Talk:St. Louis Blues

Gretzky

Gretzky played for the Blues in 1995-96 a trade deadline acquisition.

[1]

Check those facts before submitting =) vudu 03:24, 14 Oct 2003 (UTC)

St. Louis Blues vs. The St. Louis Blues

This is very awkward, having the hockey team at St. Louis Blues and the tune at the curiously punctuated 'Saint Louis Blues'. If no one has a serious objection, I'd like to make this a disambiguation page, moving the team to saySaint Louis Blues (hockey) and the song to Saint Louis Blues (music). -- Infrogmation 18:51, 19 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I agree it is awkward to have the National Hockey League team at St. Louis Blues and the tune at 'Saint Louis Blues'. However, to be fair and consistent with other professional sports teams e.g. National Hockey League, they are listed as geographic location followed by nickname.

One possibility might be to use The St. Louis Blues for 'Saint Louis Blues' per Image:ColumbiaLabelBSmith.jpg.

St. Louis blues uses a footnote for 'Saint Louis Blues'.

24.217.219.69 04:28, 21 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for your feedback. The usual policy is that when a title can refer to more than one thing that title is made into a disambiguation page. I think that's what is needed here. While I'm not overly fond of explanitory words in parenthesis after the title, such is a pretty common way of doing things, and I can't think of anything that's clearer. I'm open to suggestions if someone thinks some other wording would be better than "(hockey)" and "(music)". Cheers, -- Infrogmation 04:53, 21 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I've made the moves and turned Saint Louis Blues into a disambiguation page. I've fixed the majority of the links already, and am getting the rest bit by bit (help in this is welcome). -- Infrogmation 21:22, 23 Mar 2004 (UTC)

While the usual policy may be to disambiguate, I agree that consistency and fairness are equally important. No current National Hockey League team uses "(hockey)", a term you are "not overly fond of". Although "Saint Louis, Missouri" is commonly abbreviated "St. Louis", St. Louis Blues is listed alphabetically after San Jose Sharks by the National Hockey League. Therefore, they might not consider it an abbreviation of Saint Louis Blues. With W. C. Handy's "Saint Louis Blues" we can make this distinction. -- 24.217.211.99 19:53, 6 Apr 2004 (UTC)

As I mention on User talk:24.217.211.99, I reverted your move of the hockey article from "St. Louis Blues (hockey)" to "St. Louis Blues", due to your improper procedure rather than just because we seem to have a disagreement as to the best way to disambiguate. If you think the page needs to be disambiguated or renamed differently, perhaps we need to get other opinions on the question elsewhere on wikipedia. Cheers, -- Infrogmation 23:20, 6 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I think it's less a matter of official title than what term a typical user is going to look for (that's why we have Wikipedia:Naming conventions (common names). In this situation I think the disambiguation page (and the redirect to it) will be most helpful to a typical reader. - Hephaestos|§ 18:05, 7 Apr 2004 (UTC)

There are better ways to disambiguate. See Wikipedia:Disambiguation#The disambiguation page.
24.217.211.99 14:52, 8 Apr 2004 (UTC)

St. Louis Blues should be a disambiguation page. It should not redirect to the hockey team. Nothing wrong with St. Louis Blues (hockey). It's a special-case name. If "New Orleans Jazz" were still a basketball team, the same might be required of it. Likewise if the Flyers were renamed the Philadelphia Experiment, or if the Avalanche were renamed the Colorado Front Range.-- Decumanus | Talk 18:53, 8 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Exactly. "St. Louis Blues" is the name of more than one famous thing. -- Infrogmation 22:28, 8 Apr 2004 (UTC)

As a compromise Saint Louis Blues already is a disambiguation page, and St. Louis Blues disambiguates with Saint Louis Blues (music) as Wikipedia:Disambiguation#The disambiguation page. -- 24.217.211.99 19:10, 8 Apr 2004 (UTC)

24.217.211.99, Please stop your unilateral moves, which I have not been the only one to object to. I applaud your desire to have other people discuss the question, let's wait to move things around until we see if we can get some sort of consensus. Cheers, -- Infrogmation 22:12, 8 Apr 2004 (UTC)

The first unilateral move was 20:13, 23 Mar 2004 by none other than Infrogmation. -- 24.217.211.99 04:22, 9 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Okay, I've started a poll at Talk:St. Louis Blues, which is where the request on Wikipedia:Requests for comment was linked to. I also, I hope, made the request for comment language more neutral. (If someone else, preferably someone not involved in the dispute previously, can do a better job of it I encourage them to do so). Anon, please make your case for what you wish to do on the talk page, not at the request for comment. Cheers, -- Infrogmation 22:25, 8 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Current Stars

I'm as big a fan as anybody of my hometown Blues, but is Jeff Woywitka really worthy of "Current Stars" status? And for that matter, is Pronger worthy of "Not to be Forgotten?" Now hear me out - of the three players on that list before Pronger, we have two who have banners hanging at Savvis, and then Brett Hull, who is third on the all-time scoring list and is second on the all-time list for goals in a season (in addition to numerous other accomplishments), and he played here longer than Pronger. Just a thought. - Chris

Chris--I'd argue that Pronger, as a former Hart Trophy winner, probably deserves to be in the not to be forgotten category. He's probably also a future HOFer. I'd say he's not to be forgotten. Zeus1233 10:29, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

Pronger is already listed in the Captains. Its redundant to list him in NTBF. Think of it this way: There are three listing: HOFers, Capts and NTBF (other/misc). ccwaters 11:03, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

List of St. Louis Blues players

I have started a List of St. Louis Blues players. It would be a great help if when adding players to the main Blues page, that the same player be added to the list. Thanks Masterhatch 14 August 2005

Hall of Fame listings

Wikipedia:WikiProject_Ice_Hockey/Team_pages_format contains the format for Hall of Fame listings, which provides that players must have played several seasons for the team in question, and those seasons have a material impact on their selection as Hall of Famers. None of the players reverted qualify. Ravenswing 08:28, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

You're kinda slow, aren't you? ---burgz. 08:10, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Uniform colors

Someone might add a mention somewhere of the period during which the team also had a stripe of red on their uniforms. I'd do it myself but I don't know the exact years this was in effect.Nahtmmm 18:02, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

The Blues wore the ugly Blue/Yellow/Red jerseys from the shortened 1995 season to the 97-98 season when the current jersey was introduced as the third jersey, only to be adopted as the main jersey in the 98-99 season. Check out NHLUniforms.com. sseagle 10:34, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Chicago influence

A few nits to pick. For one thing, the Eagles' stay in the NHL was brief and abortive -- it would be like citing the Philadelphia Quakers in any discussion of the Flyers' history. For another, the St. Louis Braves weren't around for "many" years; they existed for four. For a third, the phrasing implied that Arthur Wirtz was supportive of St. Louis big league hockey ambitions, when the truth was that he demanded a St. Louis team (when no local group had applied for a franchise) to buy the local arena he owned as the price of his support for the 1967 expansion. Ravenswing 20:46, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

eh, the eagles is actually a fairly significant team for many reason, i've no problem with a minor mention of them. they were an original tenant of the arena which is the same building the Wertz family ended up with which got the BLues the franchise. But in addition to that, the Eagles provided proof of a St. Louis fan base that was attempted to be used by a group to get the Maroons in town (assuming a little of the real problem-- travel costs and schedualing) could be fixed. The NHL decided instead to give the rights to the Maroon's to that Flyer's town, and shut them down- later events created a financial situation where the Maroons were never restarted. there is no infomation on st. louis hockey. it is a shame that the encyclopedia knowledge contained in the existence of the St. Louis Blues as the 6th team selected for the first expansion is not provided to anyone who doesnt already know it. Childhoodtrauma 23:26, 24 March 2007 (UTC)childhoodtrauma

Young, Tkachuk & ??

Now that Captain Dallas Drake and alterenat captain Barret Jackman are done for the season (2005-06), there are now three alternate captains in the lineup. There's Scott Young, Keith Tkachuk and Who? There has to be at least 3-letter players (A's) GoodDay 19:48, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Watched a Blues game, and I think I saw McAmmond wearing an 'A' (though I'm not sure). I've added McAmmond to the alternate captains section. If anyone disagree, simply reverse my edit. GoodDay 16:17, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

General query: What is a single member of the St. Louis Blues called?

I'm working on the English plural article, specifically the section on Plurals (and singulars) of headless nouns. The question is: What is a lone member of the Blues called? A Blues? A Blue? Or does one write about them so as to avoid ever, ever constructing a sentence in which that comes up? I gather the team name is based on the classic song and not directly on the color, so it might be deemed more "correct" for the singular version to be "Blues" rather than "Blue"; the issue, however, isn't what's grammatically "correct," it's what--if anything--is actually used. Thanks very much. Dan —DCGeist 17:59, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

A "Blue." Ravenswing 19:02, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

A "Blue-Note" Zanter 26 August 2006 (UTC)

A "Blue." A player who used to play for the team is called either "a former Blue," or "a former member of the Blues" because of that exact awkwardness. 128.252.89.243 15:56, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

a hockey player. ccwaters 16:48, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

A "Blue", i.e. Brett Hull will always be a Blue. ---burgz. 08:12, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

the blue-note, or 'note refers to team members or alumni in relation to the uniform they wore. The basic emblem is known as the Blue-Note. I've certainly read (and used) both "former Blue-Note" and just "'Note" [in very unformal settings where the team is already obvious to the reader] In general a single player from the Blues is a Blue. a single alumnus is an ex-Blue or a former Blue. There are ownership issues however, a single Hall of Famer is usually refered to as a possesion of the team: Blues' Hall of Famer Brian Sutter. and increasingly the "'" is omitted: Blues Hall of Famer Brian Sutter. Postions are also usually listed as a possession of the team even for a single palyer, they are generally not referred to as Blue Defensemen Barret Jackman, but rather Blues(') defensman Barrett Jackman. Childhoodtrauma 17:13, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Cursed?

