Talk:Pittsburgh Penguins/Archive 1

List of Penguins players

There is a List of Pittsburgh Penguins players. when you add players to the main Penguins page, could you also add the players to the list? thanks! Masterhatch 10 August 2005

Alternate Logo?

Are they actually using that streamlined logo as an alternate these day? Yeah, it was the primary during the 90ies, but I thought they *rightfully* put it to bed. ccwaters 12:40, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

I'm going to rename that to something along the line of "Old Logo (1992-2002)" unless there are objections. I don't see any evidence of it being in use anymore. I'm fairly certain that there is a jinx story related to it in Pittsburgh. Maybe we should get a updated photo of Mario as well? ccwaters 19:22, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

This logo hasn't been entirely retired; it's still on the shoulders of their current jerseys. So "old logo" isn't really accurate. wthrw 18:45, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

Captain ´94-´95

Wasn't Francis captain during the ´94-´95 season when Mario didn't play? Killer 01:56, 14 October 2005 (Swedish Time)

Yes. RGTraynor 01:02, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

Curious Reader: I beg to differ, although Ron Francis did indeed wear the 'C' that season, while Lemieux sat out ,to recover from his injuries. Lemieux didn't retire, or resign the captaincy, thus Francis served offically as Interim Captain, had Lemieux returned during that season ,Ronnie would have worn the 'A'. In other words Lemieux was still 'Offically' Team Captain. Therefore Ronnie shouldn't be listed as captain of the Penguins ,for the 1994-95 season. Lemieux's captaincy should read: 1987-97 & 2001-present. PS. if a player(s) on every team ,who wore the 'C' while the captain was out of the line-up ,was listed as a captain ,then there'd be hundreds of names listed in each Team site.

Francis was listed as the team captain in 94-95 by the NHL Media Guide, which is about as "official" as you can get. RGTraynor 04:50, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

O.K. RGTraynor, If the NHL Media Guide say he was ,then he was. I can't argue with the facts. Thanks for the clarification RG, you've put my hockey-mind at ease. Plus all the better , for I'm a big fan of Ronnie Francis (Hall of Famer defintely in 2008). 23 October 2005

Lemieux shoots L???

Dosen't Lemieux shoot R? And Sid shoot L? In the current squadlist is says that Lemieux shoots L and Sid shoots R. And almost all the players are wrong do (in the shoot list)Killer 00:12, 2 November 2005 (CET)

Lemieux does shoot right handed, and Crosby shoots left handed. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Dr. Pizza (talk • contribs) 16:03, 8 March 2007 (UTC).

unknown aquired dates

I noticed that there are several "unknowns" in the aquired dates. I have to leave for work now and I don't have time to fix it, but here is the site with all the aquired dates tsn Masterhatch 03:05, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

Aleksey Morozov or Alexei Morozov?

which is the correct way to spell his name? Alexei Morozov seems more common but i see both spellings. hockeydb.com uses Alexei Morozov while tsn.ca uses Aleksey Morozov. Masterhatch 05:39, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

It's Aleksey

When he was drafted in 1995, the media used Alexei because that was the more common form of the name, and Russian names weren't very well-known at the time. He formally changed it himself after his rookie season to the correct spelling. Penguin media guides from 1998-1999 and later have him listed as Aleksey.SportsEditor 02:10, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks!! Masterhatch 03:12, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Jack Riley

Is the Jack Riley born in 1935 that was the GM of the Pens at their start ?

I think it's quite strange because in his bio, there is no mention of the team.

No; the Pens' GM was a former hockey player born in 1919. It's not an unusual name. RGTraynor 05:47, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Other Notable...

SportsEditor- the section you added is certainly valid in its intention. However: we have had similar lists in all the NHL team articles before under the heading "Not to be forgotten". These lists quickly became useless short sighted fan favorite listings (IE the Flyers listing was 75% players from the late 90ies-to-present). We at WP:HOCKEY decided a while ago that the lists were too problematic to maintain (I can look for the archived discussion if you wish). That is why I kindly ask you to remove the section and if you feel there is someone that lacks a deserving mention, please intergrate them into the article copy. ccwaters 13:34, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

I've just removed it myself; that's a can of worms we definitely can't afford to have reopened. I've also reverted the HHOF section to conform to the Team Pages Format once more. RGTraynor 16:47, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

The article copy is too brief to mention each and every one of those names without the size getting completely out of hand...You might as well attach a media guide. That's why I favor the condensed list. For instance, in 39 years of Penguins history, Patrick Lalime's rookie start amounts to a mere blip on the radar, especially given that he only played one season here. But I felt that he deserved at least a footnote. As does future Hall of Famer Luc Robitaille -- he only played here in the strike-shortened 1995 season (not to mention a cameo in the worst hockey movie ever produced by an actual hockey owner, Sudden Death). And Herb Brooks, with just a partial season as Pens head coach to his credit. Yet the copy points out such luminaries as Milan Kraft, Kris Beech, and the other parts of the Jagr trade. Why not Rico Fata while we're at it? Looks like the WikiNazis win...I won't try to add anything that anyone might possibly find helpful. Perhaps the Wiki buzzword should be "delete." Funny how those "cans of worms" can work for the team pages in other sports.SportsEditor 03:55, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

In which case perhaps they weren't worth mentioning in the first place; this is an encyclopedia article, not a full-length book on the Penguins' history. As far as other sports go, the other Wikiprojects tend to their knitting, and we tend to ours; I have quite enough on my own dinner plate without provoking cross-sport crusades. In any event, I'm sorry you feel the need to characterize as "Nazi" the general consensus here on WP:HOCKEY for more concise articles than you yourself prefer. RGTraynor 05:45, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Alas, my point has sailed over your head higher than the space shuttle, or you didn't even bother to read my opening statement. Saying something like "That's why I favor the condensed list" obviously means to you that I'd prefer to write a book. One person tells me to include those players in the article copy, while another tells me it's not a full-length book. For what's supposed to be a general consensus, you guys certainly can't agree.

Point two: You might say that the Nazis had no room for creativity. Regardless of how many people are active at WP:HOCKEY, it seems like it's controlled by only a few people, similarly with no room for creativity.

And one more thing, RG...Herb Brooks was elected to the Hall of Fame today. Uh-oh, is he eligible for inclusion in the Hall of Fame section? Unfortunately, he spent only a partial season as the Pens' head coach and is therefore nonexistant in the eyes of WikiNation. Sorry, Herb...the self-important powers-that-be have judged you to be irrelevant. In the words of RG, "not worth mentioning in the first place." Maybe you can make it on the strength of your scouting career.

