Talk:Vegas Golden Knights/Archive 1

Archive 1

Article revamp needed

This article is a block of text at the moment, and it needs revamping, with the addition of an infobox, sections, etc. Look at other teams' pages (example: Calgary Flames) for a template. MTG1989 ^talk 21:07, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

The writing is still quite bad in areas, especially the last few paragraphs of the Background section about the NFL. - BilCat (talk) 08:03, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

Team Name

There is no official team name at this point. The title that says Las Vegas Black Knights has not been confirmed at this point. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.253.2.34 (talk) 18:59, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

Um, at no point does this article currently say that it's called that, and there's no "title" calling it that. It only says it was the owner's preferred name. Echoedmyron (talk) 19:09, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

as of the year of 2017 it's official title is Las Vegas Golden Knights.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Scar4713 (talk • contribs) 15:55, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

That'd be "Vegas Golden Knights," actually, and you're responding to a message nearly a year old. Ravenswing 18:08, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

City name

In articles of other NHL teams, the city name is the city where its home arena is located. T-Mobile Arena is not in Las Vegas - it's in the city of Paradise. Tdunsky (talk) 22:51, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

This is hardly relevant, as Ottawa played a few seasons outside of their city limits until the town of Kanata was incorporated into the city of Ottawa in 2001. Also before changing their name to Arizona, the Coyotes played for over a decade as Phoenix despite playing in the nearby city of Glendale. Deadman137 (talk) 23:34, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

I am going to agree with Tdunsky here, in other articles such as the Florida Panthers and Arizona Coyotes, we use the actual location of the arena, Sunrise and Glendale respectively. While I don't know the status of Kanata specifically, it seems like it is more akin to Brooklyn or Manhattan is to New York (and if that is not the case then maybe we should take a look at how we label that as well). Paradise, on the other hand, seems like it might be its own city adjacent to Las Vegas itself, more similar to the Sunrise/Glendale scenario. Yosemiter (talk) 03:14, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

Kanata was an independent suburb of Ottawa when that arena was built, but was subsequently amalgamated into Ottawa. Paradise, according to this article, isn't even incorporated, but I'd probably support treating it the same as we do Phoenix/Glendale and Miami/Sunrise. Resolute 19:45, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

Team name and logo reveal on November 22, 2016

Hello everybody. The team will be revealing its name and logo, tonight November 22, 2016 5:30 PM Pacsific Time, 8:30 Eastern, 7:30 Central The finalist team names are:

Desert Knights
Silver Knights
Golden Knights

Thanks The brave celery (talk) 23:14, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

Let's start building! :)

Let us start building the article so that it can be of the same "prestige" and scope of the other major league sports articles! :) --The brave celery (talk) 21:14, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

Undue weight on establishment?

I know this team hasn't even played yet so the only content is about the establishment and formation of the team, but there is a ton of content on this page that in five years time will be still likely be over half the page's content for the History section. Should there be separate article about the Las Vegas expansion efforts? The entire ''Past NHL events in Las Vegas section is only slightly relevant to the team itself and is far more notable if there was an article about the establishment efforts and market testing of the NHL in Las Vegas. Yosemiter (talk) 01:27, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

There's lots of pointless detail in the History section that can be condensed or removed. No need for a separate article. Toohool (talk) 02:23, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

I agree that there's an awful lot of detail about hockey in Vegas as a whole, which is unnecessary for an article focusing on a Vegas hockey team. Something as general as the Past NHL events in Las Vegas section should probably go in Sports in the Las Vegas metropolitan area. Zappa24Mati 02:43, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

I took a stab at this, it is now about half the size. The team info section could still use some cleanup so that it properly describes the name, logo, jerseys etc. Yosemiter (talk) 17:40, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

"First major professional sports franchise"

An edit by 142.165.161.165 pointed out that the CFL had a franchise in Las Vegas back in '94. The edit summary says "Corrected an error. The knights are not the first pro team in vegas". The edit summary and the statement being made in the article are quite different, no one should dispute that there have been professional teams in Vegas, currently there are the Las Vegas 51's, a minor league baseball team. The question should be whether any of the previous professional teams count as "major professional franchises". My personal opinions, as a Canadian and casual CFL fan, is that CFL teams do not count as major professional franchises, however 1994 was before I followed the CFL, so I'm not sure if circumstances were different then. I would remove the reference to the Las Vegas Posse from this article, but I am interested in hearing other opinions, especially from anyone who remembers the Posse as an actual team. GiovanniSidwell (talk) 16:12, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

• I'd agree with you; I doubt very few people would consider the CFL remotely on a par with the NFL. Ravenswing 16:32, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

In Canada, CFL could certainly be considered Major League. However, the US expansions were definitely viewed as inferior to the NFL. To be safe, it might be best to use some form of phrasing that indicates first professional team from the Big-4 leagues. Yosemiter (talk) 16:37, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

Would simply saying "First Big 4 franchise based in Las Vegas" be sufficient, or is that too vague for the average reader? GiovanniSidwell (talk) 23:36, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

Given that the CFL doesn't have that great of a following outside of Canada, I don't think that we need to mention the CFL team. In terms of skill level the CFL is comparable to AAA baseball, professional yes, but not one of the major sports leagues. Deadman137 (talk) 00:32, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

There is more to defining Major than skill level (such as attendance, revenue, media coverage, etc.) and that is all well covered in Major professional sports leagues in the United States and Canada and since three of the Big Four league do have teams in Canada it is hard to completely separate them. If it specifically needs to be defined (to avoid those random edits), then I would suggest "First major professional franchise from the Big Four leagues based in Las Vegas", otherwise the current phrasing is fine. Also, the Posse probably averaged less attendance per game than the UNLV Rebels. Yosemiter (talk) 20:38, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

References

So I want to add these two references from NHL.com regarding the media coverage of the Vegas Golden Knights: Lotus Broadcasting To Be Golden Knights Radio Partner and ROOT SPORTS Rocky Mountain To Become Golden Knights' Television Home. However, I know that there is at least one editor who strongly disagrees (ViperSnake151), claiming that these two references shouldn't be included because they are primary sources. I am requesting any and all other editors knowledgeable on this topic to please respond, and to weigh in here. I would like to reach consensus on these two references. Charlesaaronthompson (talk) 17:54, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

• (gazes upward) ViperSnake is far, far too experienced an editor to fall into the trap of tossing out sources if they're primary, which is NOT what WP:PRIMARY says. Primary sources, more than anything else, can't be used to support the notability of the subject, but they've always been held to be good regarding basic, uncontroversial information. I cannot for the life of me imagine why the Golden Knights themselves are an unreliable source regarding the team's own choice of broadcasters, and would be very interested in ViperSnake's explanation as to why that might be. Ravenswing 21:33, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

All else being equal, reliable secondary sources are preferable to self-published sources. It appears there are already secondary sources cited in the article for the same information, so what purpose would these citations serve? Toohool (talk) 03:46, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

Agreed with Toohool. Near as I can tell, ViperSnake did two things: 1. They removed redundant citations for relatively simple statements and prioritized keeping the secondary source ahead of the primary. That's fine. 2. They removed no longer relevant tedium - i.e.: the interim status of TV contract negotiations. Once we had a deal, the interim status was no longer relevant. Likewise, if Root Rocky Mountain ends up in Wyoming and the like, it will no longer be necessary to note in this article that carriage negotiations were happening. Honestly, I'm not seeing a problem here. Resolute 19:00, 1 June 2017 (UTC)