Talk:New York Islanders/Archive 1

Archive 1

Untitled

Would there be a place where it would be appropriate to discuss the controversy over attempts to change the Islanders' sweater and the subsequent reversion to the sweater of their glory days, or the subject of hockey sweaters in general? --Daniel C. Boyer 15:49 24 Jul 2003 (UTC)

www.islesinfo.com

It seems that the automatic presumption is that any non-official website posted as an external link must be some fannish swill, but before anyone else does a knee-jerk reversion, go take a look at it first. It is a genuinely outstanding, comprehensive site, and plainly shows a great deal of up-to-date hockey knowledge. I can only presume that those who've been reverting it haven't bothered to peruse it, but if they haven't, they have no business doing reversions on it. Hell, if it gets reverted again, I'm not going to wait for the original poster to put the citation back up, I'll do it myself. Ravenswing 14:29, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Easter Epic

I was surprised there was nothing written about the Easter Epic, as it was probably the single greatest game the Isles were ever involved with ( Stanley Cups aside, of course). I added it and a link to a page that goes into detail about the series and that game. Feedback is always wanted! Thanks.Rkw1111 04:44, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Heh, it's a game worth commemmorating -- I've always regretted caving in at 1 AM myself -- and you didn't overload the main article with it. Looks good to me. Ravenswing 15:26, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Roster and Alternate Captains

Eric Godard and John Erskine are not under contract to the Islanders. Although they're still on the website, there is really no way to say that unrestricted free agents are on the roster. The ESPN link is ludicrously out of date. Additionally, I'm not sure that we can say that Bates, Satan, Zhitnik or York will be alternate captains in the new season. Croctotheface 23:41, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

True enough, however the pratice in the NHL team article(s), is to leave the 'C' and 'A's with the players who wore them through all/most of the previous (in this case 2005-06) NHL season, plus they're contractual expected back in the lineup for next season. In effect Yashin is captain, York & Zhitnik are alternate captains until replaced. In the case of Bates, he was an alternate captain due to the injury/absents from the lineup of Zhitnik. York and Zhitnik were chosen the A's following the departures of Lukowich and Parrish. GoodDay 20:54, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

"Black Tuesday" reversion

Unless there emerges some broad-based consensus among journalists and commentators that this should be called "Black Tuesday', there is absolutley no justification to use it in an encyclopedia. It is clearly expressing an opinion, which Wikipedia articles should not. Croctotheface 03:40, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

- Acutally, many fans around message boards are declaring it "Black Tuesday". So yes, it should be included, in which the definition is clearly sighted in this disuccsion: July 18, 2006 is known as "Black Tuesday" in the teams history by many Islander fans. I can show you the countless number of fans that are actually defining this day in team history as this. Thus, a definition of this day in the basis of ISLANDER FANS is defined in this topic. Thus it is clearly justified. Islander fans make up the history of the organization just as much as the guy who sits in the front office of the organization or the news media. Sports in American Society 101. At the same time, you have a media account, Steve Simmons of the Toronto Sun, who stated why it can be known as "Black Tuesday" in the teams history Danes1 19 July 2006 (UTC)

It isONE day later. You are a little ahead of yourself WP:NOT#Wikipedia_is_not_a_crystal_ball Where is the Toronto COMMENTARY: His column today is about the Blue Jays [1] ccwaters 14:33, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

"Many" or "countless" fans? Feel free to give us some links; my personal take on it is that "countless" = a single topic on a single bulletin board called "Black Tuesday" with a couple dozen fans holding forth. Beyond which, this doesn't remotely make sense. GMs get fired all the time, and Smith had just about the shortest tenure as a GM in the entire expansion era. Yashin, Satan and Blake getting wiped out in a car crash would be "Black Tuesday." This isn't remotely it. I'm going to edit that section down to the minimum needful at once. Ravenswing 14:36, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

- go to espn.com and watch his interview on ESPNews...YOU GUYS NEED TO STOP MAKING THE HISTORY SEEM ALL NICE AND PRETTY...THE FACT IS MILBURY, WANG AND YESTERDAY ARE A MAJOR PART OF THIS TEAMS HISTORY...AND ITS A NASTY AND SAD ONE. iT IS REFERRED TO IT BECAUSE MANY FANS BELEIVE THAT THE ORGANIZATION HAS FINALLY, AFTER ALL THESE YEARS, HAVE HIT A NEW LOW...THATS WHY IT IS CONSIDERED A BAD DAY. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 169.226.162.94 (talk • contribs)

You need to stop speculating about the long term effects of an event that happened a day ago. Its nothing to shout about. ccwaters 15:40, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

"A Relatively Minor Deal"

I'm not comfortable with the automatic paring down of content on the grounds that it is minor or somehow not notable by definition. If the information is accurate, from a neutral point of view, and sourced, I think it clearly merits inclusion. It is especially notable considering the management follies surrounding the team for the past 10 years. I would not be opposed to creating a new article about the last 10 years and including a more detailed account there. Croctotheface 18:39, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

It certainly is included; it's mentioned, which is all the incident warrants. To inflate the section -- as it had been -- to dwarf the amount of space given to discussing all the Islanders' Cup-winning seasons combined is just another symptom of the tendency of many Wikipedia editors to worship the Now and give short shrift, at best, to anything that happened in the past. Lots of teams fire GMs, several every season, and there's often ephemeral controversy over it. Only two other franchises have ever won four straight Cups, and one would think that's the part of Islanders' history in which Isles fans have the most pride. While I'm on the topic, by the way, what's up with the current events tag? This is hardly a "breaking news" incident. Ravenswing 20:27, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

I was referring to the information you cut as being worthy of inclusion. The standard should not be what gives Islander fans the most pride, but what is or is not notable enough to include. Your judgment as to what the "incident warrants" is the opinion of one editor. The article could merely say, "In July 2006, the Islanders fired GM Neil Smith and replaced him with Garth Snow." Would that be too brief? It's a "mention," after all. As you point out above, this may be the shortest GM tenure since expansion; that's certainly notable. As to your judgment that this will no longer be notable in time or that it is merely "ephemeral controversy" akin to any GM firing is to intentionally downplay the event. Other GM firings are not the talk of the hockey world the way this one is. The previous section was fine as it was and did not merit being reduced. Croctotheface 21:22, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

While the whole incident is rather bizarre, in order to justify giving three paragraphs over to a single event, however odd, in the thirty-plus year history of the franchise, the Dynasty years alone would have to be on the order of a small book. I'm willing to bet that Wikipedia is not intended to be that book, instead focusing on each noteworthy event in a concise but informative matter. A short paragraph is sufficient, barring significant further developments. Doogie2K (talk) 22:54, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

