Talk:History of the National Hockey League (1992–2017)/Archive 1

Archive 1

Notes on the article

I thought it'd be a bit more appropriate to have it on the talkpage:

Rough timeline:

Background

• Gary Bettman replaces Gil Stein << Gil Stein scandal? see HHOF page
• Owners emphasis on southern expansion (went with Bettman's general guidelines instead)

Pre-lockout

• Canadiens 1993 title
• Rangers 1994 title
• Sens and Lightning
• North Stars relocate
• Ducks and Panthers
• 1994-95 lockout

late 1990s

• Devils trap to championships
• World Cup of Hockey
• NHLers in the Olympics
• Brett Hull's controversial SC winning goal
• Gretzky retires
• Lemieux's battle with cancer/retirement
• Jets, Nordiques and Whalers relocate
• Canadian Assistance plan - NHL's first revenue sharing

Early 2000s

• Large-small market disparity
• Southern teams winning Stanley Cup
  • Flames 2004 run

Lockout

• 2004-05 lockout
• draft lottery

Post-lockout

• Carolina over Edmonton in small market final<<WHA matchup, mention it in 67-92?
• Sidney Crosby and Alexander Ovechkin

Rules and innovations

• Trap
• Overtime format changes in 1999 and 2005
• Post-lockout rules changes

Maxim (☎) 23:57, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Note #2

I've done some math, and based on the size-year ratio at the 67-92 article, this one should be around 20 000 bytes in total, as we're covering a shorter span of time, thus we want the articles balanced. Maxim (☎) 21:07, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

I think it will come in north of that, but probably in the 25-30k region. I'll be writing a paragraph or two about the 94-95 lockout, then we have your mid 1990s section, then the 2000s, probably focussing on the lead into the 2004-05 lockout. Then the aftermath. Rules and changes will be larger than usual though. OTL in 1999 then SOL in 2005, other changes post-lockout. Resolute 21:55, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

It only makes sense that it would come in proportionately larger than the others. The more recent history is much more well-documented, and most of us can remember the recent history better, so it is easier to write about. — Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 22:12, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Beyond the inherent bias towards recent news, there is also 24-30 teams for the entire scope of this article as opposed to 3-10, 6 and 12-24 of the previous articles. More teams, more games, more events. Resolute 22:48, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Couple quick thoughts

Just very briefly scanned the article, as in I haven't acutally read it yet. However, two things jump out at me: There is no mention of the 10 day player strike in 1992. This was quite the thing, showing that the NHLPA was no longer a pawn of Eagleson, and through extension, the NHL. Rather, Goodenow and the players had control of themselves for the first time. For that timeline, what colours should be used for teams that made drastic changes to their colouring. Being a Canucks fan, the orange colouring really stands out as wrong, post-1997. I'll add in LA, Buffalo, Anaheim, Washington and the Islanders, not to mention the Devils have a colour that doesn't suite them at all (green). I'll look over the article in the next few days, and offer a more through review. But for now, this will do. Kaiser matias (talk) 07:50, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Actually there is a paragraph about the strike in the Background section.  ;) As far as the colours go, Several teams have changed uniform colours throughout history, and it breaks continuity to change the colours each time. I went with colours that represented the team for a significant period of time that also were different than those of the teams immediately around them. With that in mind, I will have to update the 1917-42 image to change the St. Pats/Leafs all to blue.

That was, of course, my comments. Not sure why sinebot didn't pick up that I forgot to sign this. Resolute 04:24, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

My rvs

I believe it unbalances the article; I don't believe the Rangers' win is so important that it deserves that it will take up such a big portion of the article. Maxim_(talk) 11:31, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree with you, as soon as we let one team add specific information, the rest will want to follow. The great thing is that all teams are notable enough to have their own history written; on their main team article if not a specific team history article. Blackngold29 13:48, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Agreed as well. The information is good, but too detailed for this article. Resolute 14:18, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

You have to understand that this was NHL's most-watched game. The Rangers' win was hockey's greatest moment since the Miracle on Ice, according to The Globe and Mail. I wanted to make those points clear. Because ice hockey is Canada's sport and it was NHL's most-watched game, the news of the Rangers' win was common headlines appearing on every newsstand and every newspaper in Canada. -- SNIyer12, (talk), 21:46, 9 October, 2008 (UTC)

