Talk:1999–2000 NHL season

1999-2000

I figured I would copy/paste a topic from the History of the Philadelphia Flyers talk page, since it applies here. It is improper to list it as 1999-00. In an edit I said, "PLEASE LEAVE IT as 1999-2000, as it isn't 1999-1900 as is implied with 1999-00." Perhaps this is an exaggeration; I think most people might assume that 00 means 2000. Nevertheless, when have you ever heard someone refer to that particular season as 1999-00 or 99-00? It is usually referred to in its full form, 1999-2000, or 99-2000 for short. Perhaps it is typed as such, but it is never said like that. I think the use of 1999-00 shouldn't be changed where it is illogical to do so (see Flyers team standings), but in the article itself I think 1999-2000, the proper form, should be utilized. --Sparkhurst 03:44, 4 July 2006 (UTC) That is all. --Sparkhurst 07:54, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

the article was originally written "1999-2000 NHL season", but i changed it almost a year ago (with no protest from anyone) to stay consistant with all the other NHL seasons on wikipedia. 1998-99 NHL season, 1999-00 NHL season, 2000-01 NHL season, etc. looks a lot better than 1998-99 NHL season, 1999-2000 NHL season, 2000-01 NHL season, etc. Also, i think people are smart enough to know that 1999-00 means 1999-2000 and not 1999-1900 as that is a mathematically impossible sequence of years. Masterhatch 22:11, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

There is good reason there was no protest from others regarding the name change since I'm guessing the 1999-2000 NHL season isn't on many watchlists. I think it is a matter of interpretation whether the first sequence of years looks better than the last one. Yes, in season standings lists it would be better to use 1999-00 and there are a few other cases when it would be more logical to use it, but its use should be the exception rather than the rule. --Sparkhurst 17:47, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Name change

If you want to change the article title, let's discuss it and see what other people think. Masterhatch 22:14, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

This is obviously a mundane thing to discuss, but I figured I would drag this discussion here. --Sparkhurst 17:52, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

I think it should be 1999-00. I've seen it that way a lot more often than 1999-2000. When talking about something that happened in the 1990s and ended in the 2000s after multiple years, I think the full year should be written, though. i.e. Steve Yzerman was captain from 1986-2006, not 1986-06. Anyone agree? J-Roc 18:40, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

While wondering which to use in a hockey-related article, 1999-00 or 1999-2000, is something somewhat worth discussing, I forgot to specify what the particular issue was: whether the 99-2000 season article should be changed back to 1999-2000 as it originally was. Whether one chooses to use 1999-00 or 1999-2000, it will link to the article. As far as the second part of your response, I agree, but shouldn't that also hold true for 1999-2000? While they encompass the same season they are different years which start with two different digits. 1999-00 is as incorrect as 1986-06. Also, notice the 1999-2000 NBA season article. --Sparkhurst 19:01, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

I prefer 1999-00. DMighton 23:37, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

I prefer 1999-00 as well. Frankly, I am at a loss to understand why anyone would confuse 1999-00 with "1999-1900". That is not a logical disconnect I see very many people making. Officially, it was the 1999-00 season, and we should be going with what the leagues themselves referred to those seasons as. Resolute 22:36, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

I didn't say people would confuse 1999-00 with 1999-1900. I said it is implied. Officially, the years are not shortened at all (NHL website). With 1998-1999, you can shorten it to 1998-99 because the second year also starts with a 19. This isn't the case for 1999-2000 so it is improper to shorten it. Another official source, the Hockey Hall of Fame, seems to agree with me on this point. --Sparkhurst 08:04, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough. Personally, I prefer the consistancy of format. 1998-99, 1999-00, 2000-01 looks much cleaner, and is more consistant. Resolute 15:24, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

I think the points I made make it clear that to list it as 1999-00 is improper. Seeing as some people prefer to list it as 1999-00 isn't a big deal and in some circumstances I agree that it is better to use it. But for the title of the season's article it needs to be the proper form, 1999-2000. 1999-00 will re-direct to 1999-2000. --Sparkhurst 05:55, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Bringing up old business apparantly, I was just noticing this, as well, and was just about to move the article until I saw this discussion. 1999-00 does not make logical sense. I know it seems to keep consistant, but it's not consistant with the same NBA season, in addition to record-keeping on NBA team articles. I feel like we should go ahead and move it if there are no objections. bmitchelf•T•F 02:18, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

The NHL guide and record book uses "1999-2000" FYI, so I agree with you. -- Earl Andrew - talk 02:51, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on 1999–2000 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090216033716/http://habsinsideout.com/main/3969 to http://www.habsinsideout.com/main/3969

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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: 5 June 2024).

• 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) 20:44, 16 June 2017 (UTC)