Anyone else think that something should be added to this phrase "In addition, the team has never won a game in the Stanley Cup finals. They made it to the Stanley Cup finals in each of their first three seasons but were swept all three times and have not been to a finals since." Given the fact that these first three Cup finals were the first three years after the NHL expansion, where all the expansion teams were in the West Division, and therefore it wasn't a suprise that the Blues never won a single game of those Cup Finals. Zanter 17:50, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

They're clearly cursed, winning president's trophy then getting bounced in the first round! ESPN even said they're cursed! Here is a link http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/page2/story?page=cursed/041029 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.253.50.238 (talk) 09:51, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

We'd have to do a lot better than an ESPN humour article to justify mentioning a curse in this article. Resolute 12:55, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Hall of Fame

I thought this was settled, Gretzy & Fuhr (for example) don't belong in the sections. GoodDay 22:27, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

• Hmm, since they both played for the Blues and they are in the HHoF, I'd say they need to be listed here. Unless there is some guidline maybe WP:HOCKEY, that players should only be listed on the team page for their "primary" team? Could be too subjective, IMHO. — MrDolomite | Talk 01:54, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

There's a guideline at Wikipedia: WikiProject Ice Hockey/Team pages format, dealing with the HHOF section. Under that guideline, Gretzky & Fuhr wouldn't belong. GoodDay 15:47, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Gretzky played in St. Louis for less than six months, Fuhr played in St. Louis for four seasons. Gretzky does not belong on this list, and even Fuhr is debatable.sseagle 16:51, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

I've removed the guideline & put back the previous guideline (which backs the removal of Gretzky & Fuhr). My reason for reverting the guideline? I'm not a member of WikiProject Ice Hockey. GoodDay 22:55, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Gretzky belongs on the list because he was a Blues captain. Fuhr being the the Blues for four seasons is a long ass time. You call that debatable? You must be joking. ---burgz. 08:14, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Wayne Gretzky, Dale Hawerchuk and Peter Stastny do not belong on the Hall of Famers list. Hawerchuck was a fading veteran with marginal impact in 66 games played and is a serious reach, but including Gretzky and Stastny is an embarrassment to Blues fans. While Gretzky's *arrival* sent shockwaves through St. Louis, his actual impact on the franchise was miniscule. The only way Gretzky's inclusion could be justified after playing less than 20 regular season games is if the Blues had won the Cup. Peter Stastny played in 18 games for the Blues and retired. If you include these players, you may as well add Glenn Anderson. Who could forget his 40 games with the Blues? What an era. I suggest these players be removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.81.73.80 (talk) 04:28, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Alternate Captains

Has coach Andy Murray (upon his hiring) named Bill Guerin as a 3rd alternate captain (joining B.Jackman & D.Weight)? Or has he replaced Jackman as a 2nd alternate captain with Guerin. GoodDay 18:38, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

I guess it's 3 alternates, been watching a few Blues games lately. GoodDay 18:16, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

According to the 2005-2006 Rulebook (the 06-07 Rulebook had no rule change to this matter), "In addition, if the permanent Captain is not on the ice, Alternate Captains (not more than two) shall be accorded the privileges of the Captain...(NOTE) Only when the captain is not in uniform, the Coach shall have the right to designate three Alternate Captains." I'm curious to know how they can get away with this, unless they don't designate all three for one game, especially seeing as how Drake has been on the ice. I haven't been able to watch lately so I don't know what they've been doing on a game-to-game basis. Thunderstix33 03:10, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Weight, Jackman and Guerin 'rotate' the 2 alternate captaincies per game. This is what all NHL teams with a Captain & more then 2 alternates, do. GoodDay 21:17, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

the current last paragraph about the "we was robbed"

21 paragrphs, less than one per season, and we are devoting a large paragraph to a game that was poorly ref'ed? i find it an inapproipriat use of space, and i strongly suspect that the game is not memorable, or really remarkable, it certianly is going to prove inconsequencial in the panteon of local sports history dealing with errors by officials (the 1985 world series anyone, missouri's defense forced to play a fifth down at the goal line?)

I'd really prefer that the St Louis Blues are not saddled (muddy) with fan reaction to a single game in an unremarkable season.Childhoodtrauma 23:27, 24 March 2007 (UTC)childhoodtrauma

the game was dubbed the worst reffing of any nhl game in the 2006/07 season, PLUS theres a lot of controversy with Mick McGeough after this game, and the oilers game.  [`.Thirty Thr33]  ^(Talk)  20:46, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

making it a nhl officiating controversy or a mick mcgeough issue (who is habitually ranked amoung the worse nhl refs) is this mentioned on the senators link? nope. why saddle the blues with it? if the answer to that is because the blues came up on the short side of a rather meaningless game, i do not think it is an appropriate use of space for the BLUES. perhaps mr mcgeough deserves his own listing, but other than the blues, his only claims to wiki fame is being jim mcgeough's brother, and ticking off the easily ticked off craig mactavish. I would like to point out that mick's other notable screw up this season is NOT on the oilers page. it is on MACTAVISH's page, and actually might warrent inclusion there (but never on the oilers page) since it resulted in disaplinary actions...

someone going to muddy up the oilers with some anti mcgeough stuff?

ultimately it is COMMENTARY and NOT ABOUT THE BLUES

nor does it have naything to do with luck, the opposite opinion has been voiced in which the blues earned that type of officiating by being a bottom dwelling team, and as much as i'd like to find out to what degree the bottom NHL officials are assigned to teh bottom dwelling teams, it is a bit hard to doChildhoodtrauma 03:29, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

meaningless game? listen to doug weights comments about the game. this game WAS NOT meaningless, mick mcgeough basically screwed the blues out of the playoffs, if they woulda won that game like they should, it would of gave them hope, and they could of made the playoffs. now, they know they can't make it, and basically the season is done because of one game. MAYBE it should be on the mick mcgeough page, a new section with each team hes ruined. Heres one mans opinion on it. [2]  [`.Thirty Thr33]  ^(Talk)  22:53, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

The paragraph has got to go. The Blues put themselves in the situation for a 'bad' call (they stank most of the season). The 'McGeough' incident should 'at least' be reduced to a couple of sentences. GoodDay 18:16, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree - Zanter 21:36, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

They're almost above .500... thats a pretty good team... Also,Mick McGeough might not return to reffing because of what happened here and in edmonton. He already said hes not going to ref in the playoffs (thank god), so that pretty much means hes done.  [`.Thirty Thr33]  ^(Talk)  22:05, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Tampering

Should there be a section or at least mention of the 'Tampering' with Scott Stevens? Kylar 19:58, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Linking to fan sites

Seeing as fan sites and forums are a valuable asset to fans of a sports team, , I believe they should be able to added to the 'External Links' section. The site I am referring to specifically is www.est1967.com, which is a St. Louis Blues fan news/forum site, which is not for profit, and is designed to further the knowledge of Blues fans. Cboballgames 07:18, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree that established and popular fan sites should be considered to be listed here. They are an invaluable resource for fans. But the Blues official site removed the link to est1967.com from their site...so that should tell you something. The spots for fan sites listed here should be reserved for the most popular and most established fan sites...not ones that have only been around for one month like est1967.com.
--Cprice12 07:57, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

The link to the Blues fan forum, letsgoblues.com in the external links section, was recently removed. It wasn't spam. With thousands of registered members, LetsGoBlues.com has been the most popular Blues fan discussion forum for St. Louis Blues hockey since 2001 and is linked on the Blues official site, stlouisblues.com. I recommend putting the link back. During the NHL season, thousands of people (many from other countries) visit the site daily for St. Louis Blues information and discussion. LetsGoBlues.com is non-profit, with no ad banners or anything. It is an invaluable free resource that is run by the fans, for the fans...always has been.

