different circumstances). Fact is: Jokinen is wearing the A. We don't know when Giordano is returning. Jokinen will probably wear this for an extended period of time. We are writing this article for the readers and they will wonder why Jokinen is not listed. I see no problem in listing in, in fact you seem to be the only one having a problem with it. Jokinen has been up there for a while and no one saw a problem. I'm going to revert your change because of that. You shouldn't have just changed it while the talk page discussion was going on in any case, it's bad practice. I've listed my reason to keep it in there, no one but you seems to disagree, I don't see why it should be removed.--Fogeltje (talk) 16:52, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

I invoked BRD (the onus is on 'you', to get a consenus), also the Flames official website doesn't list Jokinen as an A. GoodDay (talk) 16:59, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

You are the one contesting something not me, it should be on you actually. But I'm not in the mood for an edit war over this as I have better things to do. If you want to have your way, that's your thing.--Fogeltje (talk) 17:02, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm not interested in getting my way. Jokinen was added without a consensus & so I removed him, while pointing out the Flames official website doesn't have him as an 'A'. If you can get a consensus 'here', for his addition, then I let it be. GoodDay (talk) 17:06, 17 December 2011 (UTC)