I saw your recent edit; I think that is an acceptable compromise. The previous versions were completely unbalancing the article IMO (see WP:Summary Style), but this adds an important fact without unbalancing the article. Maxim_(talk) 21:55, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Isn't every Stanley Cup win in virtually all Canadian newspapers? — Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 22:29, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Not all Stanley Cup wins have been on the front page on all Canadian newspapers, but they are. The Rangers' win was a special case because it captured the hearts and minds of Canadians as they followed their sport like never before as it became NHL's most-watched game. Unlike other Stanley Cup wins, the Rangers winning was on the front page of every newspaper in Canada the morning after the win, not just the major ones. Some of them had not just a photo caption, but also an article accompany it. The Canadian broadsheets, including The Toronto Star, The Globe and Mail, The Vancouver Sun, The Ottawa Citizen, and The Calgary Herald, had the news of the Rangers' win on the top half of their front pages. -- SNIyer12 (talk), -- 01:02, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Obviously the Rangers 94 win was a great piece of hockey lore, but frankly, it is nowhere near the most significant moment in the history of a league that dates back nearly a century. And frankly, I don't think an editorial by the Globe and Mail is all that important. Especially when it comes to a ridiculously dubious claim on the Rangers capturing the hearts and minds of Canadians when the Rangers faced a Canadian team. Also, the Stanley Cup winner is on the front page of every Canadian newspaper every year. I have to say, I believe you are making a very big deal out of something that is not a very big deal. I'm very proud of the Flames run to the finals 04, which was also a huge international story, but in the grand scheme of things, it just isn't so notable relative to the rest of the history that it deserves a far more prominent place in the article than it has. Resolute 02:42, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Timeline

Within the image chart in the Timeline I've used image-mapping to make each teams row link to the teams article. Couple questions: Do we like this? Should it go to a different article other than the team article (i.e.: the list of seasons article)? Should the 'SC' boxes link to the leagues article for that season? And lastly, should I go ahead and add these to the other history articles? - Rjd0060 (talk) 01:40, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Just a note I've went ahead and did this to all the history articles. - Rjd0060 (talk) 03:18, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I'd say that's quite useful Resolute 03:33, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

I'd like to note here that the timeline is wrong from the very beginning. The Pittsburgh Penguins won in 1992, not the Canadians. Also needs updated for the times. Perhaps someone can create a editable table rather than an image file. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.236.11.140 (talk) 12:38, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

It'd be great if someone could create an editable image, actually. The timeline itself is not wrong, however. The number shown is the starting year for each season, so 1992 corresponds to 1992-93, not 1991-92. And yeah, I will at the very least look to update the image. Resolute 16:29, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Comment

There is no explanation in the lead as to why this era is referred to as the "Bettman era". Dabomb87 (talk) 02:01, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

I think I just put that in the template for something. It may make more sense to change the template to say "modern era", for lack of a better term. Resolute 05:19, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Comments

Hello - I'm doing a copyedit and informal peer review of this article at the request of User:Resolute. A bunch of random comments follow.

• My recollection is that the Minnesota/Dallas franchise was actually called the Minnesota Stars (not the North Stars) for its last year before moving. Am I completely out to lunch on this?
• "Four franchises (roughly: hockey management teams) have relocated during this time." I don't understand the parenthetical at all.
• "Today's NHL is identified by arguably its two biggest young stars..." I don't think "identified by" is the best wording; I'll ruminate on this.
• "At the 2002 Winter Olympics, Canada won its first Olympic gold medal in 50 years." I removed this, as I don't think it has much to do with the NHL (besides the fact that Canada did this with NHL players; so did the Czech Republic in 1998, though). It also doesn't seem to be mentioned elsewhere in the article, which probably makes it unsuitable for the lead anyway.
• "...and modernizing the views of the "old-guard" within the ownership ranks." I'm not clear on what this means, and I'm probably approximately as knowledgeable on the subject of the NHL's business affairs as the typical reader of this article would be. What were these views, and who was it who charged Bettman with changing them?
• "...first woman to sign a professional contract..." I presume this refers to hockey, in which case that word should be inserted.
• "One year later, the Mighty Ducks of Anaheim and Florida Panthers began play as the NHL's 25th and 26th franchises respectively." If they started playing the same year, how do we know which is the 25th and which the 26th franchise?
• "The Rangers' winning the Stanley Cup was considered the final hurrah for the great Edmonton team of the 1980s as "New York's Oilers Beat Canucks"." If this is going to be included (as an Oilers fan I obviously want to think it should be, but I'm not quite sold), it needs to be explained (Messier, Graves, Anderson, Tikkanen, Lowe, Beukeboom, MacTavish...am I missing anyone?).
• "The owners wanted to control salary growth to aid small market teams." This strikes me as a little simplistic; the owners wanted to control salary growth because salaries made up a good portion of their expenditures and, as businessmen, they wanted to keep costs down. It's certainly true that the stakes were higher for the small market teams, but I don't think the Rangers and Leafs and whoever else were motivated solely or even primarily by a desire to help out Edmonton and Calgary.
• "...the union instead proposed a luxury tax system." This should probably be explained a little bit better.
• "...with Chris Chelios famously issuing a veiled threat against Bettman..." Did Chelios have an official position with the NHLPA at the time? If so, it should probably be mentioned.
• "the union agreed to a cap on rookie contracts, changes to arbitration..." So did arbitration exist before the lockout? Because earlier the article seem to suggests that the owners wanted to create salary arbitration.