Maybe you should spend more time patrolling the team rosters to stop people from changing the players' birthplaces to completely inaccurate locations, instead of deleting genuine resources. I'm pretty sure Joe Melichar isn't from Southern Bohemia, and that's been posted on there for quite a while.SportsEditor 23:23, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Melichar is from Southern Bohemia the same way Malone is from Pennsylvania.

Perhaps you should take a look at WP:CIVIL while you're at it. That being said, while you mention Brooks, you're right: he wouldn't be cited on the Pens' HHOF list. Nor on that of any other NHL team, because based on his NHL career, Brooks wouldn't have come remotely close to induction. But based on your preference, would Bobby Orr and Gerry Cheevers be on the Hartford/Carolina list, because they were hired by the organization as consultants at some point? Should Wayne Gretzky be on the Phoenix list? Vladislav Tretiak on the Chicago list ... he's been a coach/consultant for the Hawks for about fifteen years? In any event, they're all cited in the general HHOF list. The point with team lists is to include those players and builders who are significantly associated with the teams in question, and we've not felt a need to associate every HHOF member with a current NHL team list just to pad the totals. If that bothers you enough, feel free to hit the Team Pages Format talk page and try to change consensus to your POV. (And, by the bye, it doesn't look like Josef Melichar's birthplace cite troubled you enough to correct yourself.) RGTraynor 07:12, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Rivals

Is there a source listing the rivals of the Penguins? I see a rivalry in the Flyers and the Devils. The inclusion of the Rangers and Capitals may be more of an opinion, in my opinion.

HOFers

I wanted to add in Herb Brooks, seeing as he had a couple years with the Pens organization, even though he was only coach for such a brief time. But this raises a question...what makes a Hall of Famer on this list? Should we include only those players/people who had a significant impact on the team, or should we include everyone? For instance, Tim Horton isn't listed, but then he didn't really make much of a mark in Pittsburgh. In another regard, Red Kelly isn't mentioned...although the argument is that he's in the Hall as a player and not as a coach. Will Luc Robitaille be included when he gets inducted? Anyone have any thoughts on this? Exoterrick 15:51, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

That's what I get for not reading previous paragraphs, will take Brooks out. But am still curious about other HOFers that aren't listed (Bathgate on there but no Boivin?) Exoterrick 16:04, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Bathgate was at least the first leading scorer for the team. I wouldn't say Robitaille would qualify; he played a single season in Pittsburgh, was 4th in team scoring that year, and had no other significant accomplishments there. With Kelly, that's the argument exactly: the criteria is that a player/coach/builder's time with the team must have reasonably had a material contribution to his election to the Hall. Leaving aside Kelly's painfully mediocre record as a coach, he was inducted before he came to Pittsburgh. RGTraynor 18:36, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Captain

Unless you can provide a reference, please refrain from listing Sidney Crosby as the Penguins captain. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Geoffrey Spear 13:49, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Penguins have announced, they're not naming a captain this season (2006-07 NHL season). This thus ends all speculations. GoodDay 20:56, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Owner

Research in Motion didn't buy the Penguins, a RIM CEO Jim Balsillie did.

Penguins Sold

I'm just curious: you make the future of the team in Pittsburgh sound more bleak than the other sources I've seen. For instance, I'd heard Balsillie cooled on a move to Hamilton when "financial guys" crunched the numbers for him and projected an annual loss of 8 figures for a number of years (can't recall where I read that, though). And the league, it seems, has made it pretty clear they won't allow a move anywhere unless all possible funding sources for a new arena fail to materialize. EdinPasCA 19:21, 9 October 2006 (UTC)eaheup

Casino Bid Failed

The Isle of Capri slots bid was denied. I commented out the now out of date paragraph regarding them and the arena offer. I would hope to here a comment from the NHL or the Penguins about how they plan on moving forward, before rewriting that paragraph. ccwaters 17:22, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Official statement: http://www.pittsburghpenguins.com/team/press/arts/2212.0.php ccwaters 17:41, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

That paragraph has been updated, but I'm not particularly happy with the wording. If "The Penguins fate rested" with the decision, does that mean we should expect Thursday's game to be cancelled and immediate dispersal draft be held to let the rest of the league take their players? Certainly the IOC plan would have been the easiest way for the Penguins to get a new arena, but the way it's worded now is rather crystal ball-ish. Geoffrey Spear 18:30, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Ditto. They're not dead yet. Its not an obit. ccwaters 18:34, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Realignment, Red Wings move

I've removed the sentence about a Penguins move causing a realignment and rumors that the Red Wings would move to the East to replace the Penguins. The NHL is considering a realignment, but it's completely unrelated to the Penguins; it has more to do with the complaints by Western teams that the current alignment is unfair because they have to travel further to play their games (and, of course, that they get Crosby and Ovechkin in their home arenas once every 3 years)[1] Geoffrey Spear 16:32, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

It's just as well (removing that sentence), as the Penguins haven't relocated & re-alignment is merely in a proposal stage. GoodDay 03:52, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Pens Fans

Hi everyone
first of all, I must say that I'm French and I don't speak english very well so excuse my writting.
I'm working a lot on the pens articles on the french wikipedia and I had nominated the Pittsburgh Penguins de Pittsburgh page to be Featured article. Some users ask me facts about Pens fans but I can't find anything. Can anyone could help me ?
TaraO 12:48, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Writing the names

Although there is an ever ongoing debate about the spelling of the names also at it's own page, I would like to remind that there is certainly no consensus for writing such names wrong. It is naturally acceptable, when an author without sufficient knowledge of the affected languages uses more familiar "A-Z" ways of spelling, but pushing this way also against the more correct spelling is simply wrong - personal names are not translated in the English language (and Latin names are not transliterated). -Mz55 23:04, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

When the English language begins to use diacriticals, when the NHL begins to use them, when the teams begin to use them, when the media begins to use them, and when the European Wikipedias conform to English usages when rendering English-language proper names, then perhaps an argument about how "correct" such spellings are will hold some weight. Right now, in the English language, they are incorrect, and no amount of implication that English language users are ignorant for using the English language alters that. RGTraynor 03:14, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

The English language DOES use diacritics, take café, rosé, résumé, frappé, soufflé, exposé... as examples. Words of foreign origin, surely, but so are these names, too, indeed. I might agree to it being ignorant to demand wrong spelling for personal names when not necessary, but also then it would still be equally ignorant towards the English language (a language rather full of loans from other languages, just as the NHL is enriched by the players in question) as well.

