Talk:Los Angeles Kings/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

List of Los Angeles Kings players

I have started a List of Los Angeles Kings players. It would be a great help if when adding a player to the main Kings article, that same player could be added to the list. Thanks! Masterhatch 15 August 2005

Notable Players section

There are consensus formats for the major subjections in Notable Players to be found on Wikipedia:WikiProject_Ice_Hockey/Team_pages_format. In particular, players listed in HOF sections must have played a significant number of games for the cited team and that their play for the team have a material impact on the players' election to the HHOF. For Not to be forgotten, entries should be based around twelve players for expansion era teams (double that for Original Six teams), be well balanced for position and inclusive of the entire history of the team, not merely the last decade. Criteria should include career leaders and winners of league trophies and honors, as well as players of unusual notoriety. Players already cited on the Team Captain, Hall of Famer and Retired Numbers lists are not included. Otherwise, what you have is list creep, where every player anyone ever liked is added, and someone like Neal Broten (who played a total of 19 games in a Kings' uniform) or Billy Smith (5 games) can seriously be cited as having an impact on Los Angeles hockey history. It's been suggested that other players who contributors feel meaningfully impacted team history be worked into the main article. RGTraynor 08:58, September 10, 2005 (UTC)

RE: Notable Players section

Being rather new to Wikipedia, I wasn't aware of "consensus formats." Thanks. However, at least in the case of who should be listed as HHOF players for a particular team, Wikipedia should not be dictating who should be listed and who should not be. Rather, the official listings of the Hockey Hall of Fame should be used. Otherwise, it's as if Wikipedia is setting additional requirements that the HHOF does not recognize. While I agree that players such as Harry Howell, who played just two seasons (143 games) for the Kings (who were awful in those seasons), made their mark in the NHL with other teams, the HHOF lists players such as Howell with all the teams they played for. Wikipedia should do the same. Gmatsuda 08:38, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

We aren't trying to contradict the official hall of fame in any way. by having consensus formats, we are trying to keep team pages from being overloaded. As it is, we have a complete List of members of the Hockey Hall of Fame. If you are so inclinded, you could add the teams that the players played for after the players' names.

For example:

• Wayne Gretzky (Edmonton Oilers, Los Angeles Kings, St. Louis Blues, New York Rangers).

If we listed (on the team article pages at least) every tom dick and harry that played for each team that is in the hall of fame, we would get (as we had only a month ago) great long useless lists. Personally (and many other wikipedians seem to agree) that the team pages aren't player lists. Masterhatch 14:10, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

My own comments, which echo Masterhatch's, are in detail on the Team Page Format talk section, where the complaint was duplicated. RGTraynor 19:08, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

Los Angeles Kings Records

I am moving the team records to their own page (Los Angeles Kings Records) just like the Edmonton Oilers Records and Montreal Canadiens Records. With the records on their own page, all the team records can be added. Masterhatch 04:01, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

Where's Roman Cechmanek?

I've haven't seen him play with the Kings this season (05-06) yet. Mightberight/wrong 20:21, 27 October 2005

Nor are you likely to; he's playing in the Czech league this season. RGTraynor 07:56, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

Fixed a bit of a problem with the logos

I removed the alternate logo from the infobox as it was already on the main page, and pointed that fact out. NoseNuggets 10:41 PM US EST Nov 17 2005.