The "board of directors" plan is notable. The current article makes no mention of it. It mentions the "difference in philosophy" but does not explain what that difference is. I'm not married to a certain length or mass of information. If the paragraph in question were more informative, I would have no objections. As for the dynasty years, I agree that they should figure more prominently in the article. I'm also pretty sure that there is some amount of content in between a few paragraphs and a book (of which there are several on the dynasty) that would serve to be both concise and informative. If there is not enough content about one topic, other notable topics should not be reduced proportionally. Croctotheface 23:27, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Agreed, there is a big difference. I'm talking about relative scale. Three paragraphs for even the oddest GM firing is a lot. An extra sentence outlining the BoD situation certainly wouldn't be out of order, but what was there originally was way too much. Doogie2K (talk) 16:45, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

"Other GM firings are not the talk of the hockey world the way this one is." Err? How do you figure? Certainly it's the talk of the hockey world on Long Island, for the moment, but it's only fifth on the Toronto Star website (underneath the thrilling Dominic Moore-Adam Hall trade), it's not listed at all on the Boston Globe or Chicago Tribune websites, the Detroit Free Press notes it in passing only in a team-by-team roundup column. Ravenswing 07:14, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

What's the deal with changing all the forwards positions?

It's true that forwards will often play more than one forward position. That does not mean that they should all be listed as such. I'd be in favor of reverting most of those edits. Croctotheface 22:13, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Redundancy

someone keeps adding a second mention of Overtime in this sentence:

In game 6 of the Stanley Cup Finals, Bobby Nystrom scored at 7:11 of overtime to defeat the Flyers and bring Long Island its first Stanley Cup.

Then asking for the redundancy to be removed. Stop. there is no redundancy in the sentence as shown above and as is currently in the article.

As I wrote on your talk page, I wasn't paying enough attention. I thought I was removing the redundancy when I was in fact adding it. When you wrote the edit summary, I realized what was happening. Thanks for getting it right. Croctotheface 20:02, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Just checking. Thanks!Ucscottb4u 20:06, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Wade Dubielewicz

Wade does appear to be the backup. The market for a more established backup has really thinned out and with the new contract he got immediately after Garth moved to GM does seem to back that theory up.Ucscottb4u 20:44, 14 August 2006 (UTC) –If Wade Isnt the Backup Who is?

I imagine we'll find out after training camp. Ravenswing 04:18, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Concerns with recent edits

I'm concerned about GM11's recent edits to the article. My first instinct was to revert most or all of them, but since I believe they were all undertaken with good faith, I want to post here first. I'm going to revert the changes, then go back and restore the handful that I think were helpful. The ones I will revert are either style issues (by convention, we use American spelling for American teams), POV issues, or indiscriminate or irrelevant information. If anyone thinks I've gone too far, we can discuss it here. Croctotheface 19:29, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Dispute over sub-sub headers

I removed some of them (not all) in good faith because, as I explained at the time, they needlessly clutter the page and disrupt the flow of the text. I preserved several of them, though, because there were cases where the information could be better organized or there were events, such as the 1993 playoff run, that are notable enough that the article should call attention to them. However, the large number of them originally introduced was too many. Additionally, one reason I dislike the overuse of section breaks is that they are parasitic, in that they immediately call for more breaks. For instance, the break for the 1993 run makes the "Arbour retires" break necessary, despite the fact that, left on its own, there would not be a compelling reason to break for a couple of sentences about Arbour stepping down. GoldDragon. who introduced them in the first place, took the troubling step of reverting my good faith changes, reinstating his exact set of sections. Consequently, I put them back the way they were. I'd appreciate some more comments on the issue to see if there is a consensus for either version. Croctotheface 23:49, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Not really, I don't see the breaks being parasitic at all. Indeed, I feel that the breaks better reflects the history of the team, particularly with regards to the team's performance. Second, my edits are in good faith. GoldDragon 00:10, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

"My version is better, so I'm just going to revert to it" is not good faith editing. I made some changes and explained them. Your response amounted to "I like my version better." My edits made an attempt to keep the best of your changes and eliminate the ones that did not improve the article, which is what wikis are supposed to be all about. You simply reverted back to your edits with no consideration to the idea that your changes may not have been perfect. And the breaks are parasitic, according to the way I defined the term above: introducing one for "Easter Epic" forced you to put in another for "Out of playoffs", which is not the least bit notable. "1993 playoff run" forced "Arbour retires" and then "Healy/Hextall trade", neither of which are particularly deserving of attention versus the rest of the article. It is also factually incorrect to imply that Healy was traded for Hextall. Mark Fitzpatrick was traded for Hextall, and then Healy was not protected in the expansion draft. Croctotheface 01:07, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, if you can think of a better header for after the 1993 Miracle, then I would like to here it. The headers show their value once you are deep in the article, as the 1974-79 section is too long. I don't thick its necessary to have as many 4th tier headers as initially planned but nonetheless the existing version has too few as it is. GoldDragon 04:50, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

I've tried to compromise about this. You, however, simply revert to your original version without making any attempt to have a real discussion or reach a consensus. Your most recent edit summary implied that you made some attempt to compromise and meet in the middle. Instead, you put in the same number of sections and even restored some POV and OR text you had put in a while back. The sections you add call undue attention to things like a few years of missing the playoffs or John Spano and the Milsteins. Seven sentences on Spano, who deserves to be little more than a footnote in the history of the team, does not deserve a section. WP:NPOV#Undue weight is, along with breaking up the flow of the text, my main concern with your changes. I've scaled them back and tweaked some of the sections. If you're still unhappy, please take a step back and consider that maybe, just maybe, you don't have a monopoly on wisdom and that there may be something in what I'm saying. If you can't do that, then I have to question why you would want to work on a collaborative project like Wikipedia. Croctotheface 06:05, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

It is an undisputable fact that the Isles and Rangers are in the same conference and division, while this is not true of NYC's MLB and NFL teams. Maybe you don't necessarily like it in the lead of the article but much of the history of the Isles is their bitter rivalry with the Rangers. Again, I disagree with you trying to eliminate the headers for Easter Epic and the 1993 playoff run, as they are treated as landmark moments in the Isles' history, that is why I used the 4th tier header for the two events, to seperate it out from the neighboring seasons which weren't so eventfull. The Gretzky Oiler header is also another significant moment in their dynasty, perhaps more so to Bossy and co than these outside the team. I'm wiling to compromise on Spano and the Milsteins but their sections shouldn't be reduced. GoldDragon 19:04, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