Some other NHL team sites on Wikipedia, Detroit Red Wings for example, have the top fan forum listed in the external links section. LetsGoBlues.com is the top fan forum for Blues hockey and has been for quite some time. --Cprice12 07:28, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Please see WP:External_links#Links_normally_to_be_avoided; discussion forums generally don't qualify. This site is indeed linked on the Blues' official website ... along with six other fan sites.  Ravenswing  14:06, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Large membership or not, Wikipedia frowns on including social networking sites in the EL section. External links are generally only for sites directly related to the article - ie, the official website. There is no guarantee of factual accuracy with a fan site/social networking site, nor do they offer anything you can't already find on the official site. In this case, it seems that people can get to the fan sites through the Blues website. There is no need to link such sites here. Resolute 15:39, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

As far as est1967.com goes, it offers hockey news and commentary, as well as a forum. It is for this that I believe it qualifies as a linkable site. Cboballgames 16:53, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Errrr, no. What it has are headlines and commentary wholly written by one of the sysops, and the news tidbits are nothing not taken off the newswires. Investigative journalism this isn't.  Ravenswing  17:11, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

LetsGoBlues.com offers unique commentary through it's affiliate and partner, the Blue Note Blog. This commentary is based on inside information from sources inside the Blues organization. That information usually CANNOT be obtained at the Blues official site, or anywhere else. Many times, information is available on LetsGoBlues.com before it is announced on the official site...if it is announced on their site at all. This therefore makes LetsGoBlues.com a breaking Blues (and hockey in general) news site and discussion forum, which is why LetsGoBlues.com should be added. If LetsGoWings.com is allowed to be listed on the Detroit Red Wings page, then the Blues should have a forum representative as well...and as a matte of fact, the Pittsburgh Penguins also have their most popular fan forum listed in the EL section...if a lot of team hockey sites have these links, then LetsGoBlues.com should be added. LGB is also an actively moderated forum so people aren't posting junk information or lies. The same cannot be said for est1967.com, in which they state on their main page that you can say and post whatever you want, just as long as it doesn't break the law.
--Cprice12 17:18, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for noticing those. I will remove the links straight away. Resolute 18:06, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunatly LetsGoBlues.com cannot be considered a fan site, if you do not donate money or activly pursue friendship with the site proprietor, then your opinions are quickly deleted. This site could hardly be considered the #1 site for Blues hockey since there are atleast 3 other sites with equal numbers of active participation. The oldest site in operation would easily be STLTODAY.com. It appears that Cprice12 ( the proprietor of LGB.com) has decided to carry some grudge match he has with a competing site on to the wikipedia.Wolf Mother 18:25, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

General Note: To those visiting from LetsGoBlues.com and est1967.com, while we welcome reasonable discussion about why you feel your sites should be exempted from Wikipedia guidelines disallowing discussion forums as external links, a pissing match as to whose site sucks worse violates WP:CIVIL as well as other policies. Neither it nor the dueling vandalism of one another's comments are all appropriate on Wikipedia. That being said, fan sites, generally employing anonymous handles and without independent, reliable fact-checking, seldom pass WP:WEB and almost never pass WP:V. Further, Wikipedia is not a publisher of first instance - it is an encyclopedia, and is not a proper venue for breaking news in advance of verifiable, published, reliable third-party sources.  Ravenswing  18:39, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. This pissing match demonstrates a clear lack of professionalism on both sides, certantly making me less willing to support either of your positions. Resolute 18:57, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Understood...and I respect the decision. However, I still do feel that certain fan sites can be extremely important in following a team and getting information about that team. Hopefully in the future, you reconsider. And as far as WolfMother's comments above, they are obviously not true. It's a shame that they are using this venue for that purpose. Question: What would a fan site have to contain, to be eligible for inclusion in the external links section? (if anything). Thanks.
--Cprice12 21:16, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Do not agree

Fan forums are a unique aspect of professional sports teams, which allow the fan base to communicate. The fact that the St Louis Blues have four sites with thousands of members collectivly would indicate the relevance to the subject. Not having these forums listed robs wiki users of the opportunity to understand the community which supports each individual franchise. Wolf Mother 21:37, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

This is not an article about the community, it is an article about the team. The community aspect of sports fandom goes beyond the scope of this article. Resolute 22:16, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

I haven't looked at either site, but if they are just forums or blogs, then they explicitly are not candidates for wiki link inclusion per Wp:el#Links_normally_to_be_avoided #10 and #11. This was previously pointed out. ccwaters 00:32, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

No, not listing these fan forums "robs" no one of the opportunity of "understanding" the fannish community, although I suppose I'm missing the part where an online bulletin board confers insights into the fannish psyche one can't find in a sports bar, a tailgate party or around a TV set watching the game. What it does do is not provide free advertising to these forums on Wikipedia. Nothing prevents folks interested in doing so from seeking out the hundreds of bulletin boards out there which discuss hockey in general or the Blues in particular, whether through the Blues' website, the sites for ESPN, SI, the local St. Louis newspapers or on Google.  Ravenswing  05:19, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

the only nhl central team (and they are the only teams i looked at before writing this) to have any site listed as a link other than its commercial site is the red wings, they tie the Blues with 2 external links, and the wings second link is to dmoz. Interestingly the blues dmoz based fan page listing (which might be a viable external link and way to get to fan pages et al from a wiki page, assuming the red wings are following standards) would be this: http://dmoz.org/Sports/Hockey/Ice_Hockey/Leagues/National_Hockey_League/Teams/St._Louis_Blues/Fan_Pages/ none of the major players in this discussion are on that list. unless there is a collected, organized, free, and externally monitored collection of all viable external Blues resources (dmoz or make your own) it is unlikely to pass mustard. i, perhaps, should point out that i am a participate in a competing organization, game time (son of game night review) and the cardinal version "the first pitch", which are primarily print driven (and the first pitch is completely ad paid, the hockey version still has a cost involved to acquire, so we have free and commercial versions). I'd see no reason to force a linkage to any of that anywhere on wiki. i would suspect that adding such a link would create a situation in which other sites would want linkage, and i would predict a lockdown and removal of all similar links to be the result. qed. even links like dmoz (and read up on the bed and breakfast conversation about attempting to link to an external list of b&b's to realize this is a wiki wide issue that many people take very seriously) or any we would agree to create, maintain, and confirm the neutrality of would be borderline acceptable at best. St. louis fandom is certainly a special thing, can produce valuable insights, and represents far more opinions than any neutral encyclopedic tomb like wiki will ever be able to. That does not mean the two communities must, or can in an effective way, be bound by excessive linage and accrediation by wiki persons of the validity of non wiki sites.

p.s. GO BLUES!!!!!!!!!!Childhoodtrauma 17:35, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, but what is it you're trying to say? ccwaters 19:01, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

that linkage is advertising. that advertising is against the spirit of wiki. that only a moderated resource page (a semi-neutral page linking to many fansites, datasites, and more) might be allowable, and that anyone who didnt expect a link war hasn't been reading much wiki. (also that i need a dictionary and prefer verbosity, but i'm not sure that was your intended question).Childhoodtrauma 20:19, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

No: linking is not purely advertising. Link between resources is the very essence of the web. Wikipedia has guidelines to determine whether a particular site in tune to the goals of wikipedia: WP:EL, WP:SPAM, WP:NOT#LINK, WP:VAIN, WP:COI, etc. We see edit wars of this all the time. Typically its someone affiliated with the site in question who is unaware of these guidelines. They usually get it, but sometimes the stubborn ones need a little prodding. That's all. ccwaters 19:49, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

bloody heck i can't be concise AND accurate!! pick one!! lol. all linkage contains the element known as advertising. not all of the parasitic relationship IS advertising-- that i will certainly agree with! on THIS discusion (fan site linkages) and using your supplied wiki criteria, how can ANY mentioned site be externally linked? how are any of them going to meet neutrality, reliability and fairness doctrines? how is finding ONE and allowing it linkage not going to induce others to want inclusion? I've suggested and supplied the dmoz linkage to the blues fan sites which are expressly permitted and notated that a similar such resource page would be likely allowed. but individual links to non offical, non neutral, non verified sites ???

wiki policy cc linked to above states: Where editors have not reached consensus on an appropriate list of links, a link to a well chosen web directory category could be used until such consensus can be reached. The Open Directory Project is often a neutral candidate, and may be added using the {{dmoz}} template. Sites which fail to meet criteria for reliable sources yet still contain information about the subject of the article from knowledgeable sources.

my suggestions follow wiki policy too :) and allow INSTANT connection between reader and the fanbase of the blues... every one above can get two step link via the dmoz general linkage and the world would be a better place, assuming dmoz is a positive thing :)

Ok, I'm not saying this to be mean in any way: I'm not sure what you are arguing. You need to learn to express your thoughts in a coherent manner. ccwaters 12:48, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

It's not mean; I was thinking the same thing. That being said, Childhoodtrauma, if you disagree with Wikipedia policy on linking external sites, I recommend the talk page at Wikipedia_talk:External_links. Debating the policy, or expressing your views as to what you think the policy should be, isn't appropriate here.  Ravenswing  15:30, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

umm i don't disagree with wiki's policy. As i said, when linking to external sites causes discussion, controversy, et al (which i would suggest this entire section demonstrates that it has) the WIKI solution is to link to a set of sites with a single external link-definitionally 'a resource page'. dmoz is specifically mentioned in the WIKI standards that i posted a chunk of above and ccwaters is listing as defining WIKI policy. again. im not sure how much more clear than that anyone can be. if linkning to a fan site causes issues, link instead to a resource page that lists MULTIPLE fan sites and other resources PER WIKI. the WIKI suggested dmoz linkage/format i also supplied (in part)showing that those fan sites in this discussion requesting information on how to get linked here are not yet part of that WIKI ACCEPTED resorce link. so the discussion on the bottom end of this section is about wether or not to have someone elected to select an external site on personal criteria, have multiple external sites be allowed via anyone who can edit this page who will then,maybe, discuss validity, or link to a single resorce page. i am on the "resource linkage" side. as far as i know none of those 3 options is specifically anti-WIKI. but some can RESULT in anti-wiki entriesChildhoodtrauma 19:37, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Requested move 2007

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

St. Louis Blues (hockey) → St. Louis Blues — From the links to St. Louis Blues, it is apparent that this is the primary topic for the title. Thus, I have moved the dab page to St. Louis Blues (disambiguation). This page can be moved to the plain title, since the parenthetical is not a part of the official name. The redirect tag at the top of this page can be replaced by an otheruses tag. Is there consensus for that setup? —Dekimasuよ! 02:32, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Survey

Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's naming conventions.

