Talk:Vancouver Canucks/Archive 1
 | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
List of Vancouver Canucks players
I have started a List of Vancouver Canucks players. It would be a great help if when adding a player to the main Canucks article that you could also add him to the list. Thanks! Masterhatch 12 August 2005
Hall of Famers
The HHOF inducts more than just players, and more than just NHLers. Also, the Canucks are more than just an NHL franchise - they were a PCHL and WHL franchise as well.
- Likewise, there is a consensus criteria for the Hall of Fame team sections; players must have played a significant portion of their careers with a particular team to be mentioned in that team section, and those seasons must significantly and meaningfully contribute to their HHOF selection. (It's damned tough, for instance, to make that argument for Cam Neely as a Canuck, when contemporary media guides just before the trade cite his play as a disappointment) Non-players must be significantly associated with the team. Please see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Ice_Hockey for discussion. RGTraynor 18:02, September 4, 2005 (UTC)
- And just to safe my bets, I went back and looked over the WHL players listed. Stanley, Esposito, Bower and Worsley each played only a single season or less for the WHL Canucks; that's not significant even by the slightly lower standards we've been employing in the minor league entries. Andy Bathgate's the only entry who played any significant time for the WHL Canucks; at least he played four seasons there. RGTraynor 18:11, September 4, 2005 (UTC)
Not to be forgotten
The former Canucks in this list must be widely considered to have made significant contributions to the club and/or the game, and ideally have been recognized for it with a hall of fame induction, league or team award(s), and/or by setting a league or team record - and have not been mentioned anywhere else in the article.
http://www.comnet.ca/~dmarchak/canaward.htm
http://www.canucks.com/subpage.asp?sectionID=27
http://www.rauzulusstreet.com/hockey/nhlrecords/nhlrecords.html
Personal favourites, local boys, and one playoff/game wonders don't count.
- There is a consensus standard for the NTBF sections on the NHL team pages which is being applied (as time permits) league-wide and which has been completed for Vancouver. This standard broadly encompasses a floor level of twelve players for post 1967-teams, as well as players of unusual notoriety (Tiger Williams, for instance), and is roughly based on team career leaders for games played, points, and league honors (with an eye towards a balance of eras and positions), while only excluding team captains, Hall of Famers and current squad members already cited. Please see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Ice_Hockey/Team_pages_format if you have any further questions or you wish to reopen the discussion as to the criteria used. I'll be reverting the list momentarily. RGTraynor 05:17, September 4, 2005 (UTC)
- Thanks for pointing out this discussion of a guideline - I was not aware of it.
- However, I thoroughly researched my initial inclusions to this list:
- Babych was a rock on defense for 409 games over seven seasons, third player to play his 1000th NHL game as a Canuck, and recorded 27 points in the playoffs.
- Geoff Courtnall is a BC Hockey Hall of Fame inductee who recorded 246 points in 292 games, was the first Canuck to score two regular season overtime goals in one season (1990-91), scored 11 game winning goals in 1992-93 (tied for NHL lead), was third in team scoring during 1994 playoffs (19 points) and scored 5 regular season overtime goals (2nd highest in team history). He stands 8th in career game winning goals as a Canuck.
- Gelinas is a Cyclone Taylor Trophy, Molson Cup, Most Exciting Player, and 2-time Fred J. Hume Award winner who recorded 171 points in 258 games as a Canuck and recorded 12 playoff points in three seasons.
- Lumme is a 4-time Babe Pratt Trophy winner who tied a team record for most career points by a defenseman. He stands 10th in career games played and 8th in career assists as a Canuck.
- Skriko is a Molson Cup and 2-time Cyrus H. McLean Trophy winner who produced 373 points in 472 games and once scored two short-handed goals during the same penalty. He stands 6th in career regular season overtime goals, 9th in career first goals, 5th in career shorthanded goals, 10th in career powerplay goals, 10th in career game winning goals, 10th in career points, 9th in career goals and had 4 consecutive 30+ goal seasons as a Canuck.
- Sundstrom is a President's Trophy, Molson Cup, Cyclone Taylor Trophy and 2-time Cyrus H. McLean Trophy winner who was the first Canuck to record 90 points in a season, holds team records for most assists (6) and points (7) in one game and was the first Canuck to score a regular season overtime goal.
- However, I thoroughly researched my initial inclusions to this list:
- I can understand leaving Courtnall or even Sundstrom or Adams off the list, but to replace them with Halward?!? (A Fred J. Hume Award and Babe Pratt Trophy winner, but on a famously weak defensive team and with a career plus/minus of -99, and single season plus/minus of -39 - both the 5th worst by an individual in the history of the NHL club.) Ronning, Ververgaert and Kearns (who has the Canucks worst career plus/minus record at -157) make more sense, but are still inappropriate choices for a list this short. I would love to hear your justifications for these picks. In fact, I expect to hear them from you or I will definitely be reverting the list.
- Also, no one besides Canucks fans, to my knowledge, refers to Greg Adams as "Gus". I'd rather not see a precedent set and stuff like "Cookie" and "Jovocop" and "Sisters" start popping up all over. 154.20.170.147 00:10, September 5, 2005 (UTC)
- Maybe that distinction was made because there were 3 pro hockey players named Greg Adams, 2 of which suited up for the Canucks. "Gus" is by far the most notable though. ccwaters 11:17, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
I agree that some of those players should be in the "not to be forgotten" section, but there is another solution: Mention those players in the actual article in the Canucks history section. The Canucks history section is kinda short and could use expanding. Mentioning notable trades and achievments by those other players in the history section would take care of that problem. Just a thought. Masterhatch 4 September 2005
- Allow me to explain a bit more about the criteria. For one thing, the intent is to balance era and position both. The NTBF pages overwhelmingly favored forwards who'd played within the last fifteen seasons. The Canucks (as with most teams) have been around longer than that, and a balanced NTBF would include players from the Seventies as well as a proper number of defensemen. Furthermore, since I'm not a Vancouver local with personal axes to grind, I can rely a bit more on the historical record. I definitely missed Lumme, no error, and Skriko probably should be in there, but assertions that Dennis Kearns doesn't belong? Kearns is the Canucks' career scoring leader on defense, and that he had a mediocre plus-minus during the decade when everyone on the team did doesn't much signify, unless you do not believe that the Seventies deserve recognition. Gelinas had only two good seasons for Vancouver; if everyone who played two or three good years for a team were included in NTBF, the sections would be a hundred players deep. That aside, Ronning and Ververgaert just plain outplayed and outscored him -- Ronning didn't have a mere 12 playoff points, he had 15 in the 1994 playoffs alone, and Ververgaert was named to play in two NHL All-Star Games, an honor neither Gelinas, Sundstrom or Skriko ever received.