There are lots of potential original research passages that could be based on "undisputable facts". WP:OR prevents "unpublished analysis or synthesis of published material" from being included in articles. The fact that there is lots of OR all over the place on Wikipedia is what prevented me from just saying, "This is OR; it can't be included." If you do find a reputable source that talks about the rivalry the way your passage did, I'd be fine with finding a spot for it somewhere else in the article. It's inappropriate for the lead because this is an article on a 34-year-old hockey team, not their rivalry with the Rangers. As far as the rest, I'm glad that you're willing to compromise on some of the other matters. If and when the dynasty section is expaded, which is sorely needs to be, I could see breaking it up into smaller sections, one of which would mention the Oilers. I moved mention of the Easter Epic and '93 run up a level on the headers as a compromise as well. This prevents the need for "Out of playoffs" and "Arbour retires" sections. I also left in the "Postseason disappointment" section. Croctotheface 01:13, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Sanjay Kumar's Status as Owner

There should be a mention of Sanjay Kumar's status as owner here as he is following the "tradition" of New York Islander owners heading to jail... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.202.248.12 (talk • contribs)

It really isn't that relevant to an article on the team. If your motivation is to make some sort of point about the Islanders, I suggest you reread WP:NPOV. Croctotheface 22:41, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

What does the New York represent

I've always wondered, what does the New York in New York Islanders mean? The city or the state? I personally think it means the state. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.86.122.109 (talk) 00:42, 2 February 2007 (UTC).

The Islanders seem to represent 'Long island' and the Rangers seem to represent 'New York City'. As for the entire state, both franchises represent. I'm guessing of course. GoodDay 22:30, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

They represent Long Island, as their original name was going to be the Long Island ducks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 149.72.62.207 (talk) 07:58, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

But they are named NY- not Nassau, LI, etc. If they were only to represent part of NY they would have been named for part of NY. The New York in NY Islanders represents all of NY as much as the Rangers do. 216.135.213.106 (talk) 17:27, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

POV information about recent years in the lead

I've visited this page many times and I am astounded at how many times certain Wikipedians have redacted or removed accurate, relevant, and consise factual statements about the Islanders. The introductory paragraph, for one, seems to revert every week to a description that covers only the first third of the Islanders' history, completing neglecting to mention the long playoff drought and recent playoff failures that have (unfortunately) marked the most recent decades. Would someone please stop deleting this text? The team did not fold after the 1982-83 season and it is worthwhile to keep the Islanders' grand Stanley Cup run in its factual context. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 164.62.7.74 (talk • contribs)

As I and others who have reverted in the past have said, it is hard to find an article on any sports team that has negative information in the lead paragraph. There are teams that have never won the Cup or their sport's championship, and that is not the focus of the article. It is not the role of the lead paragraph to attempt to summarize the entire history of the team--instead, its job is to provide context for new readers and introduce the article. Futhermore, while it is "factual" that the team has not won a playoff series in a while, it is also factual that they are one of a small handful of teams to qualify for the playoffs in four of the past five seasons. In other words, mere truthfulness is not the same as neutrality, which is required of Wikipedia articles. There are plenty of ways to characterize the past few seasons, and the idea that they have been a failure is certainly an opinion. WP articles should not advance opinions. Croctotheface 17:40, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

May I suggest a compromise, to wit: Some general reference in the opening should be made to the team's performance over the past quarter century or so. I'm sure it could be done without expressing an negative opinion. ...This would leave for another day the controversial "opinion" question of whether fourteen years without a playoff series win (and 23 years without a Finals appearance, the 3d longest active streak in the NHL behind Toronto and St Louis) might be perceived as a disappointing performance by fans and objective observers around the league. I'm sure some neutral mention of the past quarter-century of Islanders hockey can appear in the intro without further characterization. ...Focusing the intro on the franchise's meteoric rise and omitting any mention of its recent performance, frankly, does not seem neutral---and fails to orient the reader to what a fair amount of the article actually covers. --Jsmilla 03:46, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

I'd be willing to delete from the lead all mentions of the meteoric rise and dynasty, though I don't think that serves the readers as well as including it. I would not be willing to say basically any of the things that you talk about. Again, I do not know of any Wikipedia article about a sports team that has negative information in the lead. For instance, teams that have never won a championship do not lead with that fact. Croctotheface 04:18, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Huh? No one is suggesting that we should take out references to the Cups in the lead. If there are "plenty of ways to characterize the past few seasons," there's no need to call recent history "negative"; we could simply report (for example) that the team has generally made the playoffs but not advanced over the past few years. Have you seen the Devils article recently? It's a featured article, and their introduction does not stop with their last Stanley Cup. In fact, they do a pretty good job reporting negative facts in the intro (two franchise moves) without undue negativity. Surely you, as the apparent custodian of this article, could do the same. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 164.62.7.74 (talk) 18:07, 10 May 2007 (UTC).

I make no claim to being the "custodian" of this article. I am not really interested in finding a compromise where a couple of editors hash something out that acknowledges more than one point of view regarding the recent seasons. The lead is not the place to report on points of view. The Devils article is not really analagous, since it does not attempt to assess the performance of the team. Still, I'd probably be in favor of removing the "made the playoffs in X of the last Y years" line from that article's lead. The bottom line is this: championships are notable, and lack of championships is not. Croctotheface 18:24, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

More on 1980-81 and Possibly Less on 1983-84?

Having fatigued of the last discussion, moving on to one more point. I was a season ticket holder in '83-84, and it remains one of my favorite NYI seasons (due to the team's valiant effort that year), but in terms of focus, it seems strange that we have a lot of paragraphs on the Drive for Five, while the second Cup (pretty momentous occasion when it happened, and historically significant too, as a lot of championship teams haven't repeated) gets short shrift. If we don't shorten the '83-84 discussion, we should expand '80-81 at least. Jsmilla 01:50, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

I think the whole dynasty era should be treated in a lot more detail. If you want, you could even start a full article on any of those seasons. Check out New York Islanders seasons: the second column from the left is a bunch of redlinks to full season articles you could start. Croctotheface 02:20, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Captain Bill Guerin?