• Support Bsroiaadn^Talk 03:17, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
• Support Yep, this makes it easier, when seeking the Blues hockey team. GoodDay 20:01, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose. "St. Louis Blues" means more than just the hockey team, in fact, weren't the team named that because the name was already world famous long before? -- Infrogmation 22:34, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

• All links to the capitalized title are intended for the hockey team. That indicates that it is the primary topic for the term. Dekimasuよ! 08:19, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

"St. Louis Blues", the world famous tune which the hockey team is named in reference to and which we have an article on at St. Louis Blues (music) is certainly capitalized. If links to the disambiguation page are more commonly refering to the hockey team than the music, that is an indication that editors of the music articles have been better at correctly directing the article links than those of the hockey articles, which is in no way a valid argument for changing the disambiguation. -- Infrogmation 13:31, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

I've never heard of that song to be honest (no offense) I always thought they were named after the genre. Either way, whether all of the links going to St. Louis Blues are for the hockey team or not, the hockey team has many many more wikilinks to it than the other articles combined. Even if they are named after the song (which I still think it's the genre, but whatever you may be right), the hockey team is more relevant in this day and age. Bsroiaadn^Talk 13:43, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

No reason for anyone to take offence; as Will Rogers said, everyone is ignorant, only on different subjects. The Saint Louis Blues is one of the most famous and influential musical compositions of the first half of the 20th century, and no doubt there are hundreds of bands all over the world playing this standard tonight. No doubt outside of North America, and with people more familiar with music history than hockey, it is the more famous "St. Louis Blues" than the team. However there is no contest about something somehow being "more relevent"-- the composition and the hockey team are both very important subjects within their respective topics. I therefore think this exactly the type of case that Wikipedia disambiguation pages are designed for. -- Infrogmation 23:36, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Indeed the music will be more well-known by people who study music and don't watch hockey. I just thought that the fact that St. Louis Blues (hockey) has an overwhelmingly bigger amount of wikilinks to it than the rest showed that more people (in general, regardless of what they are fans of) are looking for the team, thus it should be the primary topic. Bsroiaadn^Talk 02:16, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose This team deserves no supremecy over other articles sharing the same or similar name. The disambiguation page is JUST fine the way it is. I see no point in this mode of action, as there is no confusion for anyone searching for these articles at the moment. However, this change WOULD invite confusion. Bad idea, imo. (Mind meal 07:07, 29 June 2007 (UTC))

Discussion

Any additional comments:

I am assuming the change over hasn't been completed, as it is now the confusion does not seem to be worth the gain.

st louis blues (song) redirects itself to st, louis blues (music) although it is about the song.

the st. louis blues music(as underdeveloped as it it) is just the st. louis blues, and its "for other uses" link currently redirects to the hockey page not the dab page.

I would suggest making the song (the song), the music type (the music),and we can dot the "i" on all the cross redirects from there.Childhoodtrauma 02:52, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

I've fixed all that. Except I left St. Louis Blues (music) at the same location and the St. Louis blues at the same location. The rest I have fixed. Bsroiaadn^Talk 03:19, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

• Comment: I strongly suggest that the blues, jazz, and other relvent groups which would be affected by the proposed move should be alerted and invited to participate on discussion before any move. A poll only in the talk page of the hockey article would likely not be representative of people with an interest in the St. Louis Blues in general. -- Infrogmation 22:34, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

• Reply: If you look at the other talk pages, I have posted on all of them that a discussion is going on here. As to your reason for not making the hockey team St. Louis Blues instead of St. Louis Blues (hockey), it's not very good in my opinion. First of all, genres aren't capitalized, so St. Louis blues has absolutely no reason to be on St. Louis Blues. Secondly, as per WP:DAB#Primary topic the article that will be searched for most frequently should get the main page and that can be decided by links to it. St. Louis Blues (music) - 27 links, St. Louis Blues (Australian rules football) - 27 links, St. Louis Blues (film) - 28 links, St. Louis Blues (hockey) - over 1,300 links, so the hockey team should clearly be the primary topic. Bsroiaadn^Talk 23:05, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

• CommentBut most of those are probably because of the NHL infobox. -- Beardo 04:46, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

• Reply: 262 wikilinks to it are because of the template, the rest are actually inside the articles, which still leaves over 1,000 wikilinks to it. Bsroiaadn^Talk 13:14, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

• Lol, lots of hockey fans here. But, when I think of St. Louis blues I think of the Blues, and not hockey. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder, therefore the current disambiguation facilitates all parties involved. Why go stepping on toes when there is no problem to begin with? (Mind meal 07:16, 29 June 2007 (UTC))

• Reply: And that's fine, but genres aren't capitalized (excluding the first letter), so St. Louis Blues and St. Louis blues wouldn't be on the same page anyway. But the hockey team is the primary topic (at least for Blues and not blues, which by the way St. Louis blues has less than 100 wikilinks to it), and so it should be at St. Louis Blues, not St. Louis Blues (hockey). I'm not putting down the other articles, but the hockey team has many more links to it. Bsroiaadn^Talk 13:14, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

• As shown in the discussion above, the arguement about capitalization is incorrect and irrelevent, as the user above admits they had never even heard of the St. Louis Blues when they started this discussion (which could have been remedied by looking at the articles on the disambiguation page before proposing the move). -- Infrogmation 23:40, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

• To make it clear, I am not the one that proposed the move, I merely supported it. Secondly, "when I think of St. Louis blues I think of the Blues" shows they were talking about the genre since they linked to the genre, which wouldn't be capitalized (see heavy metal, smooth jazz, hard rock, etc.) so how is my statement incorrect? Bsroiaadn^Talk 02:13, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

It was requested that this article be renamed but there was no consensus for it be moved. --Stemonitis 05:56, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Blues make roster changes (www.cbc.ca)

According to CBC.ca:

-Dallas Drake has been waived

-Curtis Sanford will not be signed

207.148.178.250 01:11, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Dallas Drake

As long as Drake remains on waivers, he's still a St. Louis Blue and the Blues team captain. So people, pleased stop removing him from the 'current roster' (along with other post-Drake edits). GoodDay 00:19, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Drake is now off the roster. [3] ^{Erryday I'm} 05:48, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Yep, he's gone. GoodDay 22:53, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Uniform section

Article needs a section specific to the team jerseys, complete with photos and info. Also, the team mascot, or lack thereof, needs to be mentioned. Love each other, or perish. ~Auden 05:03, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Well I guess you can consider the Towel Guy the teams mascot. ^{Erryday I'm} 03:24, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

well they will now have "ice girls" hopefully that will fail. towel boy is and is not a mascot. certianly a source of some fan adorment and some fan derision. he is, howevera specific blues character and nationally "known" as he had a piece in the NEW YORK TIMES (huh?) and was brought out by SCOTTRADE at the frozen four. at the frozen four, the st louis-ness of him caused a complete bombing of his routine. however, do we REAALLY want to start mentioning fans? i mean we can add the cottoneye joe guy, the horn guy, and the fat guy (the fat guy was actually in a commercial at least!). lol. realistically the fan cues that are significant and historic are mostly musical in nature , not a mascot, "the blues(saints) go marching in", "the st louis blues song" (obviously)etc. these traditions are not in the article and PERHAPS deserve some mention. not having a clown in a suit may become relevant only because a lot of wiki sports teams' info boxes (for some inane reason) feel the need to list a mascot or LACK of one. and if not having one is a lack, i'm not sure how... the history of the uniform could be somewhat interesting, the horrid red thing would be the only significant variation though. the blue note has changed, but not a lot, over the blues history. the uniforms have had a consistant (although different) feel to them through all the "non-red" eras. and that trumpet patch that was in vogue during the red days could be shown. the avs wiki entry shows "the big foot" i believe, for an example.. and Hull (debatably the greatest blues ever) was a red era Blues...