- Ultimately, the aim of choosing isn't to cite career marks or local awards (or statistical blips like in what uniform a player played his thousandth game, where he went to college or how many assists he logged in a single game) to justify inclusion of the players you've already decided you want. It's to go over the career marks and league awards to select the players at the top of the heap. Canucks history didn't start in the mid-Eighties; NTBF shouldn't start from that date either. RGTraynor 17:36, September 4, 2005 (UTC)
- You don't have to convince me (I was the one that suggested the restrictions on NTBF in the first place). I was merely offering up a solution to avoid a potential edit war. Gelinas, for example, while his numbers don't put him in the NTBF, the way he was delt with by Iron Mike needs to at least have his name mentioned somewhere on the page. Actually, I think the short time that Keenan was behind the bench of the Canucks had a major impact on the team today and a short paragraph in the history section describing the affects and after-affects of all his wheelings and dealings needs to be written. People here in Vancouver, (for the most part) hated him because he traded away all the old fan favourites, but they were just that, old fan favourites. He brought in a lot of youth and previously underachievers (namely Todd) and set the team in the right direction. Honestly, I think this entire Canucks page needs to be re-worked and expanded (such as a better and more thorough description of their two Cup runs), but alas, I don't have time as I have too many other projects on the go that I think are more important. Masterhatch 5 September 2005
- Oh, I'm not addressing you, Masterhatch, I'm answering the anonymous fellow. And I agree that Canucks history in general deserves more column space; perhaps the poster would be pleased to fill it out. RGTraynor 02:41, September 5, 2005 (UTC)
Greg "Gus" Adams
I was the one who named him Greg "Gus" Adams. I did that as a way of separating the two Greg Adams that have played in the NHL. If a better way to separate the Adams exists, then I will be happy to hear suggestions. Using "nicknames" is, in my humble opinion, a good way of separating players with the same name and separating players who share a name with someone else famous who wasn't a hockey player. Masterhatch 4 September 2005
- The 'other' Greg Adams was generally referred to as "Greg C. Adams," and he barely played for the Canucks (or any NHL team, for that matter), so I wouldn't be too concerned about confusion. -J21
- Any idea what Greg C. Adams middle name actually was? Masterhatch 02:39, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
Players' Nationalities
The flags are a neat idea, but I feel compelled to point out that putting German and Korean flags for Sven Butenschon (a Canadian citizen who learned to play hockey in Alberta) and Richard Park (a U.S. citizen who learned his hockey in Ontario) respectively, is a little misleading. -J21
- Hm. This is worth discussing on the Team Pages Format talk page. RGTraynor 04:22, 16 September 2005 (UTC)
- I don't think it is misleading at all to put a Korean flag next to Richard Park. He was born in Korea to Korean parents. He is a Korean who came to North America at an early age. If you don't put a Korean flag next to Park, what do you put? An American flag? Sure that might in some cases, but Park learned hockey in Canada, so then do you put a Canadian flag next to his name? Trying to separate out players by where they learned hockey or what citizenship(s) they have becomes just way too confusing and complicated and that would involve creating a list of "rules" how to classify players. It is so much simpler to just go by their birth country. It seems wrong to put anything but a Korean flag next to Park. Anyways, the discussion is being continued here: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ice Hockey/Team pages format Masterhatch 14:30, 16 September 2005 (UTC)
- Park has US citizenship and plays for Team USA in international tournaments. According to the page Masterhatch referred to, that is justification for an American flag in Park's case because there is no question to which country he pledges allegiance to. --Buchanan-Hermit 17:00, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
- I don't think it is misleading at all to put a Korean flag next to Richard Park. He was born in Korea to Korean parents. He is a Korean who came to North America at an early age. If you don't put a Korean flag next to Park, what do you put? An American flag? Sure that might in some cases, but Park learned hockey in Canada, so then do you put a Canadian flag next to his name? Trying to separate out players by where they learned hockey or what citizenship(s) they have becomes just way too confusing and complicated and that would involve creating a list of "rules" how to classify players. It is so much simpler to just go by their birth country. It seems wrong to put anything but a Korean flag next to Park. Anyways, the discussion is being continued here: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ice Hockey/Team pages format Masterhatch 14:30, 16 September 2005 (UTC)
Current Roster hijinks
Hrm. CC, Masterhatch, do you think it might be time to consider formal Wikipedia proceedings against 24.64.223.203? He keeps putting up his weird squad table, he won't talk to anyone, there are reversion skirmishes all over, and he's blowing off consensus. EarlAndrew, you're a sysop, yes? Is it appropriate at this stage, and if so how do we go about it? RGTraynor 11:03, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
- Has he done anything recently? I thought that was over? ccwaters 12:30, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
- I haven't seen anything he has done with those templates for a while now. I went and checked his edit history and I saw nothing. Anyways, I put my vote in for deletion on the deletion page. Masterhatch 12:35, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
Nice job with the new template, Masterhatch. About my edits: I know about King's PCS issues and Fedorov's agent whining to the press, but both these guys are still listed on the official team roster, and I don't think they should be removed from the page until we get official word that they're gone. http://www.canucks.com/theteam/roster.asp?sectionID=23 Oystergumbo 10:31, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
The PCHL/WHL years
As the subject is the "Vancouver Canucks", I believe that more info about the early pre-NHL years should be included on the same page. I realize that many only think of the Canucks as an NHL expansion club, but they are wrong. Many/most of the Canucks' WHL players carried over into the NHL, (Kurtenbach, Howie Young, Tracy Pratt, Cesare Maniago, Charlie Hodge, etc.) and I suspect that much of the management did too. Take a look at the Edmonton Oilers page and their reference to the WHA years for example. Unfortunately, info on the early years isn't so easy to find, (for me, anyway) but I'm going to try and do some digging and see what I turn up. If anyone else is interested, please do the same. Also, I find it a bit amazing that there's no mention or link anywhere in the Canucks' entry about the Stanley Cup-winning Millionaires/Maroons, their home ice - the massive (for the time) and innovative Denman Arena, or the Patrick brothers. The Lions of the NWHL/PCHL, and the Blazers of the WHA should be noted as well, in my opinion. Vancouver has a long and fascinating hockey history. This should be recognized. Oystergumbo 11:04, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
- But not here. The article is about the Canucks, not about Vancouver hockey history in general. The Blazers have their own page as do the Patricks, and if you want to do up pages for the Millionaires or flesh out the other articles, go for it! Of course, as the one non-WHA team with a clear pre-NHL lineage, I agree that more attention should be paid to the WHL Canucks; heck, it's why I kept Andy Bathgate on the Hall of Fame list for Vancouver, because unlike a number of other players cited, he genuinely was an impact player for the WHL team. RGTraynor 16:45, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
- The teams in the PCHL and WHL where the Canucks. So I think it sould be here. 207.81.204.205 04:02, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
- If what you mean is that the Canucks' page should discuss the team's PCHL/WHL history, I completely agree -- unique to any other non-WHA team since the NHL was founded, the WHL Vancouver Canucks were admitted to the league outright; there's a clear and unarguable lineage. RGTraynor 05:58, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
There really needs to be a lot more about the pre-NHL Canucks on this page. Reading it over, I could hardly tell that they existed before joining, and I follow the Canucks. And as stated earlier, the best place to include other Vancouver hockey teams would be at the article started for Vancouver sports: Sports in Vancouver. Which if I recall correctly, lacks any reference to the WHA. Kaiser matias 23:04, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
- Agreed. I could do the research, but there's a lot on my plate right now, and deserving WHL teams without a constituency (Seattle Totems, Portland Buckaroos, etc.). RGTraynor 00:37, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
Rivalries
The Canucks are not an original six club. Listing "rivalries" is a bit sketchy under any circumstances - as every team is technically a rival - but in the case of this expansion club, it is completely frivolous. It should be left on the Rangers/Bruins/Leafs/Habs pages. Oystergumbo 08:05, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
- Agreed. I can think of some non-Original Six rivalries: Philadelphia-Pittsburgh, Isles-Rangers, Edmonton-Calgary. Not many, though. RGTraynor 08:58, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
- You beat me to the punch. I was just about to post a similar response. Notice those teams you mentioned are really close to each other and are in the same state or province. I had already moved Edmonton as a rival off the Canucks page once and it was put back on. Oystergumbo then removed it again. Edmonton isn't in the same province and Vancouver rarely meets them in the playoffs. Masterhatch 09:08, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
Logos on Season by season
So WB, you think that it looks better with the blank spots beside the season? Using your reasoning, why don't we use dito marks every time they consecutively miss the playoffs? or consecutively get knocked out in the first round? Those stats are repeating themselves. It looks much better (I think) with the logos beside each season. There is a discussion (although very brief) here and you are quite welcome to post your comments about it there. Also, there are about 4 or 5 teams that do it that way. Changing one and not the others makes no sense. The reason there are only four or five is because I haven't gotten around to finishing them all yet. I have been too busy with my List of NHL seasons of late. Masterhatch 14:36, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
- The logos look cool, and seem especially pertinent given the controversial history of Vancouver's uniform changes. RGTraynor 18:40, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
- Calm down. I wouldn't use the rowspace for the playoffs because it starts off new every year. Logos, on the contrary, continue until it's changed. Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ice Hockey/Team pages format#Season by season and logos isn't best source to refer to since you're the one who wrote it. If you think you need to put logos again and agin, go ahead. I just think it's unnecessary.