As I have pointed out, to me it is perfectly acceptable that a North American user (or journalist) writes about Jagr, Selanne or Hasek, but to actually oppose the correct writing when it is technically possible, as said, easily creates some unnecessary thoughts about the ignorance of the other. -Mz55 03:42, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Due to the attempts at other articles (where this specific talk page is by some apparently not considered to apply) I also opened a discussion at the more chaotic project page. I expect that to apply to all NHL related articles. -Mz55 15:53, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Just to let editors know, a consensus was reached at Talk:Colorado Avalanche concerning all 30 NHL team articles. The consensus is? No diacritics on the 30 NHL team articles. Consensus on NHL bio (particularly Player bios) articles, has yet to be reached. GoodDay 22:44, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

What was the decision?

According to the Future of the Penguins section and TSN, on January 2nd, it was reported that within 30 days a decision would be made that would ultimately decide the Penguins' future in Pittsburgh. Well, 30 days has long passed on since then, and I haven't heard anything. What is going on?Ohyeh 01:34, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

They are trying all options now, it looks very grim in Pittsburgh because the team is probably going to move now to Kansas City or Las Vegas. but id be really happy if they moved to Las Vegas *IF THEY CAN'T STAY* because i plan on living there someday. And i would still be a fan of the team. And i may still be one even if they move to Kansas City, but if anyone deserves a team in the NHL, its Winnipeg. --Dr. Pizza 15:59, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

I hope that section gets cleaned up once this is resolved. A concise summary of the issues and the resolution is much more encyclopedic than the current daily log of media reports (confirmed and unconfirmed). ccwaters 14:00, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

The Pittsburgh Post-Gazette reported this morning the rumor that, improbably, a deal was actually coming together. [2] Film at eleven. RGTraynor 14:16, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Ronald Petrovický

Petrovický isnt czech! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Olco polco (talk • contribs) 16:34, 8 March 2007 (UTC).

       You are right he is Slovak.

Relocation overdone?

True Pens fans will remember that in the mid-70s the Penguins went bankrupt, almost were sold and almost were taken over by the league, disbanded or shipped out to another market. In the mid 80s right before and during Mario's arrival the team was almost sold and relocated, in 1991 during the victory parade no less we had the owner (DeBarolo Jr.) telling some in the crowd how much money he lost and that he should move the team, and now the 2005-2007 debacle. In light of all this I feel that an article that deals with all the Pens history should footnote each one since this current one is no worse then the mid 70s or mid 80s maybe even the early to mid 90's. I think way way way too much info is given on the history of 2005-2007 crisis (isn't this what external links are for?). I didn't want to erase other peoples work without throwing out my reason why, but I think it does a disservice to the trials and triumphs of the franchise to focus so much article space on something that is now history and NONE on the other times the Pens went through trouble but were utimately saved. Thanks and look forward to other comments. 208.0.121.248 22:42, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

above comments were mine Hholt01 22:42, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

The worship of the recent is a syndrome common to Wikipedia in general and the hockey articles in particular; what sticks out in my mind was that at one point the amount of space devoted to the Rangers' most recent Cup win equals that devoted to every other Rangers' Cup in history combined, that the Flyers' 2005 season has more space devoted to it than Philadelphia's Cup wins combined, and that the section in the Whalers' article about the relocation of the team was greater than that devoted to the 25 years of team history up unto that point. RGTraynor 01:12, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

So I guess that means we are cutting this thesis down to size with the equal time for the 75 and 83-84 crises? 65.33.65.109 03:53, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm all for it. RGTraynor 14:09, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Ditto. Thats exactly what I has asking for up 2 sections. ccwaters 14:25, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Just wondering

My name is Ivan Pettit I am the owner of PensFans4Ever, Is there anyway we could get included in the external links? We do have written permission from the Pittsburgh Penguins the Wilkes-Barre/Scranton Penguins the Edmonton Oilers and the Wheeling Nailers to publish news from the teams. Just wondering if that would be possible? the URL is http://www.pensfans4ever.com Thanks in advance just let me know.

Crosby Era?

Is this a joke? How can a teenager who isn't even that great to begin with have his own era? Please turn down the POV. 70.253.167.161 06:47, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

I was thinking the same thing myself. It seems like there is some "hero worshiping" going on in that section... apparently this Sidney Crosby fellow is the greatest hockey player to ever bless the world with his presence. I mean, the section is longer than previous sections that cover ten years (not just a season and the rest of this one). I'd fix this, but I don't know much about the team at all. jpmck 13:43, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

I wound up stripping a good bit from that section; for one thing, quite aside from the redundancies, there was a lot of info there more properly included in individual article entries. Why the main Penguins' article needs to include that Ray Shero is Fred Shero's son I've no idea, for instance.  RGTraynor  13:59, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, RGTraynor! I also removed the title "The Crosby Era." I guess some other people don't realize that an era consists of a little more time than 2 years... jpmck 16:44, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Someone keeps vandalizing while i was in the midst of updating, that's why my edit history looks odd. Sorry for the goofs. I cut down a lot of the older stuff because it seemed pretty long-winded, trivial, or redundant (still don't like this article throwing all the names out there that seem unencyclopedic...Bob Paradise?...but am not changing those right now). The newer stuff (90s and beyond) needs some hefty editing still. I see no problem with it being titled 'The Crosby Era,' given the hype that was given to him before he was drafted, when he was drafted, and what has transpired over the last two seasons, beyond just his performance. But if people are that adamant about it not being marked in here, so be it. Exoterrick 17:35, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Err ... you mean the older stuff is no good because it's about the past? That's recentism with a vengeance. I doubt Bob Paradise's mother thought he was a star, but then again the Pens' article makes mention of a thug like Laraque.  RGTraynor  17:47, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

No. As I mentioned, the new stuff needs edited down as well. My point was, sometimes it looked as though whoever wrote this was just reading down a list of names from the media guide and copying them in. There are plenty of places where it goes: sentence, 'such as,' players names.' And the writer occasionally didn't even check to see if that particular player had a good Wikipedia entry (see Gregg Shephard). I don't think Laraque is worth a mention (aside from current/most recent roster) any more than Bob Paradise is.Exoterrick 19:47, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Current Roster

Has the roster included Garon? Sorry, I just noticed it. Also, is the Alternate Captaincy still rotating? I know they did that under Therrien but it was only slated to be done until Gonchar returned to the line-up. Abtmcm (talk) 19:31, 23 February 2009 (UTC)Abtmcm

This needs some work. Yahoo Sports! does not list Jonathan Elder as being on the Penguins' current roster, and why in the world is Marc-Andre Fleury not listed when he was thir starting goalie this season? Fleagle 21:06, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Shouldn't the current roster be on the 2007-2008 team page instead of the main page? Egogola (talk) 20:33, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

The current roster is an integral part of the hockey team. It belongs in the main article, imo. The season pages show the historical rosters from each season. Resolute 20:39, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Captain Crosby?

