Talk:Potential National Hockey League expansion

Toronto

There must be mention here of the idea of a second Toronto-based team which is gaining support. Jmj713 (talk) 13:26, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Added some quick info, needs fleshing out, obviously. Jmj713 (talk) 17:25, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Expand the expansion?

Maybe it would be best to rename this article to simply Potential National Hockey League expansion, and include any possible expansion that has been mentioned, such as Las Vegas, Kansas City, and other places, including Europe? Jmj713 (talk) 17:25, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

That is perhaps an idea, though it would render most of the background section irrelevant, as I had originally intended it to focus on the long, long standing issues surrounding expansion back into Canada, which is a topic unto itself. That said, no reason to be married to one concept if there is support for another. Resolute 20:17, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

No, it's not really necessary to change much if anything of the Canada-related portion. Just have separate sections for Canada, USA, and Europe (since there has been (very general) talk of European expansion). It would just be nice to have all expansion be contained within one article. Jmj713 (talk) 20:30, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

True. Because of this article, I've taken the relevant info from the KHL page and made a separate expansion page just like this one.--Lvivske (talk) 20:35, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

I went ahead and restructured the article a bit to make it into a general expansion article. I would like to find some news items from 1996-97, to see exactly which cities were considered, because I remember there was a long list from which four cities were ultimately selected. Google News turns up articles from that time but none for free. I can see mentions of as much as 11 cities submitting bids, but no details. Jmj713 (talk) 20:36, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

I like how this now includes other places that have been talked about in expansion discussions. Good decision to expand it. This article lists the six of eleven that made that cut, but doesn't list the eliminated ones. And it's funny how things have changed since then regarding those cities. Especially Bennett who bought an NBA team for OKC instead. And this article does list the other applicants. 11 groups applied from 8 cities. --Mtjaws (talk) 17:47, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Hamilton history

There's quite a bit of history of Hamilton trying to get back into the NHL. Lots of info here: http://crashingthegoalie.com/2009/02/12/nhl-back-to-hamilton-ever/ Should this data be incorporated into the Hamilton section somehow? Jmj713 (talk) 00:01, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Winnipeg Ownership

There is indeed an ownership in Winnipeg, Mark Chipman has said on occasion that there is indeed a group of owners. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rddflag (talk • contribs) 19:51, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

As always, however, there are no names attached. Resolute 21:40, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Well now there is, a Toronto based group has taken steps to buy the atlanta thrashers, i'll get the source and include it in the article. --Daniel (talk) 15:31, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Well, Al Strachan claims that there is a group interested. Frankly, I don't take his claims to be worth the paper they are printed on. Resolute 15:25, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Toronto Area

There should be mention of previous times when two NHL teams have been in the same Canadian metropolitan area as one another, and current NHL teams that are in the same media market. 70.29.208.129 (talk) 10:31, 6 June 2009 (UTC) just off the top of my head I can think of Montreal, Quebec, and the New York/New Jersey area (3 teams). 99.255.58.85 (talk) 10:25, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Alternate bid for Phoenix franchise

There is a bid where the bidders have said that a few games would be played in Canadian cities. However, as the club would still be a Phoenix franchise, I don't believe it falls within the scope of this article; it's just another example of neutral-site games, which have been played in the past. I propose removing the text related to this topic from the article. Isaac Lin (talk) 19:02, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

If there is no additional discussion, I will remove the mention of this bid (which incidentally has been withdrawn). Isaac Lin (talk) 13:38, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Portland?

On the radio today (Fan 590 in Toronto) they were talking to (i forget his name...ill edit this when i remember) who worked close with Phoenix. He said that had Gretzky not come aboard in 2001 then the wheels were in motion to move to Portland the following year. Any other leads on this city?--Львівське (talk) 05:57, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Aside from the incoherent ramblings of a former Calgary Herald sportswriter who hated the Flames and tried several times a year to move the team to Portland, Houston or Oklahoma City in his articles, nope. But yes, the Coyotes to Portland story did exist at the time. As of right now though, the common perception is that there is little to no chance of Portland getting a team, mainly due to Paul Allen's lack of desire to open the Rose Garden up to one. Resolute 15:24, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