- I didn't use that as a source. I pointed you to that site because that is where it is being discussed and if you want to discuss it, that is the best place. Masterhatch 02:35, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
First post here, so please don't flame me if I do it wrong. I notice that the page seems to be protected, probably a good idea, but I was hoping to update the "Logos" section, as there is essentially no mention of the current logo. Let me know if I can help. hammondking
Vancouver Canucks Records
The recent addition to the Canucks article that lists the career leaders should be moved to its own article, Vancouver Canucks Records, just like Edmonton Oilers Records and Montreal Canadiens Records. Masterhatch 20:50, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
Assistant captains
Who's took out the assistant captains and captain? I think those should be there! Marcus1060 04:32, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
- Someone re-entered them just now. But there's one thing that may change, I think -- Ohlund had the "A" for the game at Long Island. Not sure if that's a permanent move or not. I guess time will tell. --Buchanan-Hermit 15:09, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
- Yep, Ohlund's wearing the A. Updated the roster for that. I'm assuming this is because of Jovo (the normal A) not being in the lineup recently. --Buchanan-Hermit 22:32, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
- I don't think Ohlund needs to have the A listed, it is only temporary because Jovo's out. It'd make no sense to add and remove A's as people get hurt. To tell you the truth I'm surprised they even gave Ohlund the A at all, I thought Bertuzzi or Linden would have just worn it like they usually do for home games. But it may also be some way of saying "hey even though we took away your A when Linden came back, we still appreciate you blah blah" Marcus1060 06:08, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
I was also surprised that the Canucks had Ohlund wear an "A" while Jovo was injured/out of the line-up. After all, don't the Canucks have Four alternate captains? Oh well, it's up to the Coach. GoodDay 00:25, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
Injury Status
Do you think maybe we should she the status of a playes injury? Such as for Jovo DTD, and Cloutier IR? Marcus1060 06:11, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
- Well, I've been noting players on IR, (which is a special roster status). Players with Day-to-Day injuries are still counted as on regular rosters and count towards the 23 man limit. They just get scratched for the game-day 20 man rosters. IR is generally more long term and easier to track. I don't feel like maintaining the status of a player that gets scratched 2 games for a sore rib. ccwaters 12:25, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
- Hmm... for some reason User:207.6.189.146 deleted Cloutier. It slipped by me. I readded him. ccwaters 12:36, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
- So is Jovo on injured reserve now? Marcus1060 01:52, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
- Yes, unfortunately. He's going to have surgery. Canucks.com has the story. Buchanan-Hermit™..CONTRIBS..SPEAK! 04:13, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
- Yeah I knew his was getting surgery, but for some reason I wasn't sure if he was on the IR, stupid I know :P Marcus1060 04:39, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
- Yes, unfortunately. He's going to have surgery. Canucks.com has the story. Buchanan-Hermit™..CONTRIBS..SPEAK! 04:13, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
- So is Jovo on injured reserve now? Marcus1060 01:52, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
Is Rypien still with the Canucks? Or was he sent down to Moose with his injury? At the very least he is on injured reserve. Marcus1060 08:45, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
He's not on the Moose... http://www.moosehockey.com/theteam/roster.php . There he is http://www.canucks.com/theteam/roster.asp?sectionID=23&id=238#career . What's his injury? He's probably Day to day and getting scratched. ccwaters 14:31, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
- He's injured reserve. Source TSN Marcus1060 22:33, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
- Ok. "season ending" broken ankle... http://www.canada.com/theprovince/news/sports/story.html?id=67fc0491-1ce5-4f33-a90c-13b3ca0d7b92&k=56445 ccwaters 03:42, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
Sven Butenschon's flag
Although he was born in Germany, he was raised in Canada and has personally said that, given a choice, he'd prefer to play for Canada [1]. So that's why I changed his flag from Germany to Canada -- it just makes more sense, since he is more representative of Canada than Germany. --Buchanan-Hermit™..CONTRIBS..SPEAK! 03:15, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
- I completely agree. As that is the case with Richard Park too. Marcus1060 01:42, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
- Well, in Park's case, he actually played with a national team. Butenschon didn't, but his personal history is the real determining factor, I think. (I'm keeping a record of these instances in my userspace[2]. I'm hoping it will be proposed as a guideline, but it needs more public support.) --Buchanan-Hermit™..CONTRIBS..SPEAK! 01:48, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
- I completely agree. As that is the case with Richard Park too. Marcus1060 01:42, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
Salo is not on the injured reserve, he's week to week. Marcus1060 09:02, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
Nicknames
How many of those nicknames do you actually hear? I don't think I've even used a quarter of the ones listed. --Buchanan-Hermit™..CONTRIBS..SPEAK! 20:49, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
- What nicknames are you talking about exactly? Marcus1060 02:26, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
- In the article: Nicknames: "Canuckers", "Nucks," "nuckers", "k'nuck nucks", "nuck nucks", "mighty nucks", "canuckle-heads". I think I've only used Nucks, and I rarely even use that... Buchanan-Hermit™..CONTRIBS..SPEAK! 03:33, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
- Yeah, those are bad... I say only one that should be there is Nucks, so take them out. I though you where refering to player nicknames. Marcus1060 10:42, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
- In the article: Nicknames: "Canuckers", "Nucks," "nuckers", "k'nuck nucks", "nuck nucks", "mighty nucks", "canuckle-heads". I think I've only used Nucks, and I rarely even use that... Buchanan-Hermit™..CONTRIBS..SPEAK! 03:33, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
Todd Bertuzzi
What's your opinion on Todd Bertuzzi? Did he cost Vancouver a playoff spot? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pnatt (talk • contribs)
- My opinion is that it's a discussion appropriate to a hockey blog or bulletin board, neither of which Wikipedia is. WP:NOT RGTraynor 09:15, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
Conference Standings instead of Divison Standings?