More later. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 01:19, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

• Wow, that was quick. Thanks! To quickly address the first point, the Minnesota franchise was always the North Stars, but their final season in Minneapolis saw them with their new jersey design (much like what Dallas continues to use) that just said Stars. It's much the same with the Toronto Blue Jays and the jerseys that only say Jays. Resolute 01:31, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

That makes sense; glad to know I'm only largely out to lunch. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 04:54, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

• "Pre-lockout" is an odd section heading to have follow "1995-95 lockout". Is there a better name?
• "The tournament was marred by U.S. Olympic team's trashing of their rooms in the Olympic Village after their loss." While I think the Olympics themselves belong here, and the talk of the Czech team segues nicely into discussion of Hasek (who clearly deserves coverage in the article), I'm not really sure if this belongs.
• "...the second NHL franchise in Ohio after the Cleveland Barons, who moved from Oakland in 1976, only to fold two years later." Your love of the arcana of NHL history is showing; I'm not sure this adds a lot to the article about the history since 1992. It's also a little awkwardly-worded right now; I could fix that, but I'd rather delete it.
• "...an unprecedented comeback in professional sports..." What made it unprecedented? Because the first name that came to mind for me was Michael Jordan, though he could certainly be distinguished from the athlete at bar by a few factors.
• "He and the Washington Capitals' Alex Ovechkin, the 2004 first overall pick, were expected to become the faces of the NHL as the league entered a new era." This probably needs a cite, possibly more than one.

More later. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 04:54, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

• "...in a single game tournament." Can a single game be a tournament?
• "The shootout has proven controversial; critics have called it a "gimmick", and opposed any suggestion of using it to decide playoff games..." This gives the impression that introducing the shootout to the playoffs has received serious consideration, which as far as I know it has not. Am I mistaken?
• I'm not sure the bit about the obstruction crack-down is NPOV; as far as I know, there is some considerable support for the NHL on this point, isn't there?
• "This represented the highest increase in offence since 1929–30." I'm a little fuzzy on this: do you mean the highest single season increase?
• This is generally an excellent article, but it seems a little short to me. I wonder if it might be worth briefly examining the dominant teams of the era and their players, as was done in the expansion era article (the three that come to mind would be, in descending order of dominance, the Yzerman-Bowman Wings, the Brodeur-Lemaire Devils, and the Sakic-Roy-Forsberg Avalanche). The Devils could be integrated into the bit about the bid to increase offense. Your call, though; I wouldn't oppose at FAC over this.
• From the lead: "Mario Lemieux overcame non-Hodgkin lymphoma to finish his NHL career with more than 1,700 points and two championships..." Most of this isn't substantiated in the article (no mention of lymphoma or his statistical totals).
• The World Cup is mentioned in the lead, but the only mention in the article is about its presumed return in 2011.
• The lead mentions teams playing in Japan, but there's no mention of this in the article.