The Penguins are reportedly, going to name Sidney Crosby captain tommorow (May 31). Be sure to wait 'til then before editing it to the article. GoodDay 22:51, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

I've edited it to the post lockout section, as the coming appointment is confirmed at TSN (also added the TSN story external-link). GoodDay 23:22, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Crosby's not the all-time youngest captain. Brian Bellows served as the North Stars (interim) captain during later-half of 1983-84 season. Bellows was appointed at age 19yrs 4mths (5-months younger then, Crosby). GoodDay 22:54, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes Willg2587 (talk) 01:59, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

Crosby Era

A while ago (Apr.2007) this article had a section called "The Sidney Crosby Era" underneath the "Mario Lemieux Era". It was removed for recentism and POV. Anyhoo, I just found this article full of Penguins quotes. Here's a sample:

• "What Sidney means to this franchise... it's so much you really cannot put it into words," Penguins veteran winger Mark Recchi said. "He has picked up for Mario and become the face of this team."
• Martin Brodeur-- "Pittsburgh has always been a great hockey town, but it fell upon hard times towards the end of Mario's era. The Penguins were kind of on life support. But since Sidney, they have come back to life."

It also credits Crosby with making the team popular enough to stay in the city.

Ooooh, here's lots of sources!

• CBC Sports, The Sidney Crosby Era Begins
• USA Today, Sidney Crosby era officially begins in Pittsburgh

The article flowed very nicely with those titles. Maybe it's time to add them back in? ColtsScore 05:45, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Let's wait (say 5-yrs). He could get traded in '07-08, suffer a career ending injury, retire. Thing is, he's only entering his 3rd NHL (Penguins) season. It's too early to compare him to Mario Lemieux. GoodDay 22:58, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Mainstream media has been calling it the "Sidney Crosby era" since he was drafted (see sources above). He's widely recognized as the best player in the world. The franchise went from almost leaving town to being revived when Crosby joined the team. There's a definite demarcation between pre-Crosby and with-Crosby. Having a section marked with Crosby's name isn't a direct comparison with Lemieux, it's a reflection of a characteristic that is widely seen as shaping the team's public image and expectations. ColtsScore 23:45, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Can we please wait 5 years? One Art Ross trophy, missing the playoffs (2006), losing in the 1st round (2007) and no Division title doesen't warrant a 'Crosby' era in Pittsburgh. Let the man win a few more Art Ross trophies, or lead the Penguins to the Stanley Cup (before we declare an 'era'). Trust me, if you add a 'Crosby era' to the article now, it will only be removed (by other editors). GoodDay 20:04, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

PS- If you want to add the 'Crosby Era', go ahead. It's your choice. Weither it stays or not, is up to the community. GoodDay 20:09, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

If Crosby gets an "era" for two good seasons and only one scoring title/MVP and one playoff appearance, shouldn't there be a Jagr Era? From 1998 through 2001, he was 4 for 4 on scoring titles, also won a Hart, and the Penguins made the playoffs each season and won four playoff series. That's three more Art Ross's and four more playoff series won than Crosby at the moment. In the '99 playoffs, Jagr almost single-handedly beat the #1 seeded Devils... seems a bit ridiculous to me to give an "era" to a guy that has yet to sniff the second round of the playoffs and not give one to Jagr. -Sam 87.65.39.133 09:50, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

You have a point there. Surely, Jagr's Penguins tenure needs an 'Era' discription as well. GoodDay 18:38, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

I still think this page is sorely lacking in Jagr content. Five scoring titles and numerous playoff series won and there's nothing more than a sentence or two dedicated to him?? Yet Crosby gets an entire section based on a couple nice seasons and one scoring title? His accomplishments to date pale in comparison to Jagr's. I mean... wow... *FIVE* Art Ross Trophies! -Sam Samstein (talk) 06:17, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Malking has carried the penguins for the last couple of seasons. If anything it's his era as the penguins' dominant player. And as for Crosby being the best in the world...there's many who would disagree with that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.181.131.218 (talk) 09:47, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

If there is going to be any title about a player era, it will be Crosby, not Malkin. Fdssdf (talk) 01:06, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Why? Is it because Crosby is captain? I put Ovechkin Era in Washington Capitals, no one changes it. But Ovechkin is not captain. Ovechkin is best player. Same in Penguins, Malkin is best player but hes not captain. Why people change it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.219.154.228 (talk) 01:18, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Crosby is the face of the Pittsburgh Penguins, just as Alexander Ovechkin is the face of the Washington Capitals. It's impossible to say for sure if Malkin or Crosby is better. What we do know is that Crosby is getting paid more. Fdssdf (talk) 20:00, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

I changed it to Crosby-Malkin era. Fix it, change it, but supply reasons. Crosby and Malkin are the two most important players on the Penguins right now. If there are any two players to focus on following the lockout, it's these two. Fdssdf (talk) 01:11, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Comments

Article needs a jersey section, complete with photos and info. Also, the team mascot needs to be mentioned somewhere. Love each other, or perish. ~Auden 04:51, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Adding NHL Experience Years

I'm not quite sure why the was deleted Mplonestartrack 18:40, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Comment

I wonder why the Minnesota North Stars are listed as "currently defunct" when in fact they were simply bought and moved to Dallas. Most sports teams have moved, but we don't call them "defunct" do we? Heck, how can we say that Modano has only played for one team if we are calling the North Stars and the Stars different teams? That doesn't make sense. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.252.194.141 (talk) 20:15, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Reliable reference for mascot being an Emperor Penguin

Hi, I am polishing up Emperor Penguin for FAC, and was wondering whether there was a refence somehwere which said the mascot was specifically an Emperor penguin rather than just a penguin. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:57, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Hi

on this page you can see :"Penguin Pete" the Penguins’ first mascot - an Ecuadorian-born bird on loan from the Pittsburgh Zoo - made his first appearance during the second intermission of a game against the Boston Bruins on October 19, 1968. It's also written in "Tales from the Pittsburgh Penguins" by Joe Starkey. --TaraO (talk) 20:43, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

"History of the Pittsburgh Penguins"