I reckon that Conference Standings are much more important to place in an encyclopedia article than the Division Standings. What's your opinion? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pnatt (talk • contribs)
- You're welcome to raise the question over at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Ice_Hockey/Team_pages_format. If you get a consensus behind your idea, then the format might be changed. RGTraynor 09:16, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
Firing of Marc Crawford
Noted in the article by me. I wonder who will replace him? :: Colin Keigher 22:48, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
Overrated Canucks?
Expected them out in 2006. They must be one of the most overrated teams of the last TEN years. What in the HELL have they accomplished? They should be further ahead by now, like OTT, TB, CGY. I got so sick of the BS of Burke. Glad to see him go. Now Crawford is gonna get chucked. Good riddance Van. CJ DUB 19:15, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
- Over the last five seasons they've racked up a 208-147 record, something a lot of cities (my own included) would wish to have, although I wouldn't myself call a team overrated and say they should be doing better in the same sentence -- either people expected too much of them or they didn't. Granted, those people who believe that the only measure of success is Cup wins are SOL, but then again only five teams have won Cups in the last ten seasons, so they've plenty of company. RGTraynor 21:02, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
They have not iced a decent playoff team in quite some time. They also miss the playoffs quite a bit. The mark of success is: PROGRESS. Or at least some. They are highly touted but have not improved much in the last 5 years, hence overrated. CJ DUB 01:32, 9 May 2006 (UTC) Sorry I gotta go watch Ottawa get spanked now.
- Guess what, this is Wikipedia not Canucks.com - but on that fact, GO CANUCKS GO -- Tawker 07:01, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
Minnesota a main rival?
I see the Wild were added on as one of the Canucks' main rivals. The Wild themselves seem to think so -- for reasons I still don't understand -- but I hardly think this is one of the Canucks' bigger rivalries. They have only been in the division a few seasons, and I'd say Edmonton is a bigger rival than Minnesota. J21 22:19, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
- Being a Canucks fan for a long time, I agree. Minnesota isn't a big rival. It's not even a small rival. It doesn't even deserve to be in the same sentence as the words "Canucks" and "rivals." I'm removing it from the article; they're not a rival at all. -→Buchanan-Hermit™/?! 05:49, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
- Definitely a rival, but under the first definition of the word rather than the second like the other teams listed: adversary, antagonist, enemy, foe. -- Steven Fisher 06:52, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
{{{team_history}}}
What's going on with this? I can't even find it to remove it. Marcus1060talk 01:19, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
Mitchell's jersey number
This pic shows that Mitchell will be wearing the #8 jersey for the Canucks. I'm tempted to add that to the article, but what about Weinrich? He has #8 as well. -→Buchanan-Hermit™/?! 00:51, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
It is pretty much garantueed that he is not going to be a Canuck anymore, technically he isn't even any more. Same with Brookbank, Brown, Linden, Park, Bouck, and Carter. Marcus1060talk 00:58, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
Jozef Balej has number 8 too. Geez... -→Buchanan-Hermit™/?! 04:38, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
Bertuzzi's points
Todd Bertuzzi should be in the top point list. He has 449 points with the Vancouver Canucks.
NHL awards and trophies
I think Bure should be in this sections, under "Goal-scoring leaders (prior to introduction of 'Rocket' Richard Trophy)" because he led the league in scoring in 1993-94 with 60 goals. Marcus1060 21:06, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
Johnny Canuck as mascot origin
Watching Hockey Night in Canada tonight (Flames-Canucks), and Jim Hughson presented a segment coming out of a commercial in the first period. It showed the Johnny Canuck comic book character and stated that as the inspiration for the Canucks nickname when the team was founded in 1945. Johnny Canuck is also on the side of Luongo's helmet. I didn't see this mentioned in the article...possibly for lack of corroborating evidence? It's been presented on TV, though, so we've got the HNIC broadcast to rely on it now. —C.Fred (talk) 03:53, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
Colours era
Whats do the follow mean
- 1.2 Blue and Green Era (1970-1978)
- 1.3 Orange and Black Era (1978-1997)
- 1.4 Blue and Black Era (1997-Present)
If its the colours of the team then it should be spelled out in the article suchs as in 1970 the teams colours changed to blue and green ........... (end of paragraph) In 1978 the colours changed to Orange and Black which fan's consider a different era (Gnevin 16:33, 9 January 2007 (UTC))
Retired Numbers
We should put retired numbers in the infobox. Also, just for fun, what numbers do u think will be retired?
I think #16Trevor Linden cuz he's a canuck forever. most gp. and maybe retire #19, Markus Naslund, for most goals scored. I mean, nazzy is a great one. Who else do u think?
-Qsung
- No we shouldn't & speculation on Number Retirements has no place on NHL team pages. GoodDay 22:07, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
The Curse
I put the 12 year cycle on. If u dont know what it is go read it on the Vancouver Canucks article. It's not really well written so help out with it. Anyway, thoughts about this superstition or coincidence?
At this time of the season, if the Canucks make it to the finals at their current pace, my prediction is that Buffalo would be the team representing New York (since the city happens to be in NY state), and if it does happen, that would just be very weird. Sandtrooper 19:28, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
- While I'm fully aware of it, and hope it to be true so this is our year again (would also add New Jersey, as they are only minutes from New York City), it can't be put in the article. At least not yet. If you find some reputable sources that validate it, then I can see it staying. Otherwise it violates WP:NOR. Kaiser matias 21:04, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
The "Doctored" Photo
That doctored photo of the Canucks in a weird colour scheme was not created on the Canucks.com site. I've been reading into it, and people seem to believe that. That is because they likely live in Vancouver. This photo was doctored by, likely, the St. John's Courier. It was found in the paper, and therefore was added as a contributing factor to the article (relating to the jerseys). Don't just remove it because the colour scheme looks awful. It contributes to the article, leave it there. 207.216.163.163 07:48, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
- That photo does nothing for the article. There is no mention anywhere of why it was put there, or that they plan to use it, or if it was a prototype. Yes, it has been said that the Canucks are looking to change their logo (see this Vancouver Sun article) with an announcment on August 1st. But the Canucks have yet to officialy announce this to anyone short of this article, which is highly speculative. Remember that Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. We can not speculate about what they might do with the logo. Thats why that image does not belong here. Kaiser matias 09:35, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
- Beyond any factor, the fact of the matter is that the Canucks do not use a logo with that color scheme, nor have any announced plans to do so. I can't for the life of me see what a faked, invented color scheme adds to an article that's supposedly factual any more than would be the case if the newspaper came out with a doctored photo showing the Sedin brothers on the ice wearing string bikinis. Take it to a Canucks discussion forum. RGTraynor 10:16, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
Brent Sopel: Calgary or Saskatoon?
Where exactly was Sopel born? The NHL site and canucks.com say that he is from Calgary. However, my Canucks Media Guide from 2004 states he is from Saskatoon, as do several other sources. Further backing up the Saskatoon claim is the fact that he played minor hockey in Saskatoon, and coincidental and less usefull is he played for the Blades while in the WHL. So can anyone actually confirm where exactly he is from? Kaiser matias 21:10, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
Upcoming jerseys
I removed the blurb about the Johnny Canuck logo, which at this point seems to be pure speculation (see [3] or [4]). If someone has more definite info on it, they may revert but please state a source. Usonophile 16:18, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
The same franchise ?