Not to dispute anyone, but I can't find any sources backing Bill Guerin being named Islanders captain. I must have missed something, someone help. GoodDay 19:20, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

http://www.tsn.ca/nhl/news_story/?ID=213187&hubname=nhl Ucscottb4u 19:44, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Thank you, that all I wanted. PS- What a slap in the face for Mike Sillinger. GoodDay 19:48, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

I just noticed looking over our past captains, Bill Guerin is our first American born captain, does that deserve note?Ucscottb4u 19:57, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, it's noteworthy. PS (again) Gee, what a slap in the face to Mike Sillinger. GoodDay 20:06, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, after Smyth left i would have bet Sillinger was a lock for captainUcscottb4u 20:21, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

It's not our job to mention the American thing, as WP is not a place for commentary and the like. Also, this page is for discussing improvements to the New York Islanders article, not a general discussion of your opinion of what this or that announcement means or whether it's a "slap in the face" to anyone. There are plenty of other places on the web where you can go to discuss that. Croctotheface 20:42, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

I think the American distinction would be allowed at the Bill Guerin page. GoodDay 20:47, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't think it quite qualifies as commentary as it is a fact, just not a necessarily a fact that needs to be mentioned. Ucscottb4u 20:55, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Facts can be presented in a way to make a comment, though I don't mean to suggest that there is some POV issue with saying that. My point, which I didn't say clearly at all, is basically that every potentially interesting fact is not really appropriate to note here. Croctotheface 22:19, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Current Jersey Pictures

Should be added to the Jersey section. Also, the team mascot needs to be mentioned somewhere. Love each other, or perish. ~Auden 04:24, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

WP:SOFIXIT?  ;) Actually, the jersey design could change when they unveil the new Reebok jerseys, though having images of historical jerseys would not be the worst idea. Croctotheface 04:42, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

IslanderMania

Perhaps the individual who keeps deleting the link is unaware, or perhaps he/she has an axe to grind, but as of September 5, 2007, IslanderMania is the *official* message board of the New York Islanders. Therefore, it deserves a link here on Wikipedia and people should refrain from deleting the link without some sort of explanation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.172.252.107 (talk) 01:46, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

First, new comments go at the bottom. Second, I don't know that there has been an attempt to introduce this link to the page since the team took over hosting the board. Third, I actually think that, considering the message board is now hosted at forums.newyorkislanders.com, there is a compelling argument to be made that linking the message board and the official site is redundant. I'm not going to revert, but I don't blame someone if they do. Croctotheface 02:17, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Read WP:EL. And yes, its redundant: if some is really itching to find an unencyclopedic web forum, they can find it within one hop off of the islanders main site. ccwaters 12:23, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Current Lines/Roster

I am a casual (read: very casual) Islanders fan. While reading this article, I noticed that we have Tambellini listed in the Current Lines but not listed on the roster. Which is correct? Jonneroo (talk) 19:21, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

This was fixed on 2/26/2008 by an anonymous user. Jonneroo (talk) 05:18, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

I'd just remove them, lines change all the time. ccwaters (talk) 13:32, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Maybe a good home for the lines table would be in the 2007-08 New York Islanders season article. I'll bring this up on the talk page there, as well. Jonneroo (talk) 23:17, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Charles Wang/Chinese flag

Charles Wang came to America when he was 8 years old? why do you have him listed here as being from China? the guy came here when he was friggin 8 for Christ's sake —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.160.229.126 (talk) 18:47, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Despite the somewhat heated nature of these comments, they're basically right. My understanding is that Wang identifies as an American and is an American citizen. Besides, I think the flags are used mostly because nationality matters for coaches and players because of international competition. That doesn't apply to owners. Croctotheface (talk) 09:56, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

In general we always go by place of birth unless they competed for their new nation internationally. Being an owner he obviously never did that. But alot of hockey fans are concerned with the nationality of owners. That being said we at the ice hockey project recently decided to remove the flags from owners. -Djsasso (talk) 10:23, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Haha, I was bracing for a disagreement here, but then you were just like, "Yeah, consensus says that owners don't need flags." For the record, I think that a person who has citizenship in some country and self-identifies as being of that nationality (and I'm pretty sure that's what's going on here) trumps place of birth. Having that flag there suggests that, you know, someone from communist China owns this team. American businessman, American taxes, etc. Croctotheface (talk) 17:48, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

I guess same thing goes for Bob Nystrom who, although not listed on this page with flag, is listed with swedish nationality on his page - but I'm pretty sure he's an US citizen these days. It might be that Charles Wang, much like Ulf Samuelsson, has dual citizenship? --Silmarillion 85.228.197.28 (talk) 18:59, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Unless we have a source indicating change in citizenship we do not alter that in the infobox as many players have multiple citizenships due to the nature of the game. The hockey projects standard when it comes to players infoboxes is to use the country of origin unless the player has played for another country internationally. And in the case of documented dual citizenship there is a second field in the infobox so that both can be listed. But the key is we need to have a source. We can't just assume. Many players just get working visas and never actually get full citizenship. -Djsasso (talk) 19:04, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

"Fired" is inaccurate?

I don't see how the GM announcing someone won't return as coach is not a firing. If he resigned, he wouldn't be getting paid for the last year of hist contract. He wouldn't be "disappointed." Croctotheface (talk) 05:41, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

I'd say "firing" is completely accurate in this case. A coach is either fired, resigns or his contract expires and is not extended. Resolute 16:36, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

The initial report last night was a mutual ending to their relationship, and that was what was referenced. But that news has changed since then so I guess it was a firing. Jc121383 (talk) 18:18, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Islanders' Full Name

Hey guys, according to the Islanders' website, the full name of the team is the New York Islanders Hockey Club. Think we should include the full name anywhere? CalBears99 (talk) 03:34, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

THat might be the name of the corporation, but then again it's the Boston Bruins Hockey Club, in like fashion.  Ravenswing  04:28, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

WP:R2D

Regarding LaRan's recent edit summary comments, I don't agree that "nobody agreed with me," particularly considering that the closest anyone else got to disagreement on the merits was "it's ok to make the change so long as you're already editing the page." Although that philosophy finds no support in the guideline, it is a far cry from edits like LaRan's most recent one, wherein he DID change redirects to a piped links with no other modifications to the article. Regarding the idea of being silly/overreacting, it takes two to tango in that respect. I firmly believe in what WP:R2D says, which is that piped links should not replace redirects in almost all circumstances. It may indeed be a minor issue, but it's important to me, and I believe the guideline should be applied in this case. LaRan has not argued that the page is better or that the piped links are necessary, just that I shouldn't be reverting him. If there's no reason to have them instead of redirects, then we should just keep the redirects per WP:R2D. Croctotheface (talk) 14:16, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

(shrugs) What R2D says is that, by and large, it's needless to take the trouble to change to piped links. By that same token, it should be needless to take the trouble to revert. There ARE a number of piped links necessary in hockey articles, and they're best handled case by case, rather than by a blanket piped-links-are-evil deal.  Ravenswing  15:03, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm not saying all piped links are bad, but unnecessarily changing redirects to pipes certainly is, and that's what the guideline says. Croctotheface (talk) 15:44, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