There is a suggestion for the history section to be moved to its own article: History of the Pittsburgh Penguins. There doesn't appear to be a place designated to discuss the split proposal, but I would be willing to assist anyone who would like to write the article. It has gotten quite long. Thank you. Blackngold29 04:25, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Well this would be the place now. I don't really think there actually needs to be a discussion, as the hockey project has time and again said if the article for the main team is getting too big that sections should start to be cut out. The first thing we usually cut is scoring records etc, and then history (leaving behind a short summary). -Djsasso (talk) 15:13, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Been looking through the various NHL team articles and noticed that the formats of the pages have quite a variation. Is there a consensus at to which of the 32 teams has the best format for re-writing the pages?--69.14.183.129 (talk) 22:11, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Well technically Calgary Flames and New Jersey Devils are Featured articles so they are the shining example of what the articles should look like. That being said, this article is only around 50k in size. And ideal size for a page is betwen 30-50k of readable prose. So once you subtract the tables etc out of this page we are will within that size frame. So at the moment I don't think there is a pressing need to split off the history. That being said summarizing the history section into small summary style paragraphs and moving the meat of the history into another article isn't a bad thing either. I am just not sure that its a necessary one yet. -Djsasso (talk) 22:13, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm finished up with a lot of the bigger projects that I had planned to do (for now). If someone wants to help I wouldn't mind writing the official History of the Pittsburgh Penguins article. I'm gonna look at my library next time I go since books are always the best source and I don't have too many about the Pens. Because the article will probably take some pretty involved research and writing, I'm not so sure I want to attack it alone. Blackngold29 23:21, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

I can provide some assistance -- I have a *huge* book on loan (for two weeks) about the NHL, teams, players, etc. I am busy with things at work and home right now, so I can't spearhead it, but I will be more than glad to do what I can. Just ask, or let me know where help is needed. Macduffman (talk) 17:39, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

I would also gladly help out with this. I think it would be a great idea. Most major pro sports teams have a history page on wikipedia. Let me know if you need info, editing help, etc. I've been working on an idea to beef up the Template:Pittsburgh Penguins|Pens template]] as well if anyone would like to check it out. Only after I reorganized it I realized that there in no Pittsburgh Penguins history / History of the Pittsburgh Penguins article. JohnnyPolo24 (talk) 16:37, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

I think it would be good to have one, but I don't want it to turn into History of the Pittsburgh Steelers, which is like the world's longest stub. I don't have any books so, I'll help where I can, but I don't want be "lead writer". Blackngold29 16:47, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Current Roster

I'm trying to remove the IR & the A (from Malone), but I can't access the section. What's up? GoodDay (talk) 21:08, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

LOL for once you aren't watching WT:HOCKEY like a hawk. We have moved roster tables to the templates. You are looking for Template:Pittsburgh Penguins Roster. -Djsasso (talk) 21:11, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

I must be slipping (concerning WT.HOCKEY). GoodDay (talk) 22:15, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Template: roster

Could somebody fix the linkage at this article's current roster section? It directs to Template: Pittsburg Penguins roster (which is incorrect). GoodDay (talk) 18:44, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

2008–09 media guide

This season's media guide has been released, it is avalible as a PDF, and is 421 pages in length. It has a wealth of info, including all current player biographies, histories of the team (general as well as specifics like "Jersey history"), and more stats than the average person will ever need. It can be used a reference on so many differnt articles I couldn't even begin to name them all. Hopefully it serves all well. Blackngold29 22:34, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

My god, this is like a Wikipedia hockey fan's wet dream! Grsz^X 22:40, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Wow, that is amazing. I wish more teams were as thorough with their media guides. —Krm500 ^{(Communicate!)} 22:56, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

The Flames and Oilers media guides have similar levels of detail, and I think most teams are pretty close. Like that the Pens release it on the net though. I end up paying for the Flames/Oilers/WHL media guides each year, about $10 each. Resolute 00:51, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

I kept meaning to sign up for them last year. There is a nhl website where you can get all the teams free if you are a credentialed member of the press. While I am not I was going to get someone I knew who was to sign up so I could download them. I have to remember to do it this year. -Djsasso (talk) 04:32, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Article top

Part of the body of the starting section is being blocked by the non-narrative box on the right. I'm not sure how to fix this correctly, but I wanted to let someone know. Fdssdf (talk) 01:13, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Season by Season record

Why does the table in that section say that the Penguins won the Stanley cup, when the final game of the series is tonight? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.60.143.36 (talk) 21:43, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Vandalism. -Djsasso (talk) 00:31, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

We did win though :D —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.3.189.147 (talk) 02:59, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Mention Hossa?

I notice that Hossa is not mentioned anywhere on this page. His switch to the redwings because he wanted to win the Stanley cup is mentioned on his page. Shouldn't this be mentioned here as well? Especially since The penguins just won and made him look like a jerk. I'm just not sure where to put it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.3.189.147 (talk) 02:58, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Violation of WP:BLP. J.delanoy^gabs_adds 03:01, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Not only that, but players swap teams all the time. There is nothing at all about Hossa's signing elsewhere that is more notable than any other player who's signed with another team. Resolute 14:46, 13 June 2009 (UTC)`

Minor Spelling Correction While Semiprotected

{{editsemiprotected}} In the Jagr section: "...move or fold, the reitred Lemieux..." Please change "reitred" to "retired"

Done Thanks. Celestra (talk) 20:26, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Stanley Cup Parade pics

If anyone is interested, I've uploaded a couple dozen pics. that I took during yesterdays Stanley Cup parade for the Pens. The pics are here. If anyone would like me to upload something to commons, and release under the Share Alike liscense to use for a Pittsburgh Penguin, or NHL article, drop me a note on my talk page. The originals are Nikon D80 3872x2592 hi-res so I can crop and prolly put something pretty descent up. (the ones I put up to Picasa are only 800x600 (approx.) to keep file space down. Just drop me a note, and I'll try to get them up this weekend to commons, and drop you a link. — Ched :  ?  01:33, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Addition Suggestions

Under the Hall of Fame members shouldn't Dave Molinari from the post gazette be mentioned for his recent induction? Article is on Pens website under title: Hockey Hall of Fame Announces 2009 Foster Hewitt Memorial Award and Elmer Ferguson Memorial Award Recipients Dated June 2nd? Also, should there be special annotation of the historic impact of the past season? Additionally, regarding "rivalries" I think the rivalry w/ the Washington Capitals is past the "developing" stage--besides the fact that it was "developing" all through-out the '90s, I think since the lockout and the Crosby/Ovechkin emergence I think it is definitely past the "developing" stage. I would put the Red Wings on the "developing rivalry" list. Finally, does anyone know the history behind the Pens theme/warm-up song? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Muskat1 (talk • contribs) 15:26, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

The Foster Hewitt award is not membership in the Hall of Fame. This section needs to be changed to prose like it is on the Calgary Flames artile so that unique situations like this can be mentioned. -Djsasso (talk) 18:10, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Assertion of a developing rivalry with the Washington Capitals