I'm probably going to get 'a raking' over this but, the idea that the Canucks of the NHL (a major league) is anyway, a continuation of the Canucks of the PCHL & WHL (both minor leagues) is laughable. It's differant for the Hurricanes, Avalanche, Oilers and Coyotes, who's orgins were from the WHA (a major league). Did the WHL Canucks retain the managment staff & most of their players when the (suppossed) transfer to the NHL, occured? GoodDay 20:32, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
- As much the WHA teams did, come to that. Murray Hall, Ted Taylor, Marc Reaume, Len Lunde and George Gardner were on both the 69-70 WHL Canucks and the 70-71 NHL Canucks, and Orland Kurtenbach used to play for the WHL team. By contrast, Quebec had eight players in common, and Winnipeg seven. The management staff was the same (heck, the owner of the WHL team was the one who bought the NHL franchise). RGTraynor 21:26, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
- The PCHL/WHL thing still make my eye twich (but my PoV, is in the minority). PCHL/WHL player inductions in the HHOF section, is also an eye twicher (but I won't go there, again). PS- should the PCHL & WHL Canucks captains, also be added? I'm guessing they should. GoodDay 21:37, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
- Well ... the HHOF entries aren't any more invalid than for any other minor league team, and I suppose those minor league entries will balloon in the same way the NHL ones now have done. (Heck, never mind Grant Fuhr being a Calgary Flames HHOFer, he's a Nova Scotia Oilers' HHOFer too!) As far as captaincy lists, the same applies, unless one wants to hive off (defensibly) the WHL team into its own article. RGTraynor 21:42, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
- That's a great idea, have a 'Vancouver Canucks (PCHL)' article & a 'Vancouver Canucks (WHL)' article (the same as there's a Winnipeg Jets, Hartford Whalers, Atlanta Flames etc). Perhaps someone (someday) will create such articles. Here's hoping. As for the suggestion of the Nova Scotia Oilers 'Grant Fuhr' introduction, don't give the inclustionists any ideas. GoodDay 21:55, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
- Just FYI, PCHL = WHL; it's just as was done (and in the exact same way, come to that) forty years before, the league changed names. RGTraynor 04:10, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
- I stand corrected, PCHL did rename itself the WHL. PS- see talk: Chicago Blackhawks and talk: Detroit Red Wings, concerning their Rosebuds & Aristocrats/Cougars orgins. GoodDay 18:19, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
- Just FYI, PCHL = WHL; it's just as was done (and in the exact same way, come to that) forty years before, the league changed names. RGTraynor 04:10, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
- That's a great idea, have a 'Vancouver Canucks (PCHL)' article & a 'Vancouver Canucks (WHL)' article (the same as there's a Winnipeg Jets, Hartford Whalers, Atlanta Flames etc). Perhaps someone (someday) will create such articles. Here's hoping. As for the suggestion of the Nova Scotia Oilers 'Grant Fuhr' introduction, don't give the inclustionists any ideas. GoodDay 21:55, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
- Well ... the HHOF entries aren't any more invalid than for any other minor league team, and I suppose those minor league entries will balloon in the same way the NHL ones now have done. (Heck, never mind Grant Fuhr being a Calgary Flames HHOFer, he's a Nova Scotia Oilers' HHOFer too!) As far as captaincy lists, the same applies, unless one wants to hive off (defensibly) the WHL team into its own article. RGTraynor 21:42, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
- The PCHL/WHL thing still make my eye twich (but my PoV, is in the minority). PCHL/WHL player inductions in the HHOF section, is also an eye twicher (but I won't go there, again). PS- should the PCHL & WHL Canucks captains, also be added? I'm guessing they should. GoodDay 21:37, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
Founding date
I was just reading the article and noticed in the infobox it lists the Canucks as being founded in 1945. While that is true for the WHL team, it is not so for the NHL team. Further confusing the issue is in the opening paragraph it says they started in 1970. The infobox should have some mention as to the fact that they were not an NHL team until 1970, as its confusing, even to longtime followers of hockey. Any suggestions on what exactly to be done about it? Kaiser matias 00:50, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
- As per the discussion above, which already goes into the issue at some length, it is exactly as accurate (and for similar reasons) as the Edmonton Oilers article stating that the Oilers were founded in 1972, which they were, despite the fact that the team was not then in the NHL. As far as whether people might be confused ... err, well, that's what the article is for; the subject is covered within it. RGTraynor 03:45, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
- That's my fault for not reading the discussion above. Now I'm the one who looks foolish. Kaiser matias 07:32, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
Split and reduction of season-by-season record
I have decided to try a concept practiced with some other pages, notably Chicago Bears and Chicago Bears seasons, to help reduce the size of the main team articles by moving content to child articles. I have used the Calgary Flames/Calgary Flames seasons and the Canucks as concept articles/tests. I did want to leave a partial history in the main article, however, and I feel the last five years is a logical breakpoint. If met with general approval, this is a change that I intend to propose at WP:HOCKEY/Team pages format, and to do across all teams. Please offer any comments. Thanks, Resolute 04:19, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
- The thing is, the main article itself is not that large at all when it comes to the Vancouver Canucks. Agreed it might be a little bit stuffed, but moving entire sections to whole new pages isnt exactly what we need to be doing. Also reducing the past couple seasons to one lines in the playoffs makes a team's achievement, in this case the Canucks, seem 'meh'. I am going to re-add the past post-seasons for the past five years. Nick8670 10:40 14 May 2007 (UTC)
- Actually that's exactly what wiki strives to do. Have very specific pages so when pages start to get to a certain size you split off portions of the page into new pages. That is how wikipedia grows. This new format for seasons has been somewhat accepted by the WikiProject Hockey as the new way to do team pages. It may not make much sense for some of the newer teams but when you think of the original six you will see why it needs to be done. And we can't just do some team pages. All team pages must be done to maintain consistency. --Djsasso 19:49, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
- Well, we could do it for some, but a complete set of articles looks much more professional, imo. In the case of the Canucks, splitting it off allowed me to also expand more into their PCHL/WHL days, creating a fairly significant list of Vancouver Canucks history. It also did take a pretty good chunk of size off this article.
- Actually that's exactly what wiki strives to do. Have very specific pages so when pages start to get to a certain size you split off portions of the page into new pages. That is how wikipedia grows. This new format for seasons has been somewhat accepted by the WikiProject Hockey as the new way to do team pages. It may not make much sense for some of the newer teams but when you think of the original six you will see why it needs to be done. And we can't just do some team pages. All team pages must be done to maintain consistency. --Djsasso 19:49, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
- Also, I disagree that reducing the playoff result in the team article trivializes the teams accomplishments. I decided that reducing to a single line is preferable after looking at how the Flames and Oilers 5 season list came out. One long playoff run greatly unbalances the look of the chart. I reduced all teams to one line for consistancy. Vancouver Canucks seasons lists the full playoff results, while 2006–07 Vancouver Canucks season describes the playoff run in full detail. The information is there, and has been expanded upon. This article is simply the portal to those articles, as it should be. Resolute 23:36, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
Number change
the roster shows no number for Rob Davidson (defense)He should be wearing number 18 most likely. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.79.135.75 (talk) 21:20, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
Owner
Shouldn't the owner be Aquilini Investment Group instead of Francesco Aquilini? He doesn't own the team himself. Marcus1060 02:45, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
I believe you are correct. Francesco is the 'public face' and governor representing the ownership group. Another couple of problems with this section: no mention of the Canuck's original owners (who I believe were from Minnesota); the phrase "shrewd local businessman and philanthropist Arthur Griffiths" is hardly encyclopedic, and seems odd considering Arthur is criticised in the next sentence for over-extending his finances. (not too shrewd.)Thistler (talk) 14:45, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
Logos & Jerseys section
I suggest we reformat this section to the one that is on the Anaheim Ducks page (Team Colors & Mascot)..I would suggest if it were presented (/w pics) the same way. There's been at least 6 jersey sets (not counting Alternate/3rd & 4th jerseys) used by the Canucks, and I can provide what changed:
Set 1 (70–72)
These had "V"s on the arms.