A second Quebec Nordiques franchise

In future, we'll have to mention that the Colorado Avalanche own the rights to the name 'Quebec Nordiques'. Re-location or expansion into Quebec City, doesn't automatically mean the name Nordiques can be used. GoodDay (talk) 17:14, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Actually, the NHL owns all of the trademarks. The only exception is the Hartford Whalers, as the city of Hartford was given ownership of the name, colours and logos as part of the deal to let the team move. That is why you won't see any Whalers jerseys in the NHL vintage line. Even so, calling them "the second Nordiques" is silly. We ascribe the past team name to the proposed out of convenience, not fact. Resolute 23:23, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

This is untrue. The NHL owns nearly all the requisite trademarks associated with the Hartford Whalers. There is a dispute as a 3rd party successfully registered the mark and uses it for things such as apparel. Kav2001c (talk) 17:28, 30 April 2021 (UTC)kav2001c

Certainly, we won't be 'merging' it with the Quebec Nordiques, though. GoodDay (talk) 19:22, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

If there's a second Quebec Nordiques franchise, then of course we'd have 2 articles called 'Quebec Nordiques (1972-95)' & 'Quebec Nordiques (year- present)'; PS: I know I'm looking too far ahead. GoodDay (talk) 18:34, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

bill daly now confirming nhl interest in south ontario

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/sports/hockey/nhl-eyes-second-team-in-southern-ontario/article1356687/

Article status

I don't want to be confrontational, but I fail to see how this article is encyclopedic. It seems to me to run afoul of the principles that Wikipedia is not a rumor mill and not a crystal ball. Same for the matching KHL article. I think this may need to go for an AfD. oknazevad (talk) 04:42, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

It provides a plethora of official statements & sources and was decided upon by the wikiproject (consensus?). How you could suggest this is AfD material is just...I dunno..--Львівське (talk) 06:09, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Though good portions of the article contain genuine initiatives, there is a difficulty in trying to separate real plans from purely speculative ones. The problem is that any group can put together some possible backers, hold a press conference, and get media coverage, and yet in reality just be a paper tiger. Some of the cited statements in the article are just expressing intent without any real plans, like the ones in the section on Quebec City. Isaac Lin (talk) 19:45, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Exactly. Just because something gets mentioned in a newspaper doesn't make it particularly notable, nor legitimate. And a collection of paraphrases of news articles is not really encyclopedia material. It's all just too speculative, right down to the "potential" in the title.oknazevad (talk) 19:55, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Norfolk

lets not forget the NHL almost expanded here, see Hampton Roads Rhinos--184.77.10.72 (talk) 17:53, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

• A group put in a bid, yes. The bid was rejected, as were bids from a number of other cities in the 1990s. I'd say the only city that gets to put an "almost" tag up is Seattle, which actually did win a conditional franchise at one point.  Ravenswing  19:46, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

NHL in Europe - are you mad?

The NHL will never expand into Europe; the high fuel prices would prevent that from happening. You're more likely to see NASCAR Sprint Cup Series drivers race in Monaco or Hockenheim Ring than you are to see the Toronto Maple Leafs move to Manchester, England or the Montreal Canadiens move to Paris, France and become the Paris Napoleons. GVnayR (talk) 02:05, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

• The point is not whether NHL expansion into Europe is feasible; this is not a general hockey discussion forum, and arguing the merits has no place here. The point is whether it's been discussed and is verifiable to reliable sources, which it has been for decades now.  Ravenswing  19:42, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Let me put this in a better way: Having the NHL expand into Europe would be like Major League Soccer expanding into England or the NFL expanding into Central/South America. Who would want to watch a soccer match between Toronto FC and Manchester United or an American football match between the Dallas Cowboys and the Rio de Janeiro Jugadores? GVnayR (talk) 23:08, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

The NHL is very popular in Europe. Jmj713 (talk) 23:18, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

The NHL hasn't been sending teams over to Europe each September/October, because of boredom. GoodDay (talk) 02:55, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Err ... and this is still not a hockey discussion forum. If you'd like to discuss how crazy you believe the notion to be, you'd be better off taking it to one. Beyond that, stop editorializing in the article. Your personal speculation as to how the NHL would have to realign to admit European teams or how that would affect existing franchises is just that: your personal speculation. Personal, unsourced speculation has no place in this article or any other, and I'm astonished that this would need to be explained to someone active on Wikipedia for six years and with nearly 50,000 edits.  Ravenswing  03:42, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