The guideline does not say unnecessarily changing the redirects is bad. It says it is unnecessary, and that there are reason why it can been seen as unnecessary. You are far too caught up in the issue and have long ago passed into WP:POINT reversions which is of course a blockable issue. -Djsasso (talk) 22:00, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Beyond which, you're presuming general agreement that the pipes are unnecessary. Often times they're certainly called for in preference to redirects.  Ravenswing  22:03, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

I personally think in this case, the off chance that it stops people from changing the link from one version to the other outweighs the very slight difference to what the source looks like. As a programmer who looks at source all the time, I personally hardly think that piping messes up the source. I don't even think that should be listed as a reason on R2D. I never saw a RfC on adding that verbage to the guideline. -Djsasso (talk) 22:14, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

And I agree with Ravenswing. The guideline says fixing redirects unnecessarily is not necessary. However, the hockey community has pretty much been pretty clear to you that they feel in this individual case they are a necessary change so don't fall under the if its not broken don't fix it rule. -Djsasso (talk) 22:20, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

I think that the off chance someone else (me) finds the source more readable with redirects trumps the off chance that a hypothetical editor would react differently to a pipe than a redirect. You presume that such an editor will be familiar with the whole diacritics debate and not with the distinction between North American and non-North American subject matter. More generally, the guideline doe not give reasons it is unnecessary; it gives reasons it can be detrimental. It says, "There should almost never be a reason to replace redirect with redirect. This kind of change is almost never an improvement, and it can actually be detrimental." It then gives reasons that the change can be detrimental, not merely unnecessary. It's my contention that the changes here are indeed detrimental and should be reverted. If you don't care, then don't care; there's no reason you should privilege the version with pipes over the version with redirects. And furthermore, if I am guilty of "disruption to make a point," then LaRan is also. There is absolutely no reason for him to revert in direct violation of the guideline. Croctotheface (talk) 22:24, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

The biggest thing to be aware of that I think you a missing is that its a guideline not a policy. As such editors are welcome to follow it or not. The hockey project in reguards to diacritics has chosen not to follow it. -Djsasso (talk) 22:28, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, I'd imagine that guidelines are not meant to be ignored for no reason; I asked at the project if there was some reason to use pipes that I was missing, and the answer seemed to be no, there's no reason to prefer pipes. I don't personally agree with the hypothetical "newbie editor" reasoning, but if that's supported by a consensus of editors, then I misunderstood the situation. Croctotheface (talk) 22:37, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Personally I wouldn't have really cared if they were changed to pipes or not changed as neither really makes a difference to me. The needless edit warring however, caught my attention. And that is not an ok situation as needless edit warring between versions is what our compromise was trying to stop. While this isn't an edit war between diacritics and not diacritics, its still an edit war. Ironically over the same links but for a different reason. -Djsasso (talk) 22:41, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Pipelink or Re-direct: As long as the diacritics are hidden, I'm content. GoodDay (talk) 22:44, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

So, there is or is not a consensus to not apply the guideline? Croctotheface (talk) 22:45, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

They have been changed on thousands of other articles, so I don't really see why they should be different here. I think things should just be left as they are now and both of you should walk away. I will leave a message for LaRan asking him to come here and give his reasons for thinking they should be used. That being said I doubt anything anyone could say would sway your opinion so no real consensus would be achieved in all likely hood. -Djsasso (talk) 22:48, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) I say we go with Re-directs, as that's what they're for. If we got'em, use 'em (for all 30 NHL team articles). GoodDay (talk) 22:57, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Someone who agrees with me? Yay! Djsasso, I don't want you to get the wrong idea about me; if there existed a consensus that I didn't agree with personally, I'd go along with it. It's why I posted at the project's discussion page in the first place. It seems, however, that this was never really discussed (and it's not a hugely important issue, so why would it have been), and pipes were used...well, I don't really know why they were used. Probably a bunch of unnecessary "R2D" changes after the player pages first got the diacritics. I'm not in favor of making a singular, concerted effort to go through and change them all back to redirects, but I (obviously) believe that we should follow the guideline for current cases where redirects are used. Croctotheface (talk) 23:12, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

I (previously) used the pipe-links, as a no hard feelings gesture, to the pro-diacritics crowd. GoodDay (talk) 23:19, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Lately I've been doing a lot of work with applying consensuses, conventions, policies, or whatever you'd like to call it. I've replaced redirects with direct links, disambiguated links, unlinked dates, corrected typos, fixed camel-case, formatted dates consistently, etc, etc. I have done this because I thought it enhanced the quality of the articles, and sometimes - in the case of replacing redirects - improved performance. Now "Croc" tells me that I shouldn't do it. I find that hard to believe, although I'm prepared to listen. When I edit a page, I try to fix every flaw that I can find. This means that I'm most of the time doing A Lot of minor changes. Sometimes many of these are redirect replacements. Even if this doesn't improve performance much, it does improve performance. And it's better to have that improvement, than not having it, right? So, what I'd like to know is how many changes one must do, not to risk it being deemed "unnecessary" (by Croc or someone else)? And what I can't understand is why Croc is reverting these changes into a version that I believe he and I agree on is worse. It's totally incomprehensible to me. For what reason - other than discouraging me from doing what I do - do you want these redirects re-inserted, Croc? Do you want worse performance? And, excuse me, I have "argued that the page is better or that the piped links are necessary"; I linked to the WP:HOCKEY consensus on diacritics on the discussion on my talkpage (in the case of piped links). LarRan (talk) 00:09, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

When did I agree that redirects are "worse" than piped links? They are not. That's the whole point of R2D; using pipes rather than redirects is almost always not helpful, and there are reasons to believe it is detrimental. I have been (I thought) very clear that I found the use of the pipes here to be detrimental. When your refer to the notion that you edit to "fix every flaw you can find," your mistake is in asserting that that the existence of a link to a redirect is a flaw. R2D was formed by a consensus of editors, and it says very clearly that such links are not "flaws" that need to be "fixed." Croctotheface (talk) 00:18, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

You obviously fail to see the difference between redirects and piped links. They are not the same thing. There are other redirects than those that lead to player names with diacritics. A couple of examples: "2007-08 NHL season" is a redirect that leads to "2007–08 NHL season" (with a long dash). "Ted Taylor (hockey player)" is a redirect that leads to "Ted Taylor (ice hockey)", which happens to follow the naming convention for articles on hockey players that share their names with other people. There are also misspellings, etc. Do you agree that having the direct link is better, or do you think having that extra access required to reach the eventual target page is better? This is the key question, although I worded it leadingly to be clear. Now, do you understand what I mean?