Set 2 (72–78)
The "V"s were removed and the striping design changed.
Set 3/Terrible V's
Self-explanitory, used for 6 seasons...
Set 4 (??-91/92)
The giant V's were moved to the shoulders, and the skate is now the crest.
Set 5 (91/92–97)
White comes in for home jerseys, and Vs ultimatly removed. The (somewhat) V-like style would be ressurected in 95/96 for the 3rd jersey (the red one).
Set 6 (97-Pres)
Current jerseys. Minor additions in the 03–04 season added the Stick logo to the shoulders in current team colors. 3rd jersey for this set is the "Salmon" jersey, removed from the stocks this past season in favor of the 72–78 Away jersey. The Home version of the 72–78 jersey was used in the Vintage Program a few seasons ago..
For the logos, I would describe the logos like on the Ducks page as well...
Sandtrooper 03:35, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
Messier Leadership Award
Should this award really be listed? Other monthly honours have not been included and doing so would be fairly dumb. They aren't major awards. You'd be listing accomplishments like Jason King's Rookie of the Month honour, or Dan Cloutier's award as top defensive player of the month from a few years back. 154.20.184.86 22:46, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
- I agree. I would think that monthly awards would be better suited to the season articles, i.e.: 2006–07 Vancouver Canucks season. Resolute 23:53, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
Comments
Jersey section needs more pics, specifically of what the current jerseys look like. Also, the team mascot needs to be mentioned somewhere. Love each other, or perish. ~Auden 05:19, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
- Photos of jerseys are somewhat problematic, since other than fans in the stands with a camera, very few of them pass the fairly-harsh fair use rules. As far as mascots go, I disagree; at the NHL level, almost all team mascots are desperately trivial, and few fans could name them if they tried. (I certainly couldn't name the Bruins' mascot except in so far as it's in a bear costume.) RGTraynor 13:01, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
- Just to add a point about their current jersey - the NHL has implemented new Reebok jerseys to be used by all teams this year; and the Canucks have yet to unveil theirs. Thricecube 19:40, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
My problem with that is two-fold; 1) some NHL team pages name their mascot, so I think they either all should or shouldn't, that is have some similar structure. 2) the team mascots are part of the franchise, and aren't we trying to provide as much info as we can about the organizations? Love each other, or perish. ~Auden 17:19, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
- In like fashion, the assistant equipment managers and the head ushers in the arenas are part of the franchises. RGTraynor 19:18, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
I had no idea I was communicating with a child. Love each other, or perish. ~Auden 21:41, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
- To try and avoid what looks like a looming conflict, I will provide some information. The jerseys are going to essentially need user photos, of which most people tend to not focus their attention on. The mascots are all well covered in their corresponding articles, which is listed here. Not every team has a mascot, and the ones that do, their team articles each have a link to the mascot's page. Kaiser matias 22:33, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
I apologize for my comment, as I do not like to be mocked. My whole deal is this; some team pages have a section for their mascot and jerseys while others have neither. I guess I just think that having similar team pages in terms of structure will provide for an easier read to wikipedians and all who visit the articles. Having a link is great, but honestly I see no problem with mentioning the mascot in the main text. I reviewed all 30 team pages, so you'll probably see my comments all over. I can tell you now that if the page did not mention the team mascot or have a suitable jersey section, then I wrote about it. I apologize in advance if this is going to be a problem for everyone. I will do what I can to edit the articles as well. We're all here to make the pages look the best they possibly can, so I'm just trying not to miss anything. Love each other, or perish. ~Auden 04:24, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
- You were not being mocked, and the notion that drawing a comparison angers you into insult isn't a good sign; I strongly recommend you review WP:CIVIL (as well as Wikipedia's other policies, seeing as you are a newcomer). That being said, the hockey Wikiproject long since agreed on the utility of some common elements and on the information we wished each page to have. Mascots have not been among those items. Please feel free to discuss such common elements on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ice Hockey. RGTraynor 16:21, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
And I suggest that you review WP:CIVIL as well, seeing that at the bottom of the "page in a nutshell" paragraph it clearly states "and be careful to avoid offending people unintentionally. ;) I will take my comments to the main ice hockey project page, so thank you for that tip. Love each other, or perish. ~Auden 18:26, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
- Sorry if I'm being ignorant by saying this, but I fail to see anything offensive being said in this topic.Thricecube 20:37, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
- I'm at a loss myself, I admit. RGTraynor 21:10, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
Different POV's call for different interpretations. I respect everyone elses POV, so please respect mine. This issue has been settled though, so let's move onto what really matters, which is making the team pages the best they can be. Love each other, or perish. ~Auden 22:09, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
The pre-NHL captains
Does anybody have a list of these guys. I'm assuming they belong in the captains section. GoodDay 22:10, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
The 1994 Stanley Cup run
This article states that the riot took place after the Canucks lost game 7, caused by 'disappointed' fans who were 'drinking heavily', which is incorrect. The riot took place after Game SIX, which the Canucks WON, and the riot was caused by happy enthusiastic fans who had been drinking heavily and were aggressively confronted by police riot squads after a beat cop got punched in the middle of the crowd. Most of the 'rioters' didn't even know that happened until they got home and watched the news on TV, all they knew during the 'riot' was that they were being attacked by cops in riot gear firing teargas and rubber bullets (one which struck a guy in the head and put him in a coma for a couple weeks). Game 7 took place in New York City, which is why there were not Vancouver fans on the streets of downtown Vancouver to cause any riot out of 'disappointment'. Game Six took place in Vancouver, so all the fans poured out of the arena, and everyone who was watching it on TV headed downtown to celebrate the WIN with fellow fans. Hockey riot out of 'disappointment'.. AS IF! This is pretty shoddy fact checking, folks... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.180.67.209 (talk • contribs) 00:13, November 21, 2007
- Having watched with disappointment as the Canucks lost Game 7, I can tell you that the riot didn't start after game 6, it was indeed game 7. As a simple glance at the relevent article, 1994 Stanley Cup riot states, with several newspaper sources to back the claim, it was after game 7. Now the choice of wording on how to describe the participants of the riot can be seen as questionable, however it does not deter from the fact that the riot was happening while the Canucks were in New York, proving the fact checking has been done properly. Kaiser matias (talk) 08:52, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
Charity & Fundraisers
Where do you think an article stub detailing charitable involvments of the Canucks would best be suited? AlphaDolphin (talk) 17:43, 14 January 2008 (UTC)AlphaDolphin
- In Calgary Flames, I created a section called "Community impact", which includeds some of their charity work. A similar section could work here. Resolute 17:54, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
I've heard that charity work is part of each player's contract. Well, if they're forced to do it as part of their job, then it's not really charity. Probably more just a way to ensure that the Canucks can keep spinning good PR. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.68.70.186 (talk) 19:31, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
Captains and Assistant Captain Mess
I noticed that there are frequent edits regarding who is wearing the "A". May I suggest that we instead of slapping a "A" on a player who was wearing one at a random game, we stick to what is listed on the Canucks roster? ThePointblank (talk) 20:28, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
Team awards
What does anyone think about adding a section for team awards (ie. Cyclone Taylor Award, Most Exciting Player Award) that lists perhaps the most recent winners and/or the most prolific recipients? Orlandkurtenbach 01:45, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
- I agree and I'm gonna make a section about it right now $$Annoyomous24$$ (talk) 00:43, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
- In general we don't place team awards on the main page as they aren't as notable as league awards. What I believe some other teams have done is split off the records to their own page and added team awards to that page. -Djsasso (talk) 16:44, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
IP 75 causing disruptions
This IP range (75), is continously editing Ryan Kesler in as Canucks captain. To all who come across his edits, please revert them. GoodDay (talk) 01:05, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
Canucks captain, Luongo??