Captains List

Luc Robitaille, doesn't belong on the "Captains List", he was only Interim-captain (wearing the 'C', in the abscence of Captain Wayne Gretzky, while Gretz's was out of the line-up). Gretzky was still Captain. I've a similar argument on the Buffalo Sabres article , in the "Discussion" area. GoodDay 21:38, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

And you're similarly wrong here. Robitaille is listed by the NHL Media Guide as having served as captain that season; that's authoritative enough, I believe. I'll revert it now. RGTraynor 08:15, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

GoodDay is correct in his/her characterization of the situation--Robitaille was named as captain while Gretzky sat out the first three months of the season with a herniated thoracic disc. When he returned to the lineup in January, 1993, Gretzky resumed his captaincy. However, it has been officially recognized for a good number of years now that Robitaille was indeed the tenth captain in the Kings' history. He is listed as a captain during the 1992-93 season in both the 2005-06 Los Angeles Kings Media Guide and in the 2006 National Hockey League Official Guide And Record Book. Gmatsuda 09:26, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

Well, if the NHL Media Guide, a "verifiable source" listed Robitaille as a Kings Captain (not just interim-captain), then who am I to dispute it. Robitaille was indeed captain of the Los Angeles Kings (for the first half of 1992-93 season). GoodDay 15:53, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

Ya know, the citations of those publications has been listed in this article for awhile. This whole thing could've been easily avoided... :) Gmatsuda 22:30, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

The more so in that every team in the league's been gone over long since using the same verifiable sources. We really pretty much got it right the first time, GoodDay. RGTraynor 06:17, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

Do we really need to indicate periods when there was no captain? Seems like a little thing that isn't really necessary, IMHO. Gmatsuda 03:25, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

It's pertinent information (and done that way project-wide), and to leave those times blank altogether just invites questions. RGTraynor 13:37, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

OK. I can live with that. :-) Gmatsuda 23:44, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Why are we back to adding the "interim" label to Luc Robitaille as captain? As you can see above, we resolved this almost two years ago. -- Gmatsuda 17:47, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Just because it's used on other NHL team articles doesn't mean it's correct. This needs to be discussed. -- Gmatsuda 17:56, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Current Roster

I just restored a previous version in which I indicated that Noah Clarke is on the Kings' roster, but that he was recalled on emergency basis...thought it might be useful information. Someone removed that information earlier.

I'm not saying it should or shouldn't be included. I'm just wondering why it was removed? Gmatsuda 23:03, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Season-by-season record

Has there been any consideration as to whether to add the season-by-season records for the Kings or not? --Buchanan-Hermit 19:21, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Not sure why they are not there. If you're up to it, go for it.. Just ry to keep it consistent with the other teams. ccwaters 19:52, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Done. Boy, the Kings have a long history... Feel free to check for errors and mistakes because I'm not going to until well after 24 hours from now. I've had enough of the Kings for one day. :) --Buchanan-Hermit 04:15, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

1990-91 "Division Championship"

I re-looked it up...the Kings 2005 Media Guide states that they did indeed win a division championship in 1990-91...that's definivite enough. :-) Gmatsuda 03:26, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

As much to the point, the NHL Official Guide says so, as does Hockey DB and numerous other sources. A little research goes a long way! RGTraynor 07:43, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Article citations

What is the deal with the style of citations in this article? They are all spread out in different sections. Unless someone adds footnotes as per Wikipedia:Footnotes sometime soon, I might move everything to a "References" section (as per Wikipedia:Citing sources#Complete citations in a "References" section). Zzyzx11 (Talk) 05:16, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm still somewhat of a Wikipedia newbie. I'll fix the citations when I get a chance. Gmatsuda 08:04, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

OK...I've started fixing the citation style in the article. I hope I've got it right now. Will get to what I haven't fixed later...it'll be a work-in-progress for awhile. Gmatsuda 11:24, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

I had some spare time today, so I finished fixing the citation style in the article. There were a few sub-sections that I didn't change because there was no point (the citation(s) applied to the entire sub-section). There are A LOT of citations...Some may think it's over-kill. However, my thought is that what is in the article is now backed up just about entirely with something to substantiate and validate it as fact.

