Talk:2009–10 NHL season

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Thinking of adding to "Debuts" or "Last Games"???

Please see the following link to determine if your addition meets "notability" guidelines or else your edits may be reverted

Project Ice Hockey Guidelines for Notability

Lazy[edit]

The so called "expert" that edits this page needs to pull up his boots and update the standings please. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.71.136.35 (talk) 04:25, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Editing Standings[edit]

How do I edit the standings? The conference standings need updated but I can't figure out how to do so.error9900

The standings are pulled in via a template. Although I WP:AGF, do you feel comfortable editing a template that is used across many pages of Wikipedia? (PS don't forget to sign all of your talkpage posts with ~~~~) (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 10:19, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In my opinion, I don't think you should do that. An unfamiliar person like you could mess up pages, whereas I'm more comfortable with that kind of stuff. Also, you might want to contact User:IMatthew as well; he likes sports too. -- ISLANDERS27 16:09, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

They need to fix it where you can edit the standings. NBA season 09-10 is same way. Mjhammerle123 (talk) 23:54, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's probably embedded in a template or something. -- ISLANDERS27 06:40, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It may be set up this way because it automatically pulls the official standings in from NHL.com at a specific time each morning (once they're official). If you manually update it, it would break the link. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 09:37, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Bwilkins, the standings templates are manually updated. Islanders27, there is no reason why you should discourage error9900 from editing these templates. By my count, error9900 has been editing for four and half years, whereas you have been editing as Islanders27 for just over one week. Perhaps Your Royal Highness should give error9900 the benefit of the doubt? — Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 15:30, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No matter who does the editing, it needs to be fixed so ANYBODY AT ALL can do it. Mjhammerle123 (talk) 21:39, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe. -- ISLANDERS27 05:39, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Season start[edit]

This NHL season started on October 1 in the US and in Canada, so claiming that it will start October 2 in Europe is plain and simply wrong.Jeppiz (talk) 04:12, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed. — Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 18:10, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Spacing issue[edit]

Anyone know what the issue is with the Northeast and Southeast Division standings? There seems to be a bigger space between them then all the other tables. Also, after the Southeast Division table, there is a wider space before the Western Conference header is shown. I've checked the templates and the page out. I'm clueless. Anyone know?Mbsusmc (talk) 14:01, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I fixed it. The <noinclude> tag on the Southeast ([1]) and Northeast ([2]) templates fell one line below where it does in the other templates. Thus, there was one extra line after each of those templates. — Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 14:33, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. It was driving me crazy, couldn't figure it out.Mbsusmc (talk) 00:30, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I could have done it if I hadn't been busy watching hockey on Thursday night. -- ISLANDERS27 07:32, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Standings[edit]

Why is phoenix below vancover i mean there ahead by 6 points can someone clarify —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.32.141.183 (talk) 18:06, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The top three spots in each conference are reserved for the top team in each division. Vancouver is top of the Northwest Division, but Phoenix is in the Pacific Division, which San Jose currently leads. — Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 04:36, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I thought the Devils clinched the Atlantic Division. GoodDay (talk) 23:20, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Consistency of team names[edit]

When team names are mentioned in this article, they are written in three different ways; using the Anaheim Ducks as an example, the teams are listed as "Anaheim", "the Ducks", or "the Anaheim Ducks". I would prefer we use the full name throughout the article. This improves the article for people unfamiliar with the league. — Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 19:38, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

When team names are repeated throughout a single section, then it should be OK to use one of the other formats (i.e. "the Ducks" or "Anaheim") after the first mention states the full name. — Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 19:43, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Debuts[edit]

Sorry to bring this up as it seems to be brung up alot. But if notability states that a player for debut or last games must have led a statistical category to be included. Do we consider notability for a player who would lead all rookies in scoring, as meeting this criteria? I persoanlly believe calder trophy or no calder trophy but im curious of others opinions. So basically should Matt Duschene be inlcuded as a notable first game player... Thanks for the thoughts Ottawa4ever (talk) 20:11, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well I'm certainly by no means an authority on this subject, but I enjoy adding to these articles just like everyone else does. I think the real issue is someone has the opportunity to put up their favorite players and to contribute blindly without taking notice of the big warning on the discussion page of every season. (I have been in this very situation when I started :P) As I page back to previous seasons' pages, you will notice that they too have players who do not qualify for debuts. So should we continue to police as usual? Downwardone (talk) 22:50, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The issue is that we never went backwards cleaning up the season articles when we came up with the criteria. Someone really should get to doing that but its probably not high priority for most people. -DJSasso (talk) 15:15, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Aaron Ward[edit]

While he doesn't qualify under the typical guidelines, he has 15 seasons and 3 Stanley Cups. I feel an acception can be made for his inclusion on last games. Remove if necessary... Downwardone (talk) 20:11, 24 August 2010 (UTC)downwardone[reply]

I think i would be in favour of ammending the notable guidelines for players who have won over 3 Stanley cups as being notable for inclusion in these lists. Especially considering how rare its becoming in today's NHL. Additional thoughts? Ottawa4ever (talk) 20:38, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I was ok with it. 3 cups with 2 diff teams. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 21:03, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Some of those players that we're deleted played their first NHL games in that season[edit]

Some of them include Matt Duchene of the Colorado Avalanche (He was nominated for the Calder Trophy that season) and Brad Marchand of the Boston Bruins (He won the Stanley with the Bruins in 2010-11 season).

So I strongly suggest that you guys stop removing their names on the NHL debuts on 2009-10 NHL season. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.237.73.225 (talk) 08:19, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The requirements to be "of note" are listed at WP:ICEHOCKEY, so I "strongly suggest" you stop re-adding them. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 11:58, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
With due to respect, some rules and requirements are sometimes stupid and uncalled for. Those rules are wrong, the players are notable deserve to be listed, not the way the WP:ICEHOCKEY does and those rules are not it. You guys better think about that.
Have you ever read WP:CONSENSUS? The "rules" have been defined by that, which is Wikipedia's KEY. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 23:38, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on 2009–10 NHL season. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:48, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2009–10_NHL_season&oldid=1196557707"