And, since you don't like piped links, I guess you think it should say "Ted Taylor (ice hockey)" everywhere his name is mentioned in an article? If not, piped links are the solution.

Then there's the combo: piped links in order to avoid a redirect. This is the WP:HOCKEY consensus - also "formed by editors" (who else) - for players with non-English names on NHL-related pages.

Yes, you have been clear on your notion that the use of pipes is detrimental. I agree that redirects may not necessarily be a flaw, but many times they are not exactly what you want, since they decrease performance. (I'm not saying all redirects are bad.) While the R2D consensus may say clearly that such links are not flaws that need to be fixed, once they are fixed they should not be reverted, as that just makes things even worse: instead of one "unnecessary" edit with improved performance, there are two "unneccessary" edits and no improved performance.

LarRan (talk) 01:15, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

No, you misunderstand both the guideline and what I've said about it. Your first paragraph deals entirely with unprintworthy redirects, which the guideline addresses specifically: "In many cases where it might seem appropriate to make this change, such as those involving unprintworthy redirects, the better option is to edit the visible text rather than change where the link is pointing." We should simply change [[2007-08 NHL season]] to [[2007–08 NHL season]]. Using a piped link there would only serve to display the incorrect hyphen when we should display an en-dash (not a long dash, incidentally). When there is a disambig page involved, obviously you should pipe the link; neither I nor the guideline nor anyone disagree with that. I did not say we should never use pipes, just that we should not change a direct link to a (printworthy) redirect to a piped link, as that change does not help and can actually hurt. Finally, you severely misstate the consensus at the hockey wikiproject; there does not exist a consensus to "avoid redirects." I went there and asked very specifically if there was a reason to use pipes over redirects in these cases, and the answer was no. Croctotheface (talk) 01:42, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

No, it's you who are misunderstanding things. Of course I wouldn't replace the hyphenated version with a piped link containing both the hyphenated version and the en-dash version - do you think I'm stupid? What on earth would be the purpose of that? I would replace it with the en-dash version. In the case of diacritics, I now see that you have arbitrarily changed the guideline/policy to suit your purposes without gathering a consensus. I'll change it back until a consensus is reached. It would have been nice of you to notify me of the discussion, but maybe you wanted it, and its outcome, to escape me. LarRan (talk) 10:13, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

And even if the R2D guideline says that we shouldn't put any effort into making those types of changes specifically, there's absolutely no reason to put an effort into reverting the changes, once they're done. That will only make things worse. Btw, you didn't answer "the key question" above, but that may be due to your misunderstanding. LarRan (talk) 10:22, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

I've also observed that you tried to disguise your changes to the policy at wp:hockey as "tweaking" (in the edit comment). That is a contradiction in terms, as tweaking means subtle changes, most often in wording, but with no or little effect to the meaning. Policy changes cannot possibly be classified as tweaking, as they are by definition changes to the meaning. I find that your actions are getting more and more dubious. LarRan (talk) 12:11, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

There was NEVER any consensus to use piped links instead of redirects. The consensus was just not to display redirects, as the discussion at the hockey project confirmed. Why do you think the piped version is superior? The only arguments that you've made to that effect are performance-related arguments, but not only are we not supposed to worry about it; if you DO want to worry about it, you should know that the three reversions you made required THOUSANDS of times more system resources than clicking the redirect would. Are you just so upset that I had revert you that you somehow what to "stick it to me" by edit warring and trying to get me blocked? How does that help the encyclopedia? Since you seem to think that my position is unclear, I will try to answer your "key question" as directly as possible. Regarding whether I think the piped links are better here, no, I do not think they are better. Redirects are better for at least two reasons: they do not contain unnecessary code, and they help with potential data collection on how often the terms are linked with versus without diacritics. It would also improve efficiency if, say, five years down the road, the consensus changes and diacritics are no longer used the way they are now. Croctotheface (talk) 14:02, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Ok, this is getting completely WP:LAME. The idea behind using redirects rather than piped links in this guideline is based on the theory that a redirect could possibly become its own article some day. In the case of a name, where we are hiding a European spelling with diacritics in favour of a North American spelling without diacritics, I really don't think it matters. There are not going to be two people with the names Jaromír Jágr and Jaromir Jagr, so fighting over whether or not to use piped links in this case is pointless. Either serves the same purpose. Just let sleeping dogs lie. Resolute 17:08, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Arf, arf. GoodDay (talk) 17:22, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Since Croc seems to have gotten most things backwards -- among other things, as per his latest comments above, he seems to think that the piped links are there to hide redirects, while the real reason they're there is to hide diacritics and/or disambiguators, at least in the cases we're discussing (there are of course yet more reasons, e.g. possible future articles) -- I thought the I should structure the discussion a bit with a handful of examples:

• This is a redirect: [[Ted Taylor (hockey player)]]. It links to Ted Taylor (ice hockey). The reason why the redirect exists, is that it follows the previous naming convention for hockey players with non-unique names. When the article was renamed to follow the new convention, the redirect was created in its place.
• This is another redirect: [[Nicklas Lidstrom]]. It links to Nicklas Lidström. There are at least one, possiby two, reason(s) why it exists. The first reason is that this player's name contains a diacritic, which may not be present on all keyboards, and people with those should be able to find him anyway. The second, possible one, is that this player page might have started as the non-diacritic version, and the redirect was created when the page was renamed to the correct spelling. (I haven't checked if that is the case.)
• This is a piped link: [[Ted Taylor (ice hockey)|Ted Taylor]]. It's there to hide the disambiguator part of the article name, alternatively to disambiguate him from other Ted Taylors, depending on how you want to look at it.
• This is another piped link: [[Nicklas Lidström|Nicklas Lidstrom]]. It's there to hide the diacritic -- which is the current consensus on North American hockey pages, due to NHL's policy to ignore diacritics -- alternatively to avoid the extra access that would be caused by linking to the redirect, depending on how you want to look at it.

So what I have been doing is neither

• "replacing a redirect with another redirect", nor
• "hiding redirects in piped links",

as suggested by Croc above.

What I have been doing is

• replacing redirects with direct links to the article in question -- e.g. by replacing "(hockey)" or "(hockey player)" with "(ice hockey)" -- or
• hiding diacritics in piped links on North American hockey pages.