Wait a sec, the NHL rules clearly state that goaltenders can't be captains. Also, we don't list un-official captains. What's up? GoodDay (talk) 18:54, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
- Kaiser matias put that on. You may have to talk to him on his talk page, which I just did 5 minutes ago. By the way, no, Luongo is not (yet) the captain of the Vancouver Canucks. -- K. Annoyomous24[c] 19:03, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
According to the Canucks website, he's to be the captain. But, I put unofficial next to his name, as we've yet to hear what the NHL has to say. GoodDay (talk) 20:06, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
- Technically the club can call anyone captain, they just can't slap a C on his jersey and he can't do the talking. -Djsasso (talk) 20:35, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
- I would just make a note under the roster list stating that although Luongo is the captain, he does not wear the 'C' due to NHL rules and as such, the Canucks have 3 assistant captains. ThePointblank (talk) 03:45, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
- The sub text of the word unoffical should be changed since he is "offically" the captain. I can't think of any word that can replace it but I hope someone will. -- K. Annoyomous24[c] 05:04, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
- This is all so stupid. It's a flagrant violation of league rules, and just a ruse to create publicity and make Luongo want to stay with the team. Even as a Canucks fan, I think is whole thing is totally stupid and hope that the league does something to fix this. We shall see. Kaiser matias (talk) 05:11, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
- Kaiser matias, may I remind you that Wikipedia is not a forum for general discussion of your personal opinions. -- K. Annoyomous24[c] 06:12, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
- This is all so stupid. It's a flagrant violation of league rules, and just a ruse to create publicity and make Luongo want to stay with the team. Even as a Canucks fan, I think is whole thing is totally stupid and hope that the league does something to fix this. We shall see. Kaiser matias (talk) 05:11, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
- The sub text of the word unoffical should be changed since he is "offically" the captain. I can't think of any word that can replace it but I hope someone will. -- K. Annoyomous24[c] 05:04, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
- I would just make a note under the roster list stating that although Luongo is the captain, he does not wear the 'C' due to NHL rules and as such, the Canucks have 3 assistant captains. ThePointblank (talk) 03:45, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
- I am thinking of something along these lines:
Note: Due to league policy, he will not, however, be physically wearing the "C" on his jersey. Canucks defenseman Willie Mitchell will handle communications with on-ice officials, and defenseman Mattias Ohlund will handle ceremonial faceoffs and other such formalities that come with being captain.
I would add a asterisk or something to the roster beside the 'C' and the note to point to the note. ThePointblank (talk) 00:25, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
- I agree with the asterisk + note. However, I think it should be more concise... something more like this:
- "Note: Due to league policy, Luongo will not be physically wearing the "C" on his jersey. Canucks defenseman Willie Mitchell will handle communications with on-ice officials, and defenseman Mattias Ohlund will handle ceremonial faceoffs." – Skyezxmessage 00:32, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
Honoured Members
Under "Honored Members", sub-topic "Hall of Famers", there should not be any references to former NHL players Andy Bathgate, Johnny Bower, Tony Esposito, Allan Stanley and Gump Worsley. The above players were once members of the old Vancouver Canucks of the defunct semi-pro league WHL, which has no affiliation to the present day NHL Vancouver Canucks. Those players were all property of the Toronto Maple Leafs, New York Rangers, Chicago Black Hawks and Pitsburgh Penguins which had loaned the players to the former WHL team. This particular wikipedia regarding the Vancouver Canucks refers ONLY to the NHL team. To represent these players as "honored members" of the Vancouver Canucks would do readers a disservice with inaccurate information. Nowhere in this topic does it pertains in whole or in part to the old Vancouver Canucks of the WHL. KeroDoe 17:38, 05 December 2008 (UTC)
- Actually that is incorrect, the Vancouver Canucks are the same team. The team switched leagues, if you will notice at the top of the page and in the history section this is talked about. -Djsasso (talk) 01:40, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
- Actually, it is not the same team. The official starting date for the NHL Vancouver Canucks is 1970/71 Season. Tom Scallen of Medicor was granted an expansion team and paid the fee. However, since the WHL Vancouver Canucks had exclusive rights for professional hockey in Vancouver and playing rights in the Pacific Coliseum, Scallen purchased the team for purposes of obtaining those rights and promptly folded the team. Some players who had been under contract by the WHL Canucks had their contracts nullified. Some were signed by the NHL Canucks, others such as Andy Bathgate and Rene Robert were reverted back to their original NHL teams. Technically and legally, the WHL Canucks and NHL Canucks are not the same team. KeroDoe (talk)18:38 05 December, 2008 (UTC)
- This has actually been debated many times by many people so I won't get into it very much, but the Canucks themselves claim the history of the other teams and state their founding date as 1945. The fact that they moved a number of the players over goes to show that it was a continuation of the team. Yes, they did let a number of players go (and a number had to switch teams because of NHL rights issues), but they kept a large number, kept the same management, kept the same personnel etc etc. -Djsasso (talk) 02:50, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
- The NHL Canucks "claim" the history of the team nickname, not to be confused with actual origins of the current team. The movement of players from WHL to NHL only reflects to the rights of those players who were under contract to the WHL team. It does not suggest these player were "continuing" their services. Under the NHLPA, they were signed as free agents for the 1970/71 season. The management you speak of were not the same. The NHL Canucks first GM, Bud Poile, was the GM of the Philadelphia Flyers in 1969/70. 1st Coach Hal Laycoe in 1969/70 was coach of the Los Angeles Kings. In fact, the only "management" holdover was Coleman E Hall but that was only a Board of Director position. In summary, it is entirely a brand new team. When Scallen purchased the WHL Canucks, it was purely for economic and financial rights which included the right to use the team name "Canucks". One could not confused the old AHL Cleveland Barons for the NHL version. Same as with the current owners of the AHL Houston Aeros who had to purchase the rights to use the nickname "Aeros" which was previously used in the WHA. -KeroDoe {talk} 19:29, 5 December 2008 {UTC}
- Sorry, but as DJ says, this has long been the consensus, and there was complete continuity of ownership ... the same way there was for the Oilers, Jets, Whalers and Nordiques, which likewise had a turnover of players and other management in jumping leagues, and in the same fashion as in a number of other sports. And, by the bye, have a couple of players cited as "Honoured Members" of their teams while their NHL rights were held by the Toronto Maple Leafs and the Boston Bruins, for example. We appreciate that you have an opinion on the matter - however much you curiously discount or dismiss elements contradicting your POV, such as common ownership, the several players who continued from 1970 to 1971, the franchise's own take on the matter and the several books that support the position. Should you garner enough support for a change in consensus, a change in the article would be appropriate. RGTraynor 05:17, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
- The situation with the WHA teams is that it was a merger, thus the continuation of those franchises. The several players who "continued" were already property of the applicants when they purchased the AHL Rochester Americans back in 1968. Denny Boyd in his book did not state that the club was merely an extension of the WHL club. I can understand the confusion. The Vancouver Canucks themselves do not claim the same, only the origins of the team nickname. By yours and DJ definition, then the Buffalo Sabres was originally founded in 1936 since the Seymour Knox III owned the AHL Buffalo Bisons before being granted an NHL franchise. -KeroDoe {talk} 3:29, 6 December 2008 {UTC}
- I think the big confusion for most people is the difference between team and franchise, people use the words interchangeably when they do not mean the same thing. -Djsasso (talk) 13:05, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
- The four WHA organizations and the Montreal Canadiens organization were not founded when the teams joined the NHL, period. If you date one from when the NHL franchise was granted, you date them all. That being said, the way this is handled in other sports is the way we currently do it. The Cleveland Browns article dates from 1946, when the original AAFC team was founded. All the American Football League team articles (the Patriots, Chargers, Dolphins, Jets, Raiders, Chiefs, Broncos etc) date from 1959, when the AFL was founded. The Cincinnati Reds article dates from 1882 and the original American Association, eight years before the founding of the National League, as do the Pittsburgh Pirates, Los Angeles Dodgers and St. Louis Cardinals articles. The Detroit Pistons article dates from 1941, when the original Fort Wayne Zollner Pistons started in the National Basketball League. Etc, etc, etc.