This uncontested edit added prose asserting that the Penguins have a developing rivalry with the Washington Capitals. That smacks a little bit of original research as being someone's personal opinion or analysis. If there's a sports writer for a major publication who specifically said the same thing about a developing rivalry, then please feel free to add the prose again, this time with proper citation. But as things stand right now, I don't think the assertion stands for inclusion in the article, especially not as part of the lead. (Note that I earlier removed a similar assertion about the Red Wings for the same reason.) Thanks. —Notyourbroom (talk) 04:15, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

In general we don't put rivalries in team pages unless they are well documented ones such as Battle of Alberta. So yeah it should be removed. -Djsasso (talk) 04:23, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

It's a very one-sided rivalry, due to the 7–1 playoff series record in the Penguins' favor. But if you asked any Capitals fan whom the team's biggest rival was (or at least the team they hate the most) it would be the Penguins, and the player they hate the most (as demonstrated by an extraordinarily well-publicized effort of bringing pacifiers and other ridiculous paraphenalia to a game in DC in March just to mock him) is Crosby – and the Pens have now gone through the Caps on the way to each of their three Cups. The media's given coverage to a Crosby-Ovechkin rivalry since they came into the league, and with the ongoing antagonism and subsequent playoff series between the teams this year, it actually is becoming one. – ConkblockCity (talk) 21:19, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Yeah but does it rank up there with the Battle of Penn. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.214.138.140 (talk) 09:56, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

DC media and fanbase fabricate "rivalries" with whoever knocked them out of the playoffs last. DC media talked up a Flyers/Caps rivalry last season, and the response in Philly was basically "what are you talking about?" I just assume we stay out of it here, as these things are subjective. ccwaters (talk) 12:51, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Except "...they've done this so many times before to the Washington Capitals that it's almost as if they're following a script..." You do this 7 times in 11 years (and now 8 in 19, still, way, way more than they've played Philly...), you get enough history, and you leave one side incredibly unsatisfied, you're going to have a rivalry. It's like Rangers-Isles pre-1994. Is it fair? No. Do people like each other one little bit? NO. Pens fans have had a long-standing tradition of making games in D.C. virtual Pens home games due to the Caps' longtime attendance issues, again, something never done in Philadelphia. Adding Crosby and Malkin vs. Ovechkin nowadays only compounds things. Edit: Although, I don't really know if it's necessary or appropriate to mention rivalries in the header, existent or not. Probably they could be worked in somewhere else? – ConkblockCity (talk) 15:34, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Except that its still WP:OR. Basically what is needed is multiple independent sources talking about the rivalry, not just mentioning that there is one in order for it to be good enough for inclusion. -Djsasso (talk) 16:49, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Then where are the multiple independent sources talking about the rivalry with the Flyers? Flyers fans might say their biggest rival is the Rangers. Or Marty Brodeur. Like I said, I don't know that any rivalry should be mentioned in the header. It doesn't seem like other teams have them there. – ConkblockCity (talk) 17:12, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

I do believe I said in the beginning that none should be there. -Djsasso (talk) 17:46, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

In agreement with Dj on leaving out Rivalry section. The Hockey media (like HNIC & TSN) would have us believe every NHL team has a rivalry with every NHL team (particularly in the playoffs), for ratings purposes. GoodDay (talk) 20:15, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

In addition to everything, there's already a page for the National Hockey League Atlantic Division rivalries, and the regular NHL rivalry page makes mention of Pens-Caps somewhere in there, so it can always be fully elaborated on elsewhere. –ConkblockCity (talk) 11:13, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Ask a Pens fan who they'd rather beat in the playoffs, the Flyers or the Caps. Ask a Flyers fan who they'd rather beat in the playoffs, the Pens or the Caps. There's no such thing as an unrequited rivalry. 124.180.133.130 (talk) 04:04, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Sure there is. Ask a Caps fan who they'd rather beat in the playoffs, the Pens.....................................................................

..............or any other EC team. That's pretty unrequited. OTOH, ask a Pens fan to whom they'd rather lose: the Flyers or the Caps. I'm not sure if the desire to maintain a one-sided tradition counts as reciprocity or rivalry, but the relationship exists. –ConkblockCity (talk) 11:06, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Drafting controversy.

Bobby Clarke recently criticized Pittsburgh for intentionally doing badly in a season in order to have the first draft pick and getting younger players. This should be mentioned in the article.

-Spartan9199 (talk) 16:41, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't see why, really. A mouthy member of another team hardly constitutes a notable controversy. Resolute 16:55, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

A mouthy member of another team - Sounds like you have a bone to pick with this guy. It was covered by the media and should be mentioned regardless of whether or not the controversy "spicy" enough- http://nhl.fanhouse.com/2009/07/31/bobby-clarke-complains-sergei-zubov-signs-in-russia/ -Spartan9199 (talk) 17:01, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Frankly, you have yet to show that there is any kind of controversy. Just because Bobby Clarke makes a statement about a rival team does not make a controversy. While he is entitled to his opinion, his opinion is not automatically fact, nor is it automatically notable enough for inclusion in this, the Hawks or the Capitals articles. Especially given how laced with hyperbole his statements were. The truth is, Clarke made some comments bemoaning the success of his rivals as part of an interview with THN, it got picked up by a couple blogs, and that was that. His comments were already forgotten by everyone else the time you came in with the idea that we should be adding this bit of triviality to the article. Resolute 17:25, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

His comments were already forgotten by everyone - How do you know? This is a very vague assumption by you while my proposal was well-documented.

Spartan9199 (talk) 17:32, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

I have to agree with Resolute. I read the original article back when it was first published (a week ago?). I personally found it hilarious, but it has no place in the scope of any team article. ccwaters (talk) 17:37, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Yup I would have to agree. At best its a case of WP:UNDUE at worst its completely unnotable. -DJSasso (talk) 18:54, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Concur. Hell, the Minnesota North Stars article doesn't mention the team tanking in 1971 to avoid the Black Hawks in the first round, an incident that caused the league to change its playoff structure, and that's a good deal more notable than Bobby Clarke popping off in front of a reporter for the umpteenth time.  Ravenswing  10:19, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Agree - coaches and owners make comments about "other teams" all the time. Resolute, Ccwaters, Djsasso, and Ravenswing nailed it. — Ched :  ?  10:59, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Agree - This is just rivial sports banter. The NHL is not set up the same as the NFL Draft. It requires a draft lottery. Even if a team finishes with the worst record in the league, it still has to go before a draft lottery, meaning it may/may not get the #1 pick, and may even draft as high as 4th. Plus the Penguins had a lot of financial issues from 1999 until 2004 and could not really compete in the pre-2004 lockout NHL without entering bankruptcy, as evidenced by the departures of stars Alex Kovalev, Robert Lang, Martin Straka, Johan Hedberg and Jaromir Jagr. The team also had revenue issues due to the age of their arena. Even Mario Lemieux had to come out of retirement just to ensure that his franchise could still make money and to recope the cash owed to him from the 1990's.--Pennsylvania Penguin (talk) 17:38, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Actually a team can only fall 1 place in the NHL draft. They only pull one name out of the hat so to speak and they only move up 4 spots, this dropping everyone between where they were and where they end up 1 spot. -DJSasso (talk) 19:04, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Rivalries