I hope I did it right... Gmatsuda 20:42, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Also, do we really need citations on the rosters list? -→Buchanan-Hermit™/?! 05:31, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Not anymore...been discussing this on the main ice hockey project talk page. :-) Gmatsuda 05:37, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

If one hasn't noticed already, I've taken a torch to much of the references on this page, removing obvious references or stuff that could be found on other Wiki articles, and using the ability to reuse the same source in multiple places to cut down on redundancy of references. I'm about to hit the sack, but I'll probably get to cutting down more references when I'm done with classes tommorow. —NeoChaosX [talk | contribs] 06:42, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Good; this is far and away the most citation-overrun article in the WikiProject. To quote from WP:CITE, "Attribution is especially needed for direct quotes, information that is contentious or likely to be challenged, and superlatives and absolutes (such as statements that something is the best, first or only one of its kind)." Mere facts such as that a certain player was acquired in a trade, a coach fired, a player leading the league in a statistical category, or that the Kings won (or lost) a particular playoff series are easily verifiable and uncontroversial, and shouldn't require citations. RGTraynor 07:10, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

"Poor sightlines at the Sports Arena?"

This is the first I'd heard of that being a reason why the Forum was built. I'd thought is was so Cooke would be able to keep income from other events like concerts, and to more easily secure an NHL team. The reason the Lakers and Kings were locked out at the start of the 1967-68 season in the first place was because the Coliseum Commission didn't want the Lakers to move to Ingelwood.

Staszu13 19:23, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Does anyone have a way to verify whether or not the sightlines at the Sports Arena were poor when the Kings played there? If not, the part about the sightlines should probably be removed from the article. Gmatsuda 00:40, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Given that no one has been able to substantiate whether or not the sightlines at the Los Angeles Sports Arena were bad (or not) for hockey, I have removed this from the article. Gmatsuda 06:37, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Section in article about McSorley stick blade incident

Does anyone know what is wrong with the part of the article talking about Marty McSorley's stick blade being too wide during the 93 Cup finals against Montreal? It appears in the article when you go to the edit page, but mysteriously doesn't appear in the main article. Gujuguy 22:10, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Had something to do with the citations. I moved them around a bit and it's OK now. :-) Gmatsuda 22:31, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Too wide? Wasn't his stick blade curved too much? GoodDay 03:31, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, it was the curve, not the width. At least it's correct in the article. :-) Gmatsuda 07:31, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

External Links

Noticed that the external links, other than the Kings official web site, were removed. I looked over WP:EL, but at least in the case of kingshockey.com, the site does provide factual information about the team. Yes, I am the news editor for that site, so yes, I have a stake in it, but I can attest to the fact that the site is in compliance with WP:EL in terms of "What to link." It also meets point 4 under "What should be linked."

The site is also directly related to the Kings. It is not a personal web site and we get our news directly from the Kings' Communications office, and first-hand interviews and observations (I am a freelance writer and am credentialed by the Kings).

I didn't add the site as an external link to promote the site, FWIW, especially since the site is completely free to use (donations are accepted to help keep the site running, but no access is denied if one doesn't cough up some $$. The site also does not require registration to read articles...only for accessing the discussion area). But this could easily be viewed as a conflict of interest on my part, so I won't put the link back up. I do hope that others will look at the site and determine if it belongs in the LA Kings article. Gmatsuda 20:01, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Typically I interpret EL guideline to imply that NHL team fan sites should have an almanac element to them. Certainly blogs and forums are a NO. I would say kingshockey.com is borderline blog. Maybe I'm strict, but I look at NFL team articles' external links in horror. Other views from the peanut gallery are welcome. ccwaters 20:47, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Heh...considering that a writer from a Canadian newspaper that tracks hockey blogs (I forgot the web site, but it's popular) says that it isn't a blog, well, your mileage may vary. :-) FWIW, it was never intended to be a blog. Gmatsuda 22:32, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Brian Kilrea, HHOFer