I dunno about mascot (or lack of info), but I would also be interested in seeing a section on the uniforms, particularly since they've got a new version this year, whose main difference from previous years seems to be that the color bands along the bottom of the old jersey (particularly noticeable in the white 'road' jersey) are gone. Granted, it's variations on a theme, but definitely enough variation between this year's and last year's I would think to at least merit a mention. --Umrguy42 05:49, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Blues captains

There's some uncertainty over the Blues captains from 1970-77 (between Arbour and Berenson). Could someone help fix this uncertainty & perhaps provide a citation? GoodDay 22:27, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

It seems Berenson was named captain in 1970, but was traded the same year. Then he was captain again from 75-76, then again from 77-78, and the season in between those 2 seasons Unger was captain for one season. As for as Arbour, I have no idea.  D1R3C7  23:38, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

I can't find any citations, backing Arbour's second stint as Blues captain. Therefore, I've removed the second mentioning of his name from the list, replacing it with 'no captain'. GoodDay 14:21, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

The NHL Media Guide says, and I quote: "Al Arbour, 1967-68 to 1969-70; Red Berenson and Barclay Plager , 1970-71; Barclay Plager, 1971-72 to 1975-76; no captain, 1976-77; Red Berenson, 1977-78; Barry Gibbs, 1978-79 ..." The citation is in the style the book uses for a mid-season trade. As far as 1976 goes, that was the season Barclay Plager was turfed off to be player-coach of the Blues' Kansas City farm team during the point when management felt that the Plager Bros. had an unhealthy influence on the locker room and wished to break that. Garry Unger never was the Blues' captain.  Ravenswing  04:29, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

RG, feel free to straigten out the Blues captains list. I don't know what's wrong with the people at the Blues official website, but they've got it wrong. Even more bizzare, I've old hockey books at home which describe Roberts & Unger as Blues captains. I suspect Roberts & Unger only -filled in- during injuries; honestly the Blues have gotten me confused on their captaincy past & present (as seen below). GoodDay 17:34, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Nevermind, I've fixed the list to reflect the NHL Media Guides list. I've also removed the Blues captain successon boxes from the Roberts & Unger articles. GoodDay 18:16, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

To go along with verifiability, I have the NHL Offical Guide & Record Book 2006 which on page 118 has the exact same captains' history information that Ravenswing quoted above. As such, GoodDay's assertions about the Blues' captains are correct. -Pparazorback (talk) 04:30, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Somebody has inserted Roberts & Unger again. GoodDay (talk) 20:18, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

So revert it...Well I did this time, but when you see it revert it. -Djsasso (talk) 20:20, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

OK, I've added the Blues, to my watchlist. Jumpin' Junipers.. 'diacritics' appearing on NHL articles, 'birth countries' being tampered with and now? the captaincy thing. Well, this looks like a fixing job for somone who's grumpy (and I'm grumpy). GoodDay (talk) 20:56, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

I thought when Brewer was made captain as "the 19th captian in blues history" http://blues.nhl.com/team/app/?service=page&page=NewsPage&articleid=352757 he was 19th on the wiki list. he is no longer 19th. is this the result of the unger etc issues? if you add back roberts and unger and count red twice, brewer becomes 19th. if this is the issue, i suspect many people are likely to try to fix the captancy to match not only what the blues' claim on their web site, but also during their games, in their guides, et al.Childhoodtrauma (talk) 19:33, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Very sharp eye 'Childhoodtrauma'. The list minus Roberts, Unger does indeed come up short of 19. I'm bring this up at WikiProject Ice Hockey. GoodDay (talk) 19:36, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

GoodDay, not everything needs to always be brought up on that talk page. That is why individual articles have talk pages. Again, just fix the issue. -Djsasso (talk) 19:39, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

:Please note Berenson is counted 'twice' (as the 2nd & 4th captain). PS: I notify the WikiProject to get 'members' there to come here (there's a chance they don't all have the Blues on their watchlists). GoodDay (talk) 19:42, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

i think what we probably have here is a difference between the franchise records and the nhl records. this is not the first time this has happened. there is a semi-imfamous case involving the "un"retirement of the number the nhl guides had listed as retired, but the red wings pesonal information had removed that distinction. eventually the nhl adopted the red wings' version of history. IF the blues and the NHL differ on the issue of sucession of team captains: a) which one do we go with, and B) almost certainly people using the non selected version will try to "fix" the entry making the blues captancy something to be corrected on an ongoing basis.Childhoodtrauma (talk) 19:00, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

That is actually my point, there is often a reason why people don't have certain pages on their watch list. By taking conversations to multiple talk pages like you constantly do you end up spamming people. Just be WP:BOLD when there is an obvious fix. -Djsasso (talk) 19:45, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Spammy people? what's that? GoodDay (talk) 19:48, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Blues alternate captains, 2007-08

Do the Blues actually have six alternate captains this season? Do we have comfirmation of that? (Note: the Blues website is unreliabe, it has only Weight & Jackman with As). GoodDay 21:11, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Errr, make that five. Doug Weight has been traded to the Ducks (for Andy McDonald). GoodDay (talk) 01:16, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Does anybody know? what's going on with the Blues alternate captains? The Blues official website doesn't help (I think someone's asleep at the switch there; unless they're just as confused). Can somebody put a call in to 'Andy Murray'? GoodDay (talk) 17:20, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Wow that was fast! - Murray has named Brewer captain & Kariya, Jackman, Tkachuck alternate captains. GoodDay (talk) 21:58, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Davidson and Pleau

Would somebody explain to me why, John Davidson's name keeps getting put into the GM section at the infobox? GoodDay (talk) 21:31, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

When John Davidson took over as president, he assumed most of the functions usually carried out by a GM, with Pleau being reduced to an advisory role. The article even notes this. In fact, his formal title, according to the Blues' Web site is "president of hockey operations." Blueboy96 21:53, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

What's Larry Pleau's job. GoodDay (talk) 21:55, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

It gives the impression that Davidson is GM & Pleau is Assitant GM, which is incorrect. GoodDay (talk) 22:04, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

The Blue's site explicitly states that Pleau is the General Manager. Regardless if his power has been reduced, he still has the official title. As such, he should be listed as the GM here. --Pparazorback (talk) 22:43, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

So why not list that while Pleau is officially GM, Davidson has the final say in all hockey decisions with the Blues? This is similar to what prevails with the Phoenix Coyotes--Wayne Gretzky has the final say in all on-ice matters, even though they have a guy with the general manager's title. I won't edit-war over this ... just want to see this worked out since it seems to be generally understood that Davidson has the real power. Blueboy96 23:41, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

The president in ALL organizations holds the real power. So really this is no different than any other organization except that it was publicly talked about in the press. If the Blues list him as officially the GM than that is all there is to it. There doesn't need to be any further clarification because the role of GM differs drastically from team to team. It doesn't really matter who holds the power, its who holds the title that gets listed. -Djsasso (talk) 00:12, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. While Davidson may be the de facto GM, he is not the official GM. For us to demote Pleau from his formal title on wiki when the Blues themselves have not would be for us to introduce our own POV. Pleau is the GM, and that is what we should be stating in the infobox. Resolute 01:39, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

OK ... so maybe put the fact that Davidson has the final say in hockey operations in a footnote somewhere? Blueboy96 02:09, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Didn't you mention that this is already mentioned in the article itself? The infobox is designed simply to give information at a glance. It is fine as it is, while the article itself can mention how Davidson and Pleau interact. Resolute 15:45, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Then we'd need a footnote for all 30 NHL team articles. GoodDay (talk) 02:29, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Agree with the consensus. The line states "General Manager." Larry Pleau is the GM. Davidson is not. Our goal isn't editorializing over who has the real say; our goal is to repeat factual, verifiable information.  Ravenswing  14:17, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

there is an additional issue involving the health of Larry Pleau's wife, which has likely reduced his workload. While John Davidson is the face of Blues management to the fans via the media, I certainly agree that that has nothing to do with who is the GM. I believe the concern on the part of some is that GM is likely included in the info block because it is percieved as a position of authority with a major impact on the current team performance. It just turns out this may not always the case. as mentioned this article already has specifically given Davidson credit for moves (unverified) that i suspect are not his alone. And saddles him with a team mentality (also unverified) as that of American First which the BLues are unlikely to really be involved in.Childhoodtrauma (talk) 18:08, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

California Seals

Here's a tricky one. The Seals under that name, never won a Stanly Cup title, however the franchise did (1999) as the Dallas Stars. Seals-Barons-North Stars-Stars, is the unbroken line of the franchise - also some may question the Sharks being a direct link to the Seals (butt that's a seperate story). I'd recommend a note be added, or is that's getting too nitpicky? GoodDay (talk) 16:41, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Technically they didn't cause the Golden Seals if you follow the franchise are the San Jose Sharks not the Dallas Stars. They demerged from the North Stars prior to moving to Dallas. The line is actually Seals-Barons-1/2 North Stars-Sharks and then the North Stars line is North Stars-1/2 North Stars-Stars. -Djsasso (talk) 17:01, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

One could argue though: the Dallas Stars & San Jose Sharks are equal direct links to the Seals, but I won't. GoodDay (talk) 17:20, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Not really the Sharks were an official demerging of the two franchises. -Djsasso (talk) 17:27, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

So some claim, in any event, but that seems to be at best a technicality akin to the Ottawa Senators "reinstatement" to the NHL. In any event, the NHL Record Book doesn't consider the Seals-Barons to have a link with the North Stars, nor either one with the Sharks.  Ravenswing  17:56, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Move to St. Louis Blues (ice hockey)?