I added a minor headline named "Rivalries", someone has removed it now but I think there should be a separate headline for the pens rivalries! Those rivalries are getting bigger and bigger now that the pens have become more competitive. —Preceding unsigned comment added by He who oppresses (talk • contribs) 12:50, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

• You will need to cite it to a WP:RS that the rivalries are actually more competitive now than before. Every team has rivals so I don't feel it's all that necessary to dedicate a whole section to it. blackngold29 14:09, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

• Agreed with Blackngold29. Unless the rivalry is a well-established part of the team's history and identity and is so rancorous and commented on that it's notable in its own right (see, e.g., Battle of Alberta) then I don't think it really belongs in the article. Because after all, sports teams compete with one another all the time; that's exactly what they're expected to do, so it doesn't generally warrant specific mention. —Notyourbroom (talk) 18:53, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Pens visited to white house on Sept 10

that thing got deleted i have add it i read it on KDKA news online —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hanjie (talk • contribs) 03:51, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

"Penguins is" or "Penguins are"?

See this recent edit. Following general standards of North American English, "Pittsburgh Penguins" (as signifying the team, not its players) probably ought to be treated as a singular collective noun; but it's also true that the players may be referred to as "Penguins." I guess what I'm saying is the question is whether we're referring to the team itself (singular collective noun) or to its individual players (plural noun). I lean toward the singular collective interpretation ("The Pittsburgh Penguins is a professional...") because we're talking about the entire franchise, including its history and future, and so that's abstracted a level away from the individual players. —Notyourbroom (talk) 21:26, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

I checked several other articles for North American sports teams and found that they all used plural agreement in the lead. I'm not convinced that plural agreement is prescriptively correct, but in the interest of maintaining cohesion across articles, I have reverted the above-linked edit which changed the lead to singular agreement and have thus reinstated plural agreement. I still think a discussion may be warranted here. —Notyourbroom (talk) 21:31, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Penguins are is the standard usage. The word that follows is dependent on whether the team nickname is singular or plural. This issue comes up any time a team sports article appears on the main page as predominantly European editors try to change it. But, when you consider that North American teams typically use pluralized nicknames, it becomes natural to refer to the team as a group entity rather than a singular. i.e.: The Calgary Flames are a Canadian hockey team vs. Manchester United is an English football team. "The Calgary Flames is" and "Manchester United are" both come off as grammatically awkward. MLS tends to confuse this standard as some franchises try to pretend they are European rather than North American. i.e.: "The Colorado Rapids are..." and "D.C. United is...". Resolute 00:23, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Recent edits

First off, the sentence:

the Penguins made a number of questionable moves that appeared to weaken the team in the short-term, including sending goaltender Roberto Romano to the minors and calling up Vincent Tremblay who posted a GAA of 6.00 in his games with the Penguins.

... is unreferenced and completely speculative. You could just as easily argue that Romano, a rookie and the team's backup goalie with a GAA of 4.59 for that season, was stinking out the joint and ripe for demotion. The blog you quote - and it is a blog - states that management wanted to see what Tremblay could do, the sort of decision a great many last-place teams in most sports make.

Coach Lou Angotti later admitted that a conscious decision was made to end with as the team with the worst record, stating in an interview with the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette that a mid-season lunch prompted the plan, in light of the fact that there was a high chance of the franchise folding if Lemieux was not drafted.

This is not in fact what the uncredited blog states.

However, Angotti stated that he did not feel comfortable with the plan, even though it worked and saved the franchise.

The blog doesn't state that either.

Beyond that, all this section relies on a single blogger's speculation and a single retired coach's meanderings. Was there a controversy worth mentioning? Absolutely. Should it be belabored? Absolutely not, and I'm sure I could bury Angotti's musings in fifty quotes from contemporary management, players and ownership hotly denying everything ... why, quotes from Angotti himself would be among them.  Ravenswing  05:56, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

OK I understand where you're coming from. The Romano-Tremblay thing is speculative. It was mentioned in the source as suspicious but it's ok if that is left out. The other major controversial move was the Carlyle trade, but then teams do trade players for picks, even if the other circumstances make this move appear suspicious. OK for the two quotes you claim are unreferenced and not what the blog states, I point out this source (used in the article): http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/04088/292486.stm

"If Pittsburgh hadn't gotten Mario Lemieux that year, I think the franchise would've folded," Angotti said. The plan was hatched over a midseason lunch between him and E.J."

That absolutely supports what was written in the article

Angotti remembered a 3-1 lead against the Rangers that prompted E.J. to barge into the coach's office amid the first intermission, "What are you doing?" They lost, 6-3.

"When we sat down to see what we had to do to get the first draft choice, E.J. said it would cost us both our jobs," laughingly recalled Angotti, who never coached again and retired to Florida after that summer

As for the claims of undue weight. As I said I believe that the way that season played out was absolutely pivotal to the Penguins' future. Without Lemieux the Penguins could have folded, if not in the 1980s, then in the 2000s. Despite similar insinuations existing in regards to the Penguins in the 03-04 season, that has not been added (and if it were then it wouldn't be a very long addition) because they lost the lottery, they didn't get Ovechkin, so it doesn't really matter. Back then there was no lottery so they were guaranteed Lemieux as soon as their regular season ended. Thanks for discussing though. 121.214.184.7 (talk) 07:57, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Penguins task force?