Kilrea was a player with the Kings in 1967-68 season, he was later inducted into the HHOF as a minor-league coach. This presents a problem - How do we list him? In the HHOF sections 'Players' category (as an LA Kings player, who later was inducted in the HHOF)? or in the 'Builders' category, which is erroneous- Kilrea wasn't a coach or assistant coach of the LA Kings. If Kilrea is listed in the 'Builders' category, then Bryan Trottier would be listed in the Rangers HHOF sections 'builders category' (which also would be inaccurate). GoodDay 21:50, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Wow, this is going to be a tough one. He isn't a builder. If he is in the HHOF, do we discriminate between various levels? I'd say no, but I think this is one of those discussions that require consensus at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ice Hockey/Team pages format. Orangemarlin 22:13, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Kilrea was inducted into the HHOF as a builder, so he should be listed in the Kings article as a builder, IMHO. Gmatsuda 23:11, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

But, when was Kilrea ever a part of the Kings management (example: Kings President, GM, Coach etc)? GoodDay 18:23, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Once again, I think we should discuss this as an "exception" to the rule. What do you think? Orangemarlin 19:42, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Alright, give it try (add Kilrea to the list). Hopefully, similar exceptions, don't start to pop up on all 30 NHL team pages. GoodDay 21:01, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

What exception? It is plainly the current consensus to list HHOFers for every team with which they've ever been associated, no matter how tenuous (or outright non-existant) that tenure's connection with their election. Kilrea's inclusion in the HHOF section here is not one whit more idiotic than presuming that five terrible games in a Kings' uniform makes Billy Smith a "Los Angeles Kings" HHOFer. All the genuinely qualified players and builders were already cited in the articles; the only new names added to the various HHOF sections are eyebrow-raisers such as Kilrea's inclusion here. You'll soon find, I'm sure, people insisting that Jacques Lemaire be listed in the Wild's entry, Larry Robinson in New Jersey's, Wayne Gretzky in Phoenix's, and so on and so forth, with equal justification ... heck, Gordie Howe's been listed in Hartford, Guy Lafleur in Quebec, just a matter of time. This is the inevitable (and quite predictable) result of the overturn of the old consensus. RGTraynor 06:31, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Gee...why don't you tell us how you REALLY feel! :-) Gmatsuda 07:33, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Heh, how I really feel would violate a couple policies. (grins) That being said, of course Kilrea doesn't by any sane, objective measure qualify as a "Los Angeles Kings" Honoured Member. Current consensus holds to the contrary, unfortunately. RGTraynor 15:08, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

It's this kind of bickering, that makes me prefer to have the HHOF sections eliminated. The HHOF sections will (someday), be givin' the boot, it only a matter of time. GoodDay 18:47, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

BTW: I was totally joking when I asked RGTraynor, "Gee...why don't you tell us how you REALLY feel! :-)" I wouldn't call any of this "bickering." Gmatsuda 19:50, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

I have to side with RGTraynor however on this point, Kilrea's listing will open floodgates. There'll be additions -Gretzky, as a Coyotes builder, Trottier as a Rangers builder (I'd removed that weeks ago). All the more reason, to scrap the HHOF section. GoodDay 18:58, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree, up to the point that HHOF'ers should be removed. The problem we have is that the HHOF has set the standard, not Wikipedia, and they list all players, builders, etc. for all the teams they were involved with. I don't have a problem with that. Also I can see how some people think it's POV to not list someone just because they didn't contribute in a significant way to a team. But I can also see how listing someone who didn't contribute a lot could lead someone trying to learn about a team to think, say, in the case of the Kings, that Grant Fuhr played a major role for them. But I think we're stuck because of the HHOF's standard. Gmatsuda 19:50, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

How about we add a footnote (or whatever you want to call it) for Kilrea, stating that he was inducted as a builder for his work with the Ottawa 67's, or something to that affect? Gmatsuda 19:52, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

You're on the right track, but let's try this. List Kilrea in a HHOF section at Ottawa 67's page, as a Builder. HHOF sections (while they exist), shouldn't be limited to NHL team pages. Afterall, The HHOF doesn't restrict membership to NHL personnel (prime example - Tretiak). GoodDay 19:59, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