Isn't that the naming convention? I'd rather have this as the main page and use St. Louis Blues (disambiguation), but I see that boat has been sunk. Schmloof (talk) 15:58, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

It is, but the problem is every time we go to move it there. The fact that most hockey people don't think it should be disambiguated at all comes up. So it ends up remaining as status quo. -Djsasso (talk) 16:45, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Also, is the title "St. Louis Blues (ice hockey)" necessary? I think "St. Louis Blues (hockey)" would be sufficient, since, as far as I know, there are no field hockey or roller hockey teams called the St. Louis Blues. --Rxmc89 (talk) 05:14, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

We try to keep disambiguators standard through all uses. We use (ice hockey) in all instances of disambiguation involving ice hockey. -DJSasso (talk) 21:50, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Precicely. It's just for the sake of consistency to keep it this way. Resolute 22:50, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Agreed with DJSasso. Obamafan70 (talk) 18:27, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Schmloof's post, I'd rather see this as the main page, as it is probably the most used and widely known St. Louis Blues article. I'd rather see the other uses as "St. Louis Blues (disambiguation). It also seems to be the structure of how the other major sports teams do things. Bhockey10 (talk) 00:45, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Why is it that some British and South Asian articles use (hockey) instead of (field hockey)? If they get to do that, then North American, Scandinavian and former USSR should be able to use "hockey" instead of "ice hockey". 184.144.161.173 (talk) 20:22, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:St. Louis Blues (ice hockey) which affects St. Louis Blues. Please participate on this page and not in the Talk:St. Louis Blues page section. Thank you. —RM bot 22:15, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Requested move 2010

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: page moved. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 08:58, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

---

St. Louis Blues → St. Louis Blues (disambiguation) — The NHL's St. Louis Blues are currently the most notable and significant article found at St. Louis Blues (disambiguation). Quite frankly, I find it increasingly annoying that I must type out "St. Louis Blues (ice hockey)|St. Louis Blues" every time I want to link to the hockey club. Dolovis (talk) 22:13, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

• St. Louis Blues (ice hockey) → St. Louis Blues

• Oppose per WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. If anything, I would've thought the song ("St. Louis Blues") to be the dominant (although maybe not primary) meaning. And just as a tip: you don't have to type out "St. Louis Blues (ice hockey)" every time. Just type "St. Louis Blues" and use your mouse or touchpad to click the article link. — AjaxSmack 22:39, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose per AjaxSmack. The song and the hockey team are at least equal in notability, with (and I as hockey fan have to say that) a slight edge towards the song. P.S.: Ever heard of WP:PIPETRICK? This is a tremendous help when linking disambiguated pages... --Soccer-holic^{I hear voices in my head...} 23:01, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose as both subjects are equally well knonwn. GoodDay (talk) 23:18, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Comment from nom: It is easily demonstrated that Wikipedia's "PRIMARY TOPIC" is the hockey club, not the song. There are almost 3,000 articles that link to "St. Louis Blues (ice hockey)"[4], while there are less than 200 articles that link to "St. Louis Blues (song)"[5]. Also, looking at Wikipedia article traffic statistics, "St. Louis Blues (ice hockey") has been viewed about 24,600 times in December 2010[6], while "St. Louis Blues (song)" has only been viewed about 5,700.[7] Dolovis (talk) 23:27, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
    • While these statistics can be considered, they are not the only factors for determining the primary topic. Also consider WP:RECENTISM. You have given stats for one month but if you look at January 2009, not that long ago, you will see 3841 views for the song and only 358 views for the hockey team (and this doesn't even include 716 views for the 1958 movie among others). — AjaxSmack 23:47, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
      • The hockey team was formerly at St. Louis Blues (hockey), and was only moved to our standard disambig title recently. The hockey team's article actually had 14692 views in January 2009. Resolute 06:05, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
• Support, per Dolovis' examples above. GoodDay (talk) 23:44, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
• Support. IMO, the hockey team is clearly the primary topic at this point. Resolute 06:05, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
• Support. The gross disparity in number of links to each clearly indicate the team is the primary topic. oknazevad (talk) 08:22, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
• Strong oppose; there is no clear primary topic here; the song continues to have currency even if it's not as frequently searched for among the Internet generation. =) Powers ^T 19:31, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
• Support i would say the NHL team has been the primary topic for atleast 30 years. 184.144.161.173 (talk) 20:24, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
• Comment: I fear there may be a bit of WP:RECENTISM at work here; let us not forget that the song is one of the few truly seminal works of American popular music and remains an essential part of the repertoire even today. This is not just some song that was popular once upon a time. It's even the namesake of the hockey team! Powers ^T 21:06, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Powers' opposing argument is based purely on sentimental reasoning and is not supported by any policy. Dolovis (talk) 22:08, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Not really, it is standard to try and avoid recentism. Remember notability is not temporary. The fact that the song is a very historical song in the context of American popular music is a strong argument for the fact that there isn't one primary topic. However, I am not saying he is right or wrong since I am not sure on this topic. But I think its disingenuous to just dismiss it as being sentimental when there is nothing in his comment that would suggest something like that. -DJSasso (talk) 00:09, 7 January 2011 (UTC):

There is nothing recent about the St. Louis Blues; they have been in the NHL since 1967. Wikipedia:Recentism does not apply in this case, and no one is suggesting that the song is not notable. The facts strongly support that the hockey club is the Primary tOpic, and that is the only relevant issue that needs to be decided. Dolovis (talk) 01:30, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Relatively speaking yes, 40 years is recent compared to the song. Recent changes based on the subject. Something that happened 200 years ago is recent compared to something 1000 years ago. His argument is that the fact suggest there is no primary topic. I am merely saying that calling him sentimental is not productive to a discussion on where the page should be. -DJSasso (talk) 01:33, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

While there's certainly recentism concerns, the numbers of links and views seems pretty convincing that the hockey team is the primary topic. And there's no precedence clause to WP:PRIMARY; being the namesake doesn't automatically make it the primary topic, or make the other topic require a disambiguator. And it's not like there wouldn't be hatnote to point to the song. oknazevad (talk) 01:48, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Djsasso makes some very valid points, and the time differences is largely what makes this move trickier, It's much easier in moving articles to determine the primary topic when they are in the same historical period. Although there's clearly a primary topic in terms of article views and links, that may be because the hockey team exists in a period of time when mass media plays an important role in peoples lives. Combine that with the song having such a large impact on American music and the hockey team's name coming from it and I have to lean toward either 1) the song being the primary topic or 2) both the hockey team and song being primary topics (esp. compared to other things named "St. Louis Blues"). Another way to look at the issue and deal with the complexity of the difference in historical periods between the song and hockey team is: if the hockey team ended tomorrow, what entity would be more influential in 100 years? Bhockey10 (talk) 02:13, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

There's more to determining primary topic than just article links and page views. Powers ^T 15:03, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

The last sentence of the nom is based purely on personal convenience and is not supported by any policy. Also, as mentioned above you can just type "St. Louis Blues (ice hockey)|" in any case. Jafeluv (talk) 01:13, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

But the first sentence of the nom is based on WP:PRIMARYTOPIC and is well supported by policy. Dolovis (talk) 02:07, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Can't disagree with that. Jafeluv (talk) 16:31, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Regardless if a convenience factor is openly stated, most moves I've seen usually have some convenience factor. The main convenience factor should be to help readers navigate Wikipedia better. Bhockey10 (talk) 02:13, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

• Comment: The arguments of Djsasso and Bhockey10 have really curved my opinion of this move in the direction of WP:IFITAINTBROKE. While yes, the hockey team is the current primary topic, the song itself has immense historical relevance. The simple fact that the team was named after the song leads me want to stay out of this whole mess. Can you imaging an argument that Maple leaf should be disambiguated because only 8,630 viewed the article in December 2010, as opposed to the 60,350 who viewed Toronto Maple Leafs. How about the 36,888 people who viewed Saint versus the 84,338 looking for New Orleans Saints. Obviously these examples aren't matching to the identical name issue we have here, but I'm just trying to make a point (for the other side of the coin, Buffalo Bills was viewed only 65,512 times, versus the 856 looking for its namesake Buffalo Bills (quartet)). However, considering WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, we mustn't forget that the primary topic is not defined by what is or is not the most historically relevant topic, but rather by "the subject being sought when a reader enters that ambiguous term in the Search box". Because the hockey team receives 4 to 5 times the article traffic of the song in any given month, it is clear that the team is the primary topic. At any rate, I don't really see a problem with how things are done now, so I'd rather just leave things the way they are. But the policy outweighs my personal opinion on this, so I'm not going to leave a hard vote, although if pressed I'd probably go with oppose. – Nurmsook! ^talk... 07:32, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

  Apples and oranges. You are comparing articles with different, albeit similar, titles in Toronto Maple Leafs/Maple Leaf as opposed to articles with identical titles. Resolute 16:34, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

  Apples and oranges are both fruit, though, and comparing them can be instructive in certain cases. Powers ^T 15:03, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

• Support. I'm not a hockey fan, never heard of the team, but it's abundantly clear the article about the team meets the primary topic criteria.

  As to the objections, I'm sorry, but WP:IFITAINTBROKE arguably applies to just about every move proposal. If we start rejecting page moves based on that, we might as well take away the ability to move articles. After all, as long as an article is at some title, you can link to it from the appropriate redirects, dab pages and other pages, so it "ain't broke", no matter how wrong or inappropriate the title may seem.

  WP:RECENTISM? For a 40 year old team? Recentism is about not being swayed by the blip of high publicity some stories get when they occur. It can't possibly apply to topics that have a history that stretches decades. As far as the song having more of an impact on society, perhaps, but what matters to us here is how much action each article gets, period. That's what primary topic is about, not "cultural importance".