Now, WP:R2D seems to suggest that this kind of work shouldn't really be done -- unless something else is done in the same edit. I have been trying to fix as many "flaws" I can find in the same edit: unlinking dates, correcting typos and poor grammar, disambiguating what needs to be disambiguated, etc, etc. Could anybody tell me where the limit is? Are two, five or ten fixes enough to motivate an edit, or should I stop this altogether?

In short: WP:R2D seem to suggest that the improvement is not worth the effort to make this kind of corrections by themselves -- it's "unnecessary", to quote Croc. Ok, if that is everybody's opinion, I'm sure I can make myself useful in other ways. But reverting the "unnecessary" edit, once it's done, that's "Really Unnecessary" (bigtime, and with capital letters), as it only combines going back to a worse source with doubling the effort. Judging from what Croc has written, I suspect he may not have realized that.

Cheers. LarRan (talk) 21:58, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Where does R2D say ANYTHING about "unless something else is done in the same edit"? Could you point out where that is in the guideline? It says the change should not be made, period. You have not described any way in which a piped link is better for a case like Zigmund Palffy. The point of R2D is that the only conceivable benefit is a negligible decrease use of system resources, which we should not be concerned about anyway because we should not worry about performance. On the other hand, there are significant costs associated with no longer knowing how terms are linked, moving pages in the future, and so forth. When LaRan made his sham 3rr report in an attempt to get me blocked, it was closed with these words from an uninvolved admin, User:B :

This page isn't dispute resolution, but if I may attempt to resolve the dispute, LaRan is seeking to link to [[Žigmund Pálffy|Zigmund Palffy]], which is unquestionably wrong under R2D. If that's the direction that WP:HOCKEY is going, then WP:HOCKEY is wrong. This only causes maintenance annoyances down the line. For example, suppose that some time down the line, it is discovered that the wrong a is being used and it should be a different a. If you directly link to the correct title, then links that need to be updated can easily be found with whatlinkshere. But if you pipe the link, then it's much more difficult to find the link. I would think using the guy's actual name with no piping - [[Žigmund Pálffy]] would be correct, but whether you use the Americanized spelling or the correct spelling, piping it is a bad idea. In any event, there's no threat of disruption here and blocking would be purely punitive, so not blocked. --B (talk) 15:05, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

LaRan, are you at last ready to reconsider your position that we should use piped links instead of links to redirects for cases like [[Nicklas Lidstrom]]? Croctotheface (talk) 22:42, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Recent edits to the lead

The lead is better off without this content. First of all, the bit about "uniqueness" in the rivalry appears to be original research, but even if it were not, it would not belong in the lead of the New York Islanders encyclopedia article. Perhaps at the rivalry article, but again, not without proper sourcing. The bit about how they stink or whatever does not belong in the article lead: failing to qualify for or advance in the playoffs is not notable for a sports team. Croctotheface (talk) 05:12, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

"Relocation" section

There is some material here that could have merit and could possibly be included, but not presented as a "possible relocation," which elevates what is at best a long shot possibility into something that the average reader will be very much inclined to believe is likely to happen. "What about X" type arguments regarding the Penguins article are unpersuasive; the "relocation avoided" section there deals with actual events that kept the team in Pittsburgh. It's based in fact, not threats and conjecture, and it recounts a relevant part of the team's history. A section on the arena/land development that explained all aspects of the issue would be an appropriate use of article space. Such a section could mention the threats to move. As the section last stood, it gave undue weight to one particular threat at the expense of other, more important facts surrounding the issue. Croctotheface (talk) 07:40, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

The relocation issues has been reported by numerous credible news sources and is thus notable for inclusion. It is a FACT that Charles Wang issued an ultimatum to Nassau County to approve the Lighthouse Project immediately, or the team will be moved. I've added more info on the Lighthouse project from the Coliseum page to add some balance.Richiekim (talk) 15:44, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

The new section is good. Croctotheface (talk) 01:07, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

The Islanders are staying in New York City metro area, but rumor has it te team may have home games in a future sports arena (the New Jersey Nets NBA team expected to move there) in Brooklyn, NY. Another proposal for Connecticut's first pro sports arena since the Hartford Civic Center demolition, this is in Fairfield County on the New York state line. Charles Wang may look into Hamilton, Ontario, Canada except the Buffalo Sabres and Toronto Maple Leafs in the same regional markets will vote the request down just like with the Phoenix Coyotes under Rick Bettmann. The Islanders and Coyotes are feeling the wrath of financial woes, loss of fan attendance in home games and bankruptcy issues in this economic downturn. + 71.102.2.206 (talk) 01:34, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

So far, the Coyotes and Islanders are staying where they are, not going to accept relocation to Kansas City. The Kansas side (Kansas City, Kansas) offered a new arena for a future NHL and NBA franchise, but no takers have been interested. The Islanders want to remain where they were generally successful in fanfare and the four-in-a-row Stanley Cup drive in the early 1980's...right in New York City. Mike D 26 (talk) 22:13, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

My changes to the most recent section

A user did a complete revert of my changes to the most recent section. While I can understand that the removal of content could be somewhat controversial, some of those changes were unquestionably an improvement. Characterizing Snow's deadline moves as "productive" is undoubtedly opinion. It's certainly possible for someone to believe that the moves were counterproducitve or just not productive at all. My description was neutral. I think and hope that these changes were uncontroversial and just the victim of a blanket revert.

Now, as far as the comments about ticket sales, I believe that such material violates WP:Not as it's essentially news content and WP:Recentism as the only reason it is relevant now is that it happened recently. In five years, let alone in 50 or more years, this particular fact will have very little relevance to this article. The fact that it is sourced does not somehow trump all; there are countless good reasons to exclude sourced information, and this suffers from at least two of them. Regarding the Hedman prediction, that is plainly speculation, which runs afoul of WP:Crystal. Also, many other respected hockey writers and pundits have predicted that the Islanders will take Tavares, and highlighting only one prediction from one person violates WP:NPOV. The only solution to that would be to highlight all sorts of different viewpoints, which would bloat the section with material that will be obsolete six weeks from now. Croctotheface (talk) 19:07, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Value of "captains" section?