If I may just for a moment... If the NHL were to expand into Europe, I'm sure it would be a separate European conference that would not play the North American teams very much if at all during the season. Jmj713 (talk) 03:48, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Yeah I have always figured it would be like Major League Baseball (prior to interconference play). And that the only time to two sides met would be in the Stanley Cup finals. -DJSasso (talk) 16:36, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Winnipeg info redundant

With a franchise relocating to Winnipeg, the article's section on expansion to Winnipeg is moot. I propose removing it. isaacl (talk) 18:39, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

While the move is most likely imminent, it HAS NOT HAPPENED YET. The NHL Board of Governors still have to approve the sale and relocation. Until then, the Atlanta Thrashers still exist, and this article needs to continue to reflect that until the move has been made official. --David7581 (talk) 03:48, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

• The section on "expansion" to Winnipeg was in fact overwhelmingly made up of plans to relocate a team to Winnipeg, between the various efforts to return the Coyotes, True North's 2009 attempt to buy the Thrashers, and so on. As such, it did not belong in this article, and I removed it yesterday.  Ravenswing  05:44, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Realignment

Should this article discuss the potential realignment of the NHL that's being talked about right now? Or is this subject for a separate article? Perhaps one that would cover historical realignments and other restructuring of teams? Jmj713 (talk) 14:55, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

• We're not really a gossip column here. Of course sportswriters and bloggers are talking about it, and when and if there's actually anything definite to report, it can go in the pertinent articles.  ῲ Ravenswing ῴ  15:36, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Well, it looks like it's league officials, including the commissioner, that are talking about this, not just the media. That's why I brought this up. I wouldn't have, if it was just some no-name bloggers. Jmj713 (talk) 15:42, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

I wouldn't put it here. Maybe the current NHL season article. At any rate, there is not a proposal, only some minimal details out there about 4 divisions, two with 8 teams and two with 7 teams. Another possibility: Maybe it's time for a 'National Hockey League divisions' article. I know there are articles for each division, but maybe there could be an article to introduce all of them, and how the divisions have changed over time and include a realignment section there. That could be a good article, if there isn't one already. ʘ alaney2k ʘ (talk) 16:00, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

(ec)I wouldn't think we would talk about it. Once it actually happens it would probably be talked about in the affected division and conference articles. Not sure I would make a separate article, although I could see the use in having one that covered every realignment. However, even in that case most of the past ones are covered in other articles such as the 1967 expansion article and what not. So I suppose not against its own article, but it definitely doesn't belong in this article. -DJSasso (talk) 16:02, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

That's what I was thinking too, a historical overview of all NHL realignments. Should be educational. Jmj713 (talk) 16:06, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

There is a 1967 expansion article and this one. Maybe a 'National Hockey League expansions and realignments' to cover everything that's all over the place in one article? (I am -not- stuck on the title - it could include contractions) The division changes get mentioned in the List of NHL seasons article, but only mentioned, not covered. ʘ alaney2k ʘ (talk) 16:13, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Found the pertinent article: History of organizational changes in the NHL. ʘ alaney2k ʘ (talk) 16:15, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Yeah we definitely need a nice and tidy article that would chart the evolution of the layout of the NHL. Right now, like you said, there's only a single article on the 1967 expansion. Seems like a vast area of NHL's history is glossed over. Jmj713 (talk) 16:17, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Agree not required in this article; if more formal statements are made by the NHL, perhaps in the NHL article and the latest History of the NHL article. isaacl (talk) 16:07, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

That will go there, undoubtedly, but I'm talking a more in-depth article. Jmj713 (talk) 16:17, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

I think a more in-depth discussion makes most sense when placed into context with the rest of NHL history. If you tried to flesh it all out into one article, you'd end up duplicating a lot of historical information, and likely have to split out the article into multiple ones, anyway, to make it more manageable. Personally, I believe History of organizational changes in the NHL (thanks Alaney2k!) is more useful in its current form as an overview article, with links to the appropriate sections in NHL history. isaacl (talk) 16:46, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

I understand it may be too much for one article, but on the other hand, too much is better than none. If done concisely, we should be able to talk about all the restructurings of the NHL within a single article. As far as the "organizational changes" article, I was the one that actually started that, and my idea was not realignment, but expansion and contraction of teams throughout league history. So it's somewhat of a different topic, though it could be combined, perhaps. Jmj713 (talk) 16:49, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