  Frankly, there is simply no good excuse to not move this article as proposed. --Born2cycle (talk) 18:58, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

• Support: WP:PRIMARYTOPIC is quite clear. The hockey team surpasses the song in every one of the tools noted, by a wide margin. The song certainly has historical significance in the history of jazz music ... just as the hockey team has historical significance in the history of hockey; that's pretty much a wash.  Ravenswing  20:16, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
• Support WP:RECENTISM cannot be used as an argument against something in common use for 40 years. Plus the stats speak for themselves. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 00:49, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure of the appropriate procedure with a move of this nature, but as there is no move proposal banner on St. Louis Blues or the other variations of this article, I think this discussion risks being a bit one-sided. isaacl (talk) 01:59, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

A link to this discussion was left on that talk page and its listed at requested moves. This is basically how these discussions are handled. -DJSasso (talk) 02:05, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

• Support definitely per WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. The dab link at the top could specifically state This article is about the hockey team. For the song by W. C. Handy, see St. Louis Blues (song). For other uses, see St. Louis Blues (disambiguation) - Frankly for me, searching for St. Louis Blues I would expect to come up with the hockey team. I never even heard of the song until this discussion started. -Pparazorback (talk) 15:57, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Object strongly; I think this is wildly inappropriate to ONLY discuss on the hockey article with no notice on the relevent St. Louis Blues articles! There is not consensus to move until there is consensus in the music, blues, etc forums as well. -- Infrogmation (talk) 12:53, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

There actually was notice on the disambiguation page talk page. Since those two articles are the only articles involved it was only necessary to notify those two articles. It was also listed on the Requested Moves page for outside opinions. -DJSasso (talk) 12:56, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

If you wish to start a discussion to move it back then do so. However, your attempt at a revert created quite a mess where the actual hockey article was deleted from the wiki completely instead of being moved back to its old location. Until you can show there is a consensus to move it back please cease moving the article around. -DJSasso (talk) 13:04, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

What DJ said; the only two articles affected received notification. The song's page is, as far as I can tell, completely unaffected by the move. Going to every music forum you can name in an attempt to overturn a result you don't like would be a blatant WP:CANVASS violation.  Ravenswing  14:41, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

It looks to me that notifying people interested in "The Saint Louis Blues" (which might refer to multiple things) would have been only reasonable. You argue that that would have been a blatant CANVASS violation, whereas only confining the discussion only to the those following the hockey team is not? Puzzled Infrogmation (talk) 02:02, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Please don't reverse the page move, or you'll have me singing the blues. GoodDay (talk) 19:06, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

The problem, as I see it, is that the majority of participants were more familiar with the hockey team than with the historical importance of the song. The song really got unfairly short shrift in the discussion; however much fun hockey is -- and I'm a member of the WikiProject -- you simply can't compare any individual team to one of the ten most important works in the American musical canon. The Blues aren't even one of the 10 most important American hockey teams! Powers ^T 15:00, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

If the historical importance of the song defined location, it would be at "St. Louis Blues" rather than "St. Louis Blues (song)". What matters here is what the primary topic is, and that is determined by common usage. If you can convince me that the hockey team is not easily the most common thing a reader would expect to find when searching this title, I will happily reverse my opinion. Besides, I am not entirely certain what the problem is. When this title pointed to the dab page, the song was simply one of many links buried in a list. The current hat note gives the song prime placement ahead of the dab list. I would say the song's position has been impoved by this move. Resolute 16:41, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

But that's just it -- I'm not advocating that the song get the undisambiguated title; I couldn't with the obvious discrepancy in popularity. But neither do I think a strong case can be made that the hockey team is primary, given the historical importance of the song. Without the participation of learned music historians, it's no surprise that most of the people who did participate were only familiar with the hockey team. Powers ^T 00:07, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm more familiar with the hockey team myself, but if the evidence had suggested that the song was the more common term by as wide a margin as the team proved to be, I couldn't do anything but oppose the move. It didn't.  Ravenswing  19:39, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Today (2011), It doesn't appear that many would associate St. Louis Blues with a song written in 1914. GoodDay (talk) 20:17, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

If that's true, it's only due to a general ignorance of music history. It's among the first 10 American songs I'd want any encyclopedia to have. It's the "Rock Around the Clock" of the Jazz Age. Powers ^T 00:07, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

"Today (2011), It doesn't appear that many would associate St. Louis Blues with a song written in 1914."What an absurd statement! The Saint Louis Blues is one of the most famous and influential musical compositions, played every day by bands all around the world, and no doubt millions of the people who are familiar with it don't even know that there's an American hockey team named after it. -- Infrogmation (talk) 02:02, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia talk:Disambiguation#Educational value and consider if this alternate wording would have swayed anyone to the importance of making this title a disambiguation page. Powers ^T 15:31, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

I didn't come in on either side of the issue, however, this wouldn't sway me in a particular direction because the song should definitely not be the primary topic. That much I am sure on, I am just not sure on if the page should be a dab or the hockey team. -DJSasso (talk) 15:37, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Comment Keep in mind the purpose of dab pages, and the issue of what title links to what article is for the ease of the readers to find info. If someone is looking for the song: when typing "St. Louis Blues into the search box 1) [[St. Louis Blues (song) appears second, it's very easy to click on. 2) if someone clicks on St. Louis Blues there's a clear hatnote to direct them to the song. Bhockey10 (talk) 22:00, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Blues Logos

The logos listed are not complete, one is wrong, and the dates are inaccurate. The logo currently listed as one being used from 84-98 was never used on an official primary jersey. The official St. Louis Blues page: http://blues.nhl.com/club/page.htm?id=39484 shows 4 different versions of logos that have appeared on the chest of the primary St. Louis Blues jerseys since coming into the league in 1967. Also, this sports logos site: http://www.sportslogos.net/logos/list_by_team/25 displays all of the shoulder patches and other logos the team has displayed on their jerseys at one point or another. I recommend to add a logos section to include all of these logos/patches. I was going to do it myself, but I haven't figured out how to add images yet.

Cprice12 (talk) 20:08, 5 November 2012 (UTC)cprice12

Conference championships in the 1960's?

It says the Blues won 3 conference championships between 1968 and 1970. Were there even conferences back then? I believe that's not true, at the time the NHL only had two divisions and no conferences. Tdunsky (talk) 17:38, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Sigh. You are, of course, right. Whoever added that simply assumed that winning a Campbell Bowl back then equates to winning a Conference title today. I've removed it. Thanks, Resolute 20:26, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

The new uniforms

The new uniforms are in the Hebrew version of this article. They are my creation, feel free to use them for the English article as well. Tdunsky (talk) 15:38, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Article actually already had them but someone removed them...their edit has been reverted. -DJSasso (talk) 17:45, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Are you sure about that? I believe what happened is that someone had tried to re-insert the old uniforms. I don't see the new uniforms on file at all in English Wikipedia. Tdunsky (talk) 10:47, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Which is exactly what happened again today... the home and away uniforms in the article are outdated. Tdunsky (talk) 16:57, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Just noticed this. I reverted the removal because it looked like simple vandalism. Since the file is outdated, ideally we would try to update it to show the new designs, but alas I'm not capable if that. That said, I don't know if just removing the old ones is the right way to go. Check the file history to see if the uploader of the most recent version is willing and able to update it. oknazevad (talk) 04:37, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

As said, I've created the new uniforms for the Hebrew version of this article. You or anyone else are free to use my design if it makes things easier for you. Tdunsky (talk) 07:01, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Basically the old ones should remain until new ones are created in the same format as the ones we currently use. While the ones on the hebrew version are nice they are backwards to how we display them on this wiki. -DJSasso (talk) 16:21, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Quite frankly, I don't understand the logic of deliberately maintaining outdated information, which is no longer relevant, in the article. Keeping the old uniforms just so that there'll be uniforms in the article, regardless of their actual representation the true current uniforms, is beyond me, I guess. Tdunsky (talk) 06:45, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

Technically it is not outdated until the season starts when the jerseys change. But yes outdated information is better than no information in this case at least. -DJSasso (talk) 17:05, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

I disagree with you on both points. Technically and otherwise, the old uniforms became outdated the moment the new ones were officially announced by the team. That's when the new ones became the team's official uniforms, and the old ones became history. And outdated information is wrong information, and wrong information is worse than none. This case is not different from any other case. Inserting wrong information on purpose just so that there'll be something there is the opposite of an encyclopedic approach, IMHO.

Since this is a one on one thing for now, I think we should hear other people on this. If the community agrees with you, then suit yourselves. Tdunsky (talk) 18:22, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

I noticed citation in ballpark section was needed/requested so I attempted to fill in with reference. Wiscbadger (talk) 14:24, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 June 2019

I want to edit PLEASE Hockey7474 (talk) 18:02, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

You need to have a specific edit you want to make. Otherwise you won't be able to yet. -DJSasso (talk) 18:04, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

Champions

@Djsasso: and I are reverting each others' edits with regards to whether or not to include the "and the 2019 NHL Stanley Cup Champions." in the opening sentence of the article.

I'd say that this team is the current reigning champion of its sport league is [relevant], especially to the casual user, and is more relevant than its membership in a division or conference.

I concur that mentioning the specific hockey game, date, or win is not relevant for the first paragraph, and we ought to revert edits such as [this one]: "On June 12th, 2019, the St. Louis Blues crushed the Boston Bruins in Game 7 of the Stanley Cup Finals, leading them to their first ever Stanley Cup Championship win."