Overall, though, an excellent article; I have no doubt that it will join its brethren in FA-hood in the not too distant future. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 06:50, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

• One more thing that it occurs to me might merit some description: the controversy over video review. In my memory, it was a big topic for a few seasons (I haven't consulted any reliable sources on the subject, though - that's your job), and here it's only touched on with regards to the Hull goal. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 20:12, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

• Some great feedback, thanks! I agree with most of what you have suggested here, and have changed most. I had changed the middle section to "pre-lockout" mostly because I couldn't think of anything better; I didn't even consider the confusion that creates given that it also followed a lockout period. I agree that some more focus can be put on some teams. I had put a bit in on the 97-98 Red Wings already, but you've given me some idea on how to expand. Thanks again for the review. Resolute 23:49, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

1994 SCF

I try to make clear that the 1994 Final was the last final to feature a Canadian team until 2004. This is an important fact and it's necessary. -- SNIyer12, (talk), 03:58, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

How is this notable within the context of the history of the NHL? Are there reliable, independent sources attesting to this notability? I can see, as a way of adding a bit of colour, mentioning the fact once, in a non-dramatic way (referring to the period as a "drought" between Canadian teams appearing in the final is a bit melodramatic), but I do not believe this is sufficiently notable to keep mentioning multiple times, and not in an overly flamboyant manner. Without sources indicating the significance of this fact to the history of the NHL, the current article text gives it too much undue emphasis. isaacl (talk) 05:20, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

This is undue weight, much like the hundreds of other articles you try to put this sort of info into. It is trivial. -DJSasso (talk) 14:30, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

I have to agree. It is trivia, and not particularly important. While there certainly was a little melodrama about it within the Canadian media prior to 2004, it was hardly even a blip in NHL history. And since the 04, 06, 07 and 11 finals, what little angst did exist has long since faded. The 94 final is known pretty much exclusively for the Rangers ending Dutton's Curse. There is no more importance to this than the fact that the Knicks played in their league's championship series at the same time. Resolute 16:35, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

In accordance with the above comments, I propose removing the information on a drought between appearances of Canadian teams between 1994 and 2004, such as these edits. isaacl (talk) 04:09, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

If there are no further comments, I will implement the proposal. isaacl (talk) 17:38, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Mario Lemieux

Why does he have his own section in this article? -Xcuref1endx (talk) 04:02, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

He was an exceptionally dominant player during this part of NHL history, especially the early 90s. The player-owner is also historically notable. Maxim_(talk) 14:08, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

Why is there no Gretzky section then? Gretzky is generally noted for being exceptionally dominant during his tenure as well. -Xcuref1endx (talk) 06:50, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

Gretzky & Orr have their own sections in the History of the National Hockey League (1967–92) article, by comparison. Gretzky only won one scoring title during this time frame and his coaching career was rather unspectacular. --Mo Rock...Monstrous (leech44) 15:12, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

When I initially wrote these articles, I did place small blocks of focus on several people who were specifically called out by the sources I was using. Conn Smythe, Howie Morenz, Rocket Richard, Gretzky, Orr, Lemieux. These were individuals who were regarded by sources as having particular impact on NHL history. Resolute 16:06, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

Okay, got it. Disregard my concern. It just seemed odd to me because the section seemed to be more about the person Lemieux over any specific contribution he had to the History of the NHL. -Xcuref1endx (talk) 21:33, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on History of the National Hockey League (1992–present). Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090718120600/http://www.ctvolympics.ca:80/hockey/news/newsid=12893.html to http://www.ctvolympics.ca/hockey/news/newsid=12893.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 02:59, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on History of the National Hockey League (1992–present). Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090914055540/http://www.ctvolympics.ca:80/hockey/news/newsid=5330.html to http://www.ctvolympics.ca/hockey/news/newsid=5330.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090218045126/http://www.dallasnews.com:80/sharedcontent/dws/spt/hockey/stars/stories/021109dnspostarslede.3ebd6c7.html to http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/spt/hockey/stars/stories/021109dnspostarslede.3ebd6c7.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 04:41, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on History of the National Hockey League (1992–present). Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20121014234437/http://www.nydailynews.com/archives/sports/1998/11/10/1998-11-10_turning_to_japan__far_east_e.html to http://www.nydailynews.com/archives/sports/1998/11/10/1998-11-10_turning_to_japan__far_east_e.html

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: 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.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 22:14, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on History of the National Hockey League (1992–present). 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/20090218163858/http://www.sportingnews.com/yourturn/viewtopic.php?t=517995 to http://www.sportingnews.com/yourturn/viewtopic.php?t=517995

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) 09:46, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

Undefined ref

@Ralphierce: you added a bunch of refs last year named ":1", but forgot to define it. Was it copied from somewhere? Could you please fill in the source if you remember it? -- Fyrael (talk) 20:09, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

Sourcing

Hi, came to this article from the FTC: even though this is already a GA, there need to be some sourcing in the Penguins, Blackhawks and Kings dominate and Going outdoors sections. Doesn't have to be every sentence but please ensure key facts and numbers are cited. Reywas92^Talk 20:42, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

Move to 1992–2017?