San Francisco

These edits added some description of San Francisco as a potential expansion city candidate, with a citation to a personal columnist's opinion. Without any actual proposals in recent history, does this purely speculative discussion warrant inclusion in this article? isaacl (talk) 05:44, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

• Certainly not, but then again, I dislike this entire article; it's a heap of speculation and OR, and has been a magnet for wishful thinking tidbits from everyone on the outside looking in, complete with continual addition of every rumor any bored sportswriter tosses out. Ravenswing 05:56, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

The San Jose Sharks play in that market. Although the Sharks are very popular I highly doubt there is interest in bringing another team to the area.Secondcube (talk) 23:40, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Markham

There are numerous grammatical issues with this section, but before going to clean it up, I would like to establish a consensus: is this information sufficiently notable for this article? Based on the citations, other than the fact that the NHL has met with the group, and told it to assume for purposes of building an arena that the rink will never be home to an NHL team, I'm not sure if there's enough there for this to be considered a notable attempt to expand the NHL to Markham. What does everyone think? isaacl (talk) 15:55, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

I noticed it before coming here and did a small cleanup. I'd say leave it in. I think it is more a possible relocation destination than expansion destination, though. Maybe merge it with Toronto, and call it "Toronto area", as the team would not be called Markham XXX anyway. TSN recently had a panel and considered the Toronto area the second-most likely expansion destination after Quebec City. Toronto area is big enough to support two teams, and is supposedly preferable because it's outside the Buffalo 'territory'. ʘ alaney2k ʘ (talk) 16:46, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Halifax

Although Halifax is a theoretical possibility for expansion (if unlikely), I don't believe the newly-added section makes an adequate case for this. A poll of Canadians isn't a reliable source for evaluating the potential for a new NHL expansion franchise. Would someone like to take a stab at finding some reliable, non-promotional, independent citations from notable sources regarding the possibility of having an NHL team based in Halifax, before I suggest deleting this section (with no prejudice against recreating it once appropriate sources have been found)? isaacl (talk) 16:17, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

It was talked about extensively in the Phoenix Coyotes saga. The Ice Edge group was going to split games here. The NHL has been talked about going to Halifax quite a bit in the past. I will have to go find some sources but it has definitely been talked about before. Just a couple quickies from the first couple pages of a search [1], [2], [3], [4]. I could probably find more of better quality if I tried. Remember this page is just about cities that have been talked about for expansion. Not cities that are necessarily likely to get them. -DJSasso (talk) 12:50, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

Many cities have had associated idle chatter; personally, I believe this article should be kept to specific, credible, notable proposals. isaacl (talk) 15:52, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

Well technically the Ice Edge was an official proposal made to the NHL. It wasn't merely idle chatter amongst sports writers. -DJSasso (talk) 15:54, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, I was in the middle of expanding my remarks... A proposal to host a few games is significantly different than hosting a franchise, and so doesn't serve as evidence of a clear plan for being home to a team. (On a side note, a number of times you've re-reverted changes citing Wikipedia's Bold, Revert, Discuss guideline; it may have been prudent to avoid re-introducing this info.) isaacl (talk) 16:06, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

Well once a discussion has started it should remain at the state it was when the discussion was started. So I reverted to the state that the discussion was started on (ie had you been the one to revert and start the discussion it would have been left. Once you posted your discussion no one should be changing that section in any direction until consensus is reached). That being said, hosting games is significant in that if a city can host multiple games in a season that they have the potential to host as a home city. The population of Halifax and surrounding area for example isn't much different than Winnipeg. While I agree it isn't likely to happen in Halifax. It isn't completely out of the picture and it did receive significant coverage. The purpose of the page was to cover cities that got significant news coverage towards expansion. Saskatoon for example would receive a franchise a loooong time after Halifax would since it is much smaller than Halifax (less than half the size). -DJSasso (talk) 16:15, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

There's a big difference between hosting a few games, which can be promoted as special events, and hosting a full season, with the associated season ticket sales required by the franchise. isaacl (talk) 16:51, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

Don't disagree, but that doesn't make it any less potential. This page isn't "Future National Hockey League expansion" or "Shoe-in National Hockey League expansion". Its just "Potential National Hockey League expansion". I think any credibly sourced cities that have legitimately been talked about should belong on this page. This isn't the first time Halifax had been talked about for expansion. It was just the most recent and quickest to source. I should note that it should have a significant rewrite if it stays. -DJSasso (talk) 16:55, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