The concept of 'reigning champion' in a league has arisen in the past few decades in sport, and there are examples in non-sports, non-hometown press of the concept being used for baseball, basketball, and American football:

https://www.star-telegram.com/sports/mlb/texas-rangers/article231456758.html

https://www.npr.org/2018/02/03/581701902/elephants-for-eagles-puppies-for-patriots-animals-predict-super-bowl-lii

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/06/07/sports/raptors-warriors-score.html

I'd therefore conclude that a team's status as the champion in its sports league is relevant, and ought to be in the first sentence during its 'reign', and in the first paragraph for some reasonable time period thereafter. Mcenedella (talk)(contribs) 12:39, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

It is in the lead already, so that people looking for that information can already see it, there is no point to have it twice. There is no reason to treat this team differently than we have every other Stanley Cup champion. We as an encylopedia as a whole, not just for sports champions, avoid dated statements like "X are current champions" or "X plays for Y" because the sentences can go out of date. We write as much as possible with a timeless language so that the article can't go out of date. See MOS:DATED for an explanation. "The Blues did not return to the Stanley Cup Final until 49 years later in 2019, where they captured their first championship by defeating the Boston Bruins in Game 7 on June 12, 2019." is already in the lead to avoid making dated statements. It doesn't need to be in the very first sentence where we generally just describe what the subject is, in this case a hockey team. -DJSasso (talk) 12:46, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

"It is in the lead already" - I'm not following that comment @Djsasso:. You reverted it out of the lead. Wikipedia's role is to provide accurate and up-to-date information, not necessarily to follow past practice. Especially given Wikipedia's presence as Google's top search result, more casual users and a broader audience are coming to Wikipedia and we ought to update with the times.

In general, Wikipedia does mention specific awards and specific dates in opening paragraphs where relevant. For example, we mention the Best Actor Award for Rami Malek, the specific dates of representation for former Governor Mark Sanford, and the 2018 population estimate for Tokyo.

I agree that the formulations you suggest, "X are current champions" or "X plays for Y", should not be used, per MOS:DATED. The specific wording I've suggested though is "and are 2019 NHL Stanley Cup champions", which can never go out of date. They will always be the 2019 Champions. It will become less relevant over time, just as Malek's role in Mr Robot will, but it is a timeless statement of fact. Mcenedella (talk)(contribs) 13:01, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

And this fact is clearly mentioned in the paragraph that focuses on the team's accolades. Frankly, there is no need to mention that they won the Cup yesterday in the very first sentence, running counter to how every other team article is organized. Resolute 13:07, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

The lead is the whole first section, in this case the first three paragraphs. Hockey articles follow a basic structure that Resolute alludes to. The first paragraph describes what they are, where they are etc. The second paragraph describes the accolades the team achieved, which is where we have a sentence already on them being the champions in 2019. The following paragraph(s) then add any other important information about the team that belongs in the lead. See last years champions the Washington Capitals for example to see the same structure. -DJSasso (talk) 13:13, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

The proposal is not to mention that they won the Cup yesterday @@Resolute:, the proposal is to accurately describe them as 2019 NHL Stanley Cup champions. It is the 2nd most relevant fact about this subject.

@@djsasso:, I understand that is the way last year's winner was written about, and we should honor precedent at Wikipedia where it's effective and relevant. But as the vast majority of traffic to this project comes from Google, and Google now uses the first paragraph for Search cards:

https://www.dropbox.com/s/pxa2iac83wep6l0/Screenshot%202019-06-13%2012.55.42.png?dl=0 , we ought to include the most relevant information in the first paragraph. I do not believe the appeal to past practice is sufficient to carry the argument here. Mcenedella (talk)(contribs) 16:58, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

To be fair that is entirely the way that Wikipedia works. We run on consensus and previously accepted standards and actions etc. And we certainly don't change how we edit here to appease how another website scrapes our data. The fact that it is important is in our lead where it belongs, but it is not the second most important bit of information about the team which is why accolades go in the second paragraph. The most important bits of information are the what and where that is currently in the first paragraph. People that want more detailed information beyond that go to the page as linked in the google search card. -DJSasso (talk) 17:21, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

Past practice does not trump relevance djsasso, and I'll maintain that their status as 2019 champions belongs in first paragraph, as is seen with other awards and accolades. I do not believe we should a sports team standard on Wikipedia different from other standards. I see you've been an editor on this page for years, so I'll urge you to reconsider, and leave it at that. On further reading, I believe the divisional and conference data belong in third para, which is where I'll move it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mcenedella (talk • contribs) 17:46, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

In agreement with Djsasso and Resolute. I see no reason why we need to deviate from the norms. While web traffic, is used as a determinate for some issues, it is not a factor to consider when considering "prose placement" (the WP:MOS/guidelines set by their relevant projects is what determines article structure and content, so yes it does "trump relevance"... web traffic only determines which "same-named articles" acts as the primary topic). MOS:LEAD is supposed to be a succinct summary of the entire article, and the MoS makes it very clear that we not mistake or craft it into a news-style lede (that sorta blatant WP:RECENTISM, as happy as many are I'm sure, historical context needs to be maintained here). The first sentence/paragraph main intent is to provide context/definition to what the article title is (i.e. this is a pro hockey team in St. Louis), and the MoS sorta makes a point of not overwhelming this part with superfluous details.

And honestly, its not like the present lead is in anyway cumbersome/difficult to read (its seems to be on the shorter side of things for an article of this size imo). Really though, I'm against the proposed placement in the first sentence for the reasons of syntax (there is a semblance of structure in these leads presently, with context -> history [which includes accolades] -> additional; the proposed edit would sorta mess with that); and redundancy (its stated twice in one lead, and unless you get that syntax sorted out, this is also an issue). Leventio (talk) 18:16, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for you contribution @Leventio:. I believe inclusion in the first sentence is most consistent with the policies you cite:

- The WP:MOS suggests the style for lead sections, but does not cite precedent, conservatism of structure, or prior art as appropriate grounds for rejecting edits.

- The MOS:LEAD asks for an 'accessible overview': "The lead section should briefly summarize the most important points covered in an article in such a way that it can stand on its own as a concise version of the article. The reason for a topic's noteworthiness should be established, or at least introduced, in the lead. It is even more important here than in the rest of the article that the text be accessible." I'd suggest that the Wikipedia reader coming to the St Louis Blues article in the future is far more likely to want to know succinctly, what specifically makes St Louis Blues noteworthy. While hockey-friendly Wikipedia editors feel that should be later in the article, the general interest audience member will be more curious to know, and will be better informed, if they are made aware that this team is their league's champions at the top of the article.

- WP:RECENTISM cites in its lead paragraph an article's contents that have been inflamed or imbalanced due to recent events. None of the editors here suggest that this content is inflammatory or should not be included. The [debate over recentism] cites arguments both for and against, so should not be cited as a definitive statement against inclusion of recent events, which, again, we are not discussing, merely prominence.

- News-style lede - I concur that this argues against including the Stanley Cup in the first sentence, and I was not familiar with that particular policy previously. Thank you for raising.

On the merits, by audience need, relevance, noteworthiness, and accessibility, I believe the 2019 Stanley Cup champions language belongs in the first sentence of the first paragraph. I'm as yet in the minority here, and will defer. Mcenedella (talk)(contribs) 20:32, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

With regards to WP:MOS, I was not pointing to it as a precedent for a conservative mindset. Rather I was pointing to it, because if your going to frame your argument, it should be coming from that, and not from the argument of "relevance." That holds little merit in the discussion of an article's structure. Article traffic is not a determining factor at all for these matters (for one thing, this "recent traffic," isn't going to be consistent, look at any past champion's article and you'll see the page views drops off after a week or two... Wikipedia doesn't just change how an article is written because of a sudden increase in traffic). RECENTISM was brought up in the same note. The RECENTISM essay isn't a page that advocates for or against any policy/rule specifically; rather the entire crux of that essay is to remind editors to maintain historical perspective when they make their edits. To take its WP:10 year test and apply it to the proposed edit, does it make sense in the grand scheme of things? I'd argue that it wouldn't and it makes a lot more sense to place it in the paragraph that goes over the past events of the club.

With regards to MOS:LEAD, I was moreso pointing to the MOS:FIRST subsection within it (which deals with first sentences). It basically outlines that the first sentence is intended to only tell the nonspecialist reader what, or who, the subject is, and that it should not be cluttered with additional details that can be placed elsewhere. Specifically it states to "try to not overload the first sentence by describing everything notable about the subject. Instead use the first sentence to introduce the topic, and then spread the relevant information out over the entire lead."

For that reason I can't really find a good reason to support the proposed addition. It doesn't really help the present purpose of the first sentence (to define and contextualize the subject) in a succinct manner. And to go outside the bounds of MOS and just practicality for a bit, it sorta goes against the present introductory structure already set up. Your essentially jumping from a definition to a historical point, back to contextualizing on where their based/play, back to history, and than to the ancillary stuff (sorta worded that terribly last time, but that is actually my main point of opposition, the proposal ruins the lead structure and creates redundancies unless the entire structure for the lead is reorganized). Leventio (talk) 23:32, 13 June 2019 (UTC); edited 23:34, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

Well, I understand your point, though I don't agree. Thanks @Leventio:. Mcenedella (talk)(contribs) 00:27, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

In agreement with the others. It's not our practice to put Stanley Cup champions in the intro of the team article, when that team's the most recent winners. We didn't do it last year for the Capitals, two previously years for the Penguins, etc etc. GoodDay (talk) 21:18, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 May 2022

Nazem Kadri should say Tom Stillman GamersBaseball24 (talk) 05:03, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

page is still vandalized GamersBaseball24 (talk) 05:04, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

It's fixed now. Deadman137 (talk) 05:12, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

still showing kadri as owner

somebody needs to send an edit request to get this changed GamersBaseball24 (talk) 05:06, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 September 2022

In "Franchise Playoff Scoring Leaders" table, "change Ryan O'Reilly's position from D to C" Imallov (talk) 22:00, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. MadGuy7023 (talk) 22:25, 23 September 2022 (UTC)