To keep in line with the 25 year period cadence of this series of articles, and to coincide with the 100th year, this article should be capped at 2017 and a new article started next season, I imagine, at History of the National Hockey League (2017–present). Just a little heads up. Jmj713 (talk) 17:49, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

A little late I realise, but I was thinking it almost makes more sense to make the cutoff 2004 or 2005. Granted it doesn't fit with the 25 year increment the previous articles have, but it does make sense to make the break at the 2004–05 lockout. The league is arguably in a different era since 2005, and it is a lot more natural than arbitrarily going to 2017; even the other articles, while they conform to 25 year breaks, do so at natural times (1942 is start of Original Six, 1967 expansion; 1992 is the only one that is questionable, but even then it saw the second big expansion era start). I'll also bring this up to the project talk page, as I don't think many will see this, but that's my views on it. Kaiser matias (talk) 04:36, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

I think I like the 25-year breaks, best. If we shift this article to cut off at 2004 or 2005, then we might get the next cutoff in like 2030? But we don't know what's gonna happen then, either. No matter what system you choose to break up these history articles, it's all arbitrary, anyway. Canuck^{89 (talk to me)} 05:03, June 27, 2017 (UTC)

I just made a comment to this effect at Talk:List of NHL seasons and then realized I already brought this up here, so I'm raising this question again. I think it makes sense, and it's not that arbitrary. After a long period of stability, the league started to expand again in 2017, first with Vegas and then Seattle. It might not be much and that number of teams might last for several decades, who knows, but the 25-year divisions do make sense and do work out, actually. And the early 1990s is no longer the "current era" at all. Jmj713 (talk) 21:53, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

If the split succeeds. I'm guessing this page will likely be re-named "History of the National Hockey League (1992–2017)". -- GoodDay (talk) 02:22, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

Split

I have added the template Split on this article and suggest starting History of the National Hockey League (since 2017). I think it makes sense to split at 25-year intervals, considering the centennial at 2017. The new article can start with the centennial activities. Alaney2k (talk) 20:32, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

Thanks! Jmj713 (talk) 21:37, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

Personally I'd support it, 25-year intervals is fair and 2017 neatly coincides with when the Vegas/Seattle expansion round began. The Kip 09:35, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

I have started Draft:History of the National Hockey League (since 2017). Please contribute if you have the time. Alaney2k (talk) 15:29, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

New page title should follow naming convention so the title of it should be History of the National Hockey League (2017–present) – sbaio 13:18, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

No. I do not want to split the page. This covers all the Stanley Cup championships since 1993. 2601:40A:8400:2250:A518:D00A:C634:A15D (talk) 22:13, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

Why would that be a reason not to split? The Kip 03:46, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

Another reason why this history should not split is because it covers all the expansion franchises since the San Jose Sharks in 1992. 2601:40A:8400:2250:A518:D00A:C634:A15D (talk) 17:43, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

Yeah but that was a lifetime ago, you realize that? Jmj713 (talk) 23:02, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

The split is a good idea, considering that the NHL was at 30 teams for nearly two decades. GoodDay (talk) 02:15, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

This era should end in 2017, because the Pittsburgh Penguins repeated before the Vegas Golden Knights joined. 2601:40A:8400:2250:A518:D00A:C634:A15D (talk) 02:16, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

I believe most here are in agreement with this. GoodDay (talk) 02:18, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

When should the split happen? Do you like 1992–present or two pages discussing 1992–2017 and 2017–present? I want to know. Please. 2601:40A:8400:2250:D5B:FDBB:169C:4AFF (talk) 03:46, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

Have two pages. One called "History of the National Hockey League (1992–2017)" & the other called "History of the National Hockey League (2017–present)". GoodDay (talk) 21:28, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

Can someone split the pages now? It is because the Arizona Coyotes are going away to Utah. Can anyone split the pages now because of recent news? Please. 2601:40A:8400:1820:6D78:FB3D:DE0E:F0DD (talk) 00:28, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

The split should definitely be made at 25 years, it's now even more clear that a new era started in 2017 and Vegas. Jmj713 (talk) 14:39, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

One main reason for splitting is the recent news that the Coyotes are no more, and a team will begin play in Utah next season. 2601:40A:8400:1820:45AC:917C:CA2F:5BD6 (talk) 20:15, 19 April 2024 (UTC)