"What about Halifax?" does not create that potentiality, I think. Personally, I think we're better off focusing on sites that have been named as having legitimate chances, not every city where someone pimped their home town. Resolute 20:26, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

Unless the proposed rewrite occurs and citations are given for significant, notable, credible proposals to host a team in Halifax permanently, I suggest deleting the section on Halifax for now, without prejudice against recreation. isaacl (talk) 16:25, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Agreed; there's just not enough there that constitutes a credible proposal for this section to stay. (Procedurally, it shouldn't have been re-added once removed anyway. It's "bold, revert, discuss", not "bold, revert, re-add, discuss". The change should not stick unless consensus forms for it; until that time the prior version should stay.) oknazevad (talk) 16:38, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

I have no problem with what is there being removed as long as a decent section can be added in the future should someone do a rewrite. But in response to Oknazevad you are right, it is "bold, revert, discuss" its not "bold, discuss, revert before discussion is done" which is what you had done. Once a discussion is started its well accepted that the disputed section isn't touched by anyone in either direction of a discussion and that any such changes should be reverted until the discussion is completed and there is consensus for it to be changed one way or the other. But as many others have said, this page in general is problematic in a number of ways. Now if it was changed to be a page such as "Proposed NHL expansion" of "Failed NHL expansion" instead of Potential it would probably be better off. -DJSasso (talk)

I have removed the section in question for now. isaacl (talk) 03:29, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Info to add

News broke today about a possible 2017 deal involving Vegas, Seattle, Toronto, and Quebec City. - SweetNightmares 14:12, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

[5] the league has denied it though, for whatever that is worth.... Dbrodbeck (talk) 15:00, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Redundancy

The adverbs indicated in added italics belowjst repeat information already provided by the verb tenses. they can be dleted without changing the meaning of the sentences in any way.

1. "The five largest metropolitan regions without NHL franchises are (in descending order of population) Houston, Atlanta, Seattle-Tacoma, San Diego, and Baltimore. Cleveland, Houston and Atlanta have previously hosted major professional hockey teams. During the 1970s, Cleveland was home...."
2. "The largest arena currently in use in the Seattle area, KeyArena, is considered ...."
3. "The ECHL's Missouri Mavericks currently play at the suburban Independence Events Center."

I removed these redundant adverbs, but my edits were reverted with the explanation unclear "No they're not. Especially the first one. "Have hosted" is a conditional tense, and could be followed by a "since" clause. "Previously" clarifie"

1. "Have hosted" is not the conditional tense. It is the Present Perfect, which is a form of the verb that shows the action was complete before the present. This works perfectly well in the present case. There is no lack of clarity, and no need for redundancy.
2. "in use" with "is considered" tells us that we are talking about the current condition, not a past or future condition. No need to hammer this home even further. Our readers understand basic verb tenses, like the simple present tense used here.
3. Does anyone disagree that the "Mavericks play at the Indepenedence Events Center"? Could this mean anything other than the current condition? How does it change by adding "currently"? It doesn't. "Currently" is just redundant.

Ground Zero | t 13:28, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

I heartily disagree with you on the first one. "Have hosted" does not automatically indicate a completed action at all. Take the sentence "New York and Philadelphia have hosted NHL teams since 1926 and 1967, respectively." The use of "have hosted" does not in any way show that the Rangers and Flyers have folded, indeed the sentence explicitly declares the hosting as an ongoing concern through the use of a time-relative clause.. The sentence in question is in need of some time reference. It could say "have hosted in the past", but a single adverb is simply more succinct.

The other two sentences I don't particularly care one way or the other, but this is hardly the first time I've seen removal of adverbs specifically intended to establish a contrast with past situations, which is not inherently redundant but good writing. oknazevad (talk) 15:59, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

"Previously" serves to end the duration in time to which the sentence is referring, to indicate that it does not continue up to the present, and the hosting has terminated. For simplicity, the sentence can be written solely in the past tense, as the period of time is earlier than the current frame of context: Cleveland, Houston, and Atlanta previously hosted major professional hockey teams. isaacl (talk) 16:51, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

That works for me. oknazevad (talk) 17:00, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

Seattle background

Interesting article. By the way, since the current expansion "process" is gaining more and more coverage, should it be split off from this article once it's not so potential anymore (announcement should be in September, if I'm not mistaken)? Jmj713 (talk) 00:47, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