Is there any interest in creating a Pittsburgh Penguins task force under Wikipedia:WikiProject Ice Hockey? There's one already a Flyers task force.--Blargh29 (talk) 19:01, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Generally there is no point to task forces for hockey teams because almost everything hockey related is done on the main ice hockey project talk page. Most of these other task forces got created when someone such as yourself suggested them and almost immediately went inactive. This isn't to say you can't create one. But you would indeed want to find a number of very active users before you would want to create one or yours will suffer the same fate. -DJSasso (talk) 19:20, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from 216.165.9.245, 6 June 2010

{{editsemiprotected}} Change the line: "the eve off the 1999-00 season.", to: "the eve of the 1999-00 season." 216.165.9.245 (talk) 14:39, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Fixed. thanks! Resolute 14:57, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Logo Order

I don't know if it has been bothering anyone else, but I switched the 2001 logo and the current logo's positions. The logos not set in chronological order has been bothering me for quite a while. Thoughts? OhMyGodard28 (talk) 14:34, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

• The only thought I have is to say thank you?  Ravenswing  15:35, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

jerseys

Could you add a picture of the new throwback jersey, I think one has be revealed (I know the Capitals Winter Classic jerseys have been revealed, so I am assuming the Pens one have been to) 69.171.176.95 (talk) 21:19, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Boys of Winter

Searching the title of the music used as the Penguins' theme song, "Boys of Winter," redirects here, but there is no mention of it in the article. The redirect makes sense if the music track isn't getting its own article, but then isn't a mention of some kind in this article warranted? I was researching the origin of the piece and its recording year. Can't find anything. But whatever the case, isn't it logical to justify the redirect by having something about the searched topic mentioned? (Or is there and I completely missed it?) Medleystudios72 (talk) 15:10, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

"Threats" as describing franchise eras

First, no need for an edit war because this is beyond simple. I have not seen (and would be very interested in seeing) any cited documentation of a Penguins official using any term approximating "threat" of moving directed at the city or region prior to 2005. Please note that an editors opinion (or should I say leap of logic) about some extrapolation of what a bankruptcy might mean for the team is not a substitute, since it is again beyond obvious that since the franchise didn't move and didn't threaten to move in 1975 and 1985 it kind of blows a huge hole in any of that speculation. Also interesting is that more than one NHL franchise in the 1970's simply "merged" into another, basically folded, so even if it was wiki standards to wildly speculate about fictional outcomes that never happened in encyclopedia articles, simply stating this as "threat of relocation" is woefully irresponsible since at the time relocation wasn't the league preferred result of a full fledged bankruptcy (merger was).

Second, if wiki standards are considering rumors, innuendo, speculation and circular logic then we have about 125 sports franchise pages to pepper with "threats" (The Steelers actually met with Buffalo and Louisville in 1957 in considering a move--a real threat, so I suspect other weaker and less followed franchises, like the other 98% of them probably "threatened" to move in "rumor" once every 5 seasons).

Unless wiki standards are allowing for speculation and rumor to be dividing pages, and even then speculation and rumor that isn't even realistic for the era we are describing, I feel that descriptions not found in any publication coming from any team official prior to 2005 is best left to talk radio and message boards.

Marketdiamond (talk) 02:02, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

You are wrong on a number of accounts here. The only merger that happened in league history was the Barons into the North Stars so hardly precedent setting that this was the preferred method. The preferred method was clearly moving... Seals -> Cleveland, Colorado -> KC -> NJ, Atlanta -> Calgary. Secondly Pittsburgh did threaten to relocate to Seattle in 70's and was stopped at the last moment. -DJSasso (talk) 18:52, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Citation? User:Marketdiamond MarketDiamond 21:24, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

The league insisted the owners move the team to Seattle because of their tax situation and bankruptcy which included owing the league 500k. This article mentions the league proposal for them to go to Seattle instead of the Seattle team getting the new franchise it was in line for. "...proposal annouched at league meetings in Montreal on Tuesday that Seattle and Denver in line for expansion franchises in 1976-77, might instead take over the financially-troubled California and Pittsburgh club." It was about to happen when a local investor swooped in at the last minute and bought the team and kept them in Pittsburgh. I am looking for a source that specifically mentions the plan was scrapped when the new buyer came along. I should note the original owners were against the idea but when the IRS chained the doors to the Civic center it forced their hands. -DJSasso (talk) 23:45, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

As a general rule, I hate these kind of descriptive section titles. They are minor to major POV violations in most cases. There are some that are objective, such as "Founding", "First championship", etc, but tying them into rough eras where a player played there, or around perceived threats existed is silly. Especially "little success and uniform change". WTF? (also, unrelated to this discussion, having separate subsections for each of the last five seasons but not the 40 before is ridiculous and undue weight.) Realizing, however, that others have tried and failed to remove these titles, I would support moving to a more neutral section title. The ridiculous overuse of NFCC logos and a uniforms section that is as long as any random 15 years of team history is also an issue that plagues this article. Resolute 20:16, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Agree overall, I think there is some POV pulling both ways, I would like to see it streamlined a bit more but also citations on any "relocation threats" or "scant success" type things. Great points I'll incorporate them in future edits. user:Marketdiamond MarketDiamond 21:35, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 23 April 2012

CORRECTION...The Flyers defeated the Penguins in 2012 Playoffs. It is stated the Penguins beat the Flyers which is INCORRECT. The Penguins have only defeated the Flyers 2 out of 6 Playoff series. 50.73.192.17 (talk) 14:24, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Fixed, thank you for noticing it. --Bongwarrior (talk) 16:20, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

New conferences

Are the new conferences taking effect in 2012-13? If so you should update that from Atlantic Division since the 2011-12 season is now over. If the realignment isn't this coming season, disregard this message. I tried to edit, but someone quickly undid my revision. --Straus40 (talk) 18:12, 15 June 2012 (UTC)straus40

The players association rejected the new alignment a few days after it was announced. There is currently no plans for realignment. See NHL#Proposed conference realignment for more information. -DJSasso (talk) 18:18, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Wow didn't realize the players had rejected it. I must have been looking at a bogus source, sorry about that. Thanks for the reply!--Straus40 (talk) 18:32, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

The source was good, it was just old. The NHL did approve the plan, as ESPN stated, but the union quashed it afterward. Resolute 19:07, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Franchise "eras"

Quite aside from that describing a three or four year period as an "era" is silly, the headline creep of this article's history section has - even by the custom of hockey team articles - gone far over the top. (The notion, for instance, that "trade deadline acquisitions" are any more significant this season than any other, in terms of the nearly half-century of the team's history, is absurd.) Trimming back to a bare few words of genuine historical significance -- and honestly, to leave bare dates if need be -- is a good idea, and I'll be happy if someone beats me to it. Ravenswing 04:49, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

I've tried before, and got reverted, iirc. I am definitely in agreement that the section titles should be trimmed. This article also has major problems with undue weight on recent events and an excessive NFCC gallery. Resolute 13:23, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Color marker problem.

There's a problem with the color marker on this section of the article. It's black on the players that are active and you can't see their statistics on there. The problem will need to be solved pretty soon. BattleshipMan (talk) 18:43, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Somebody, please, solve this color marker problem with the active players ASAP. We can't see it. BattleshipMan (talk) 17:57, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

I changed the code but it always showed up fine on my browser. Maybe the issue was something within your browser and not the code since that code is used frequently throughout Wiki. –B2Project^(Talk) 03:40, 1 September 2013 (UTC)