I've removed Kilrea from the HHOF section. He wasn't inducted into the HHOF as a player. He's mentioned as a HHOF builder, at Ottawa 67's, as he should be. We've got to be more accurate with our additions to the lists. GoodDay 22:11, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Fine with me. And actually, I just double-checked the HHOF site. Players are listed under all the teams they played for, but that's it. Builders aren't listed under a specific team, and Kilrea isn't listed under Kings players inducted. Gmatsuda 00:13, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

I really don't see why this is so difficult. You list players that were inducted as players on all the teams they played for. You list people inducted as builders on all the teams the were involved in building. You list people inducted as coaches on all the teams they coached. Therefore you don't get most of these examples people keep flaunting to stop people like Smith from being listed on the Kings page. --Djsasso 20:27, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

FYI: Hockeykevin has twice added Brian Kilrea as an HHOFer on Los Angeles Kings in recent days, and I've reverted the edit twice, per our discussion above. I've left him a message on his talk page. Gmatsuda 16:32, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Gretzky Retirement

Put up a factual dispute due to the fact that most of the other NHL team pages list the date of league wide retirement as Feb. 6, 2000, whereas here it's listed as April 18, 1999 BT14 06:25, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Fixed. Gmatsuda 17:29, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Going for GA?

OK...should we go for Good Article status? What do you think needs to be done to get this article up to that standard? Gmatsuda 05:36, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

The following was on one of the archived Wikiproject talk pages...

At first glance, it needs organization into subheadings. Right now, it has massive sections under Level 2 headings whose names mean nothing to non-Kings fans. --Mus Musculus 21:25, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Take a look at New Jersey Devils. The posters there have done an excellent job bringing that one up to FA status. It is something I would like to do with Calgary Flames as well at some point. Probably after I complete my Flames season articles.

Two needs that stand out clearly for the Los Angeles Kings article are the need for a more comprehensive lead section, and better fair use descriptions for the logos included. A couple of images of players or Kings games would help as well, I would think. Resolute 23:31, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

If I asked the Kings Communications Department for player photos (they might provide them; game photos might be difficult to obtain because nowadays, they all come from Getty Images league-wide and there is a cost involved, most of the time), what would I need to obtain from them in order to prove that I got permission to use them here? Gmatsuda 08:42, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Anyone got any other ideas? Gmatsuda 05:46, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

The 'Retried Numbers' and 'Hall of Fame' sections need to be combined under 'Honored Members' and done in pros style. The New Jersey Devils example, is prefer by WPTP. GoodDay 16:58, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

OK...more suggestions/ideas? Gmatsuda 08:39, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Should have a Jersey "section", instead of logos spread throughout. Pictures needed too. Is the mascot mentioned? Love each other, or perish. ~Auden 01:00, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Go for GA and FA. I think it would be cool. In response to Auden, the wikipolice get a little cranky about images that don't meet a whole host of standards. If someone can obtain permission from the Kings for certain images, let's do it. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 23:09, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

I just finished getting Manzanar promoted to GA and now FA. I was concentrating on that. Eventually, I'll get the energy and inspiration to work on this article.

I should be able to get some photos from the Kings. But once again, the question is: what would I need to obtain from them in order to prove that I got permission to use them here? And now that I think more about that, how do I make that available here? Would I have to scan what they give me into a PDF and add it to the page for the image(s) in question? -- Gmatsuda 23:21, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Images must be free for use on wikipedia. I know that the Kings have their own photographer and any image provided by them are under copyright. Best way to get an image here is to take one yourself or ask someone to who has images to release them in to the public domain. --Krm500 00:15, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

I understand all that. But...if I can get photos from the Kings and permission to use them, they would be great for inclusion. So the leaves the same questions regarding what we'd need to have to prove that they have granted permission to use whatever photos they provide. -- Gmatsuda 00:29, 21 September 2007 (UTC)