I think the material is interesting, but I'm not sure whether it really should have weight in the article. There are a lot of other such tidbits that I'd consider interesting but do not belong in the article. Croctotheface (talk) 00:36, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Well, it almost passed FLC with that exact information. It failed and was merged because it wasn't good enough as a stand alone list. Being that reviewers felt the information was important enough for it to become featured, I think it's all worth keeping. iMatthew ^talk at 00:39, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm certainly fine with listing the captains, if your reference to FLC is to the featured list process. The prose that's in the article now, with stuff about releasing Flatley and whatever else, strikes me as trivia. There had been a reference to Linden being a captain for one season, when in fact he was captain at the end of one season and then through the bulk of the next one until he was traded for a first rounder near the deadline. I don't see a need for prose content here that, as I pointed out in my edit summary, exceeds the coverage we give one of the cup wins. Croctotheface (talk) 01:01, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

There is a strange support for the captains list on the main article that I really don't understand. You can axe award winners and first round draft picks, putting them into their own child articles, but touching the captains list seems to set some people off. Resolute 00:45, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree. It's odd. iMatthew ^talk at 02:52, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Navy blue

The Navy blue color used by the NYI is not consistent with Navy blue... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.236.171.23 (talk) 17:38, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

How? Croctotheface (talk) 18:17, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Please explain. -- ISLANDERS27 15:33, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Rick DiPietro

Why is DiPietro excluded from the current roster? He hasn't retired nor has he been traded. The guy's on IR. GoodDay (talk) 18:09, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

The editors are shunning him. ;-) He's not on IR, according to the NYI web site, so he should be on the roster tpl. Alaney2k (talk) 20:20, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

There are pictures of DiPietro too. It's not a case of alien abduction... Alaney2k (talk) 20:20, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm gonna re-add him to the roster, tomorrow. GoodDay (talk) 23:12, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

DP was in Bridgeport, playing for the Sound Tigers on a conditioning loan. Raul17 (talk) 02:51, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Okie Dokie, I see he's still on the Islanders roster article, just hidden (like the other conditioning Islanders). GoodDay (talk) 16:46, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Islanders new colors/uniforms

It should be noted that the New York Islanders have switched back to a royal colored crest as their official logo, coinciding with their change of uniform. The team's official colors are now royal blue, orange and white. For evidence of the proper Islanders crest, see the Islanders official website or Chris Creamer's website (sportslogos.net) It's worth noting that the current Isles crest has 4 stripes on the hockey stick to signify their 4 consecutive Stanley Cups. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.127.161.69 (talk) 03:15, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

The 3rd Uniform needs to be changed to reflect the fact that the Islanders are no longer wearing the black 3rd jersey, and are now instead using the blue jersey with the NY lettering that they wore in the Stadium Series game at Yankee Stadium. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.212.168.194 (talk) 14:34, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Islanders Relocation

The article should have a section that addresses relocation and mentions proposed cities that may the Islanders may relocate to.

72.82.169.214 (talk) 14:13, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

No, it really shouldn't. All those are speculative WP:CRYSTAL violations, and we don't need to bloat the article every time a bored sportswriter decides - for today, anyway - that Kansas City (or Seattle, or Cleveland, or Las Vegas, or Ulan Bator ...) is the next Destination de Jour.  ῲ Ravenswing ῴ  14:39, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Actually, yes it should due to recent events. On Monday 1 August 2011, Nassau County voters rejected a pubic question referendum to expend $400 Million to replace/overhaul the Nassau Coliseum (No: 57% - Yes: 43%). According to the news stories, the rejection of the public question increases the likelihood that a relocation will occur.

72.82.169.214 (talk) 18:06, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

No, because the referendum mostly be turned down by NIFA which overseeing Nassau County's finances if there was a yes vote. The vote just means that another way must be found (the owner footing more of the bill & the taxpayers taking less of the risk) or have it (re-)clarify the risk if projected monies are not met. There was too much positive projections for a franchise said be losing millions the last ten years to have a rosy future just because a new arena is being built. A lousy product will not encourage an increase of the fanbase. Raul17 (talk) 18:30, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

And there have been any number of times over the last 25 years when The Franchise Is In Danger! has been splashed across headlines. These are not noteworthy speculations.  ῲ Ravenswing ῴ  03:56, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Future arena and city

WP:CRYSTAL states "1.Individual scheduled or expected future events should be included only if the event is notable and almost certain to take place. Dates are not definite until the event actually takes place." These two sentences seem to apply perfectly in this situation. The prose that mentions the planned change of location is clearly appropriate. And it seems nearly as clear in my opinion that changing the dates listed in the infobox before the event actually happens is inappropriate. -- Fyrefly (talk) 21:15, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Also, in my opinion, the weird wording (2015-beyond) suggests that this is the kind of thing we shouldn't be doing. -- Fyrefly (talk) 21:25, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Since the contract does expire in 2015, and does meet WP:CRYSTAL by the fact that the team will be moving, maybe putting "starting 2015" or otherwise changing the infobox wording will be satisfactory. Canuck^{89 (have words with me)} 01:18, October 26, 2012 (UTC)

Well, if the Isles have actually signed a lease with the Barclay Center, that should satisfy CRYSTAL in terms of the infobox. We can expect the change to take place, barring extraordinary events. Ravenswing 05:02, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

To be honest I think its fine to be there. Normally however, I wouldn't put it there. But knowing how these things occur on sports pages. If we don't have it there it will be added almost every single day by a well meaning IP until it does happen. So generally in the interest of not having editors have to waste their time over and over reverting what is technically an ok edit I think it should remain. It clearly meets WP:CRYSTAL because their lease at the old arena ends in 2015 and their lease at the new arena starts in 2015. This is what is meant by that "is almost certain to occur". It would take a very very out of the ordinary even to stop this move from happening for the 2015 season. Have no problem rewording however. I personally like "starting 2015". -DJSasso (talk) 12:13, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

It should be removed from the infobox, until 2015. The Islanders could be folded by then, for all we know. GoodDay (talk) 15:08, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

Unprovable hypotheticals do not overcome the fact that the Islanders have a signed lease to relocate to Barclays in 2015. Resolute 00:10, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

A lot of events can occur between now & then. Anyways, I've modified the info, so that it doesn't look post-2015. GoodDay (talk) 00:27, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

The clear consensus was that it was ok as it was. To satisfy crystalball it only has to be very unlikely for those events to occur. It doesn't have to be impossible that things will occur. I've reverted back to the original since there was a discussion on-going and clearly there was no consensus for the change you made yet. -DJSasso (talk) 00:29, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

A lot of events can occur. And if they do, we will deal with it when it does. There is no point to playing games with your imagination. Resolute 00:53, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

IMO Resolute, we should let the article body, handle the 2015 events. Leave the infobox in a 'current' status. GoodDay (talk) 00:57, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

Tbh Fyrael, we should just leave the current rink & city of the team & wait until 2015, to change it. There's no reason for a panic, with the event occuring in 3yrs? The future move, can be handle in the article content. GoodDay (talk) 00:36, 28 October 2012 (UTC)