- Beyond that, the WHA teams joining the NHL was certainly not a merger, not in any way, shape or form: the NHL insisted that they join as "expansion teams." RGTraynor 05:30, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
- The situation with the WHA teams is that it was a merger, thus the continuation of those franchises. The several players who "continued" were already property of the applicants when they purchased the AHL Rochester Americans back in 1968. Denny Boyd in his book did not state that the club was merely an extension of the WHL club. I can understand the confusion. The Vancouver Canucks themselves do not claim the same, only the origins of the team nickname. By yours and DJ definition, then the Buffalo Sabres was originally founded in 1936 since the Seymour Knox III owned the AHL Buffalo Bisons before being granted an NHL franchise. -KeroDoe {talk} 3:29, 6 December 2008 {UTC}
- Sorry, but as DJ says, this has long been the consensus, and there was complete continuity of ownership ... the same way there was for the Oilers, Jets, Whalers and Nordiques, which likewise had a turnover of players and other management in jumping leagues, and in the same fashion as in a number of other sports. And, by the bye, have a couple of players cited as "Honoured Members" of their teams while their NHL rights were held by the Toronto Maple Leafs and the Boston Bruins, for example. We appreciate that you have an opinion on the matter - however much you curiously discount or dismiss elements contradicting your POV, such as common ownership, the several players who continued from 1970 to 1971, the franchise's own take on the matter and the several books that support the position. Should you garner enough support for a change in consensus, a change in the article would be appropriate. RGTraynor 05:17, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
- The NHL Canucks "claim" the history of the team nickname, not to be confused with actual origins of the current team. The movement of players from WHL to NHL only reflects to the rights of those players who were under contract to the WHL team. It does not suggest these player were "continuing" their services. Under the NHLPA, they were signed as free agents for the 1970/71 season. The management you speak of were not the same. The NHL Canucks first GM, Bud Poile, was the GM of the Philadelphia Flyers in 1969/70. 1st Coach Hal Laycoe in 1969/70 was coach of the Los Angeles Kings. In fact, the only "management" holdover was Coleman E Hall but that was only a Board of Director position. In summary, it is entirely a brand new team. When Scallen purchased the WHL Canucks, it was purely for economic and financial rights which included the right to use the team name "Canucks". One could not confused the old AHL Cleveland Barons for the NHL version. Same as with the current owners of the AHL Houston Aeros who had to purchase the rights to use the nickname "Aeros" which was previously used in the WHA. -KeroDoe {talk} 19:29, 5 December 2008 {UTC}
- This has actually been debated many times by many people so I won't get into it very much, but the Canucks themselves claim the history of the other teams and state their founding date as 1945. The fact that they moved a number of the players over goes to show that it was a continuation of the team. Yes, they did let a number of players go (and a number had to switch teams because of NHL rights issues), but they kept a large number, kept the same management, kept the same personnel etc etc. -Djsasso (talk) 02:50, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
- Actually, it is not the same team. The official starting date for the NHL Vancouver Canucks is 1970/71 Season. Tom Scallen of Medicor was granted an expansion team and paid the fee. However, since the WHL Vancouver Canucks had exclusive rights for professional hockey in Vancouver and playing rights in the Pacific Coliseum, Scallen purchased the team for purposes of obtaining those rights and promptly folded the team. Some players who had been under contract by the WHL Canucks had their contracts nullified. Some were signed by the NHL Canucks, others such as Andy Bathgate and Rene Robert were reverted back to their original NHL teams. Technically and legally, the WHL Canucks and NHL Canucks are not the same team. KeroDoe (talk)18:38 05 December, 2008 (UTC)
- Ya may luv this RG. As per 'apparent' consensus, I've moved the pre-1970 HHOFers to the Vancouver Canucks (WHL) article. PS: Aren't I brave? GoodDay (talk) 18:22, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
Should we protect this article until the Vancouver Canucks turn it around?
Come on, if one of the Canucks see all the stuff that IP adresses have put, they will be mad. One of them might write a big article about how the fans "suck" or something, then there will be huge controversy in the British Columbia media.--Starwars1791 (talk) 02:23, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
- Page protection should only be used in the case of content disputes, high levels of constant vandalism, or other similar cases (see Wikipedia:Protection policy). Using it to prevent controversy would be a misuse of the function and a violation of policy. --Sunny910910 (talk|Contributions|Guest) 02:56, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
I understand.Starwars1791 (talk) 05:20, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
Error in page
Notes on Stan Smyl say that his number is one of two to be retired. There are 4 retired including the missing #7 and Linden (#16). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.243.200.207 (talk) 01:18, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
- Only those two were retired. Who's #7? I'm assuming the other one's Gretzky, he doesn't need to be listed except in the templates. RandySavageFTW (talk) 01:27, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
This article had once been showcased... October 2007..... on the portal. The portal has been changed to rotate content automatically, and as it had once been on the portal, possibly should return even though it is a B class article not GA, A, or FA. I didn't re-add the article, as the talk page template for the portal was not on the article talk page. And more importantly the article is tagged with This article has multiple issues. Could someone more familiar with the article fix the errors mentioned in the template, so the article can be re-situated into the portal proper, if so desired. SriMesh | talk 00:17, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
Roster change
A really dumb question, sorry, but since Rick Rypien signed a contract extension with Vancouver, does that mean he's no longer a UFA?--86.138.60.57 (talk) 12:21, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
- That is absolutely correct. I've updated the roster template to reflect this. Thanks, Resolute 13:47, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
- ^ "Vancouver Canucks Roster". National Hockey League. Retrieved May 13, 2024.
- ^ "Vancouver Canucks Hockey Transactions". The Sports Network. Retrieved May 13, 2024.