Unless it actually gets a team it should remain on this page. This page was created specifically for situations like this where places are discussed, but haven't actually happened yet. -DJSasso (talk) 19:41, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

Update on NHL expansion application process

http://www.nhl.com/ice/news.htm?id=775295 - Official expansion applications received from Las Vegas and Quebec - not sure if or how it should be added to the article? 86.189.181.113 (talk) 16:10, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

Probably as a statement in each city's section, using your link as a source. Something like "Quebecor filed an application for a team when the NHL announced a formal expansion process in 2015." Resolute 16:14, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

Have added, correctly I hope. 86.189.181.113 (talk) 16:32, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

Looks good Dbrodbeck (talk) 17:13, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090521001844/http://www.makeitseven.ca:80/downloads/May%205%20release%20FINAL.pdf to http://www.makeitseven.ca/downloads/May%205%20release%20FINAL.pdf

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 01:05, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090521001844/http://www.makeitseven.ca:80/downloads/May%205%20release%20FINAL.pdf to http://www.makeitseven.ca/downloads/May%205%20release%20FINAL.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090107105911/http://www.texnews.com/texsports97/oilers103197.html to http://www.texnews.com/texsports97/oilers103197.html

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 17:15, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

Proximity

The article covers a long list of potential expansion sites in the USA, and one of the explanations given to explain the failure to expand to just about each and every location is its proximity to one or more existing NHL franchises. It is true that the one market which did just get a new team was Las Vegas, which is pretty far from anywhere. But even Las Vegas is relatively close (4-5 hours' drive time) to Phoenix and Los Angeles. The NHL has not been shy in the past about placing new teams close to existing teams. In 1980, the Atlanta Flames moved to Calgary, Alberta, the year after cross-province rivals Edmonton Oilers joined the league. In 1982, the New Jersey Devils moved into a market which already had two teams (The New York Rangers and New York Islanders) in a location also not too far from the Philadelphia Rangers and Hartford Whalers. In 1993, the Anaheim Ducks entered as an expansion team into the Los Angeles market, which already had a team, and which was also a warm-weather location. Also in the 1990s, the league placed not one but two expansion teams in Florida, and additionally placed the Ottawa Senators in a city about two hours from Montreal. Timothy Horrigan (talk) 18:10, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

If I remember correctly the distance quoted is usually 200KM apart is what saves you from having to pay off other teams. In most of the cases above they meet that distance. In the case of the Ducks, they paid a very large fee to the Kings to be able to have a team in that location. I am guessing in the case of the Florida teams they probably made it known to the new teams they were intending to have multiple teams in the state and that was just part of getting a new team, but they are 4 hours apart so not really close. The Flames were moved specifically to be rivals to Edmonton so they could have more of a western Canadian presence. The New York teams however are going back quite a ways in time when things were very much looser and it didn't cost as much to run teams so they probably were not as concerned with diluting the fan bases in that area. The thing with the Senators (and the Flames for that matter) is that the percentage of hockey going fans in a given area is much higher in Canada than in most of the States. So 2 hours difference in southern Ontario is actually the equivalent of a fairly lengthy difference in the States. -DJSasso (talk) 12:59, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, I wouldn't call the Florida teams proximate by any means. That both markets also have NFL and MLB teams tells me that no one considered them the same market when placing teams either. The Alberta teams are also a 3 hour drive apart, not proximate. Ottawa? Sure it's closer to Montreal and Toronto than that, but still not as close a drive as New York and Philly. Or Philly and Washington. Denser population corridors mean sense placement of teams, and the Windsor–Quebec Corridor is pretty dense. Plus it's hockey in Canada. They could likely support another team or three. The only proposal that seems a direct crosstown example is the proposal for a second Toronto area team. So I don't know if the examples here are good examples to support the point, which is that the claims of proximity being a factor are unsupported and unsupportable (except for the GTA). That is a point I can agree with. oknazevad (talk) 23:27, 18 October 2016 (UTC) PS, I think that is just one more example of how this article combines flimsy sources of non-nitable events and unsourced analysis to present an essay with a coherency that doesn't exist in real life. oknazevad (talk) 23:29, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

San Diego

@Azure1233: I'm not seeing anything in the two sources of the third paragraph to suggest this information belongs in this article. The first source says nothing about the NHL, the second one only mentions it twice — once to compare arena sizes for each league and once to clarify that the city had not spoken to the NHL either, but the stated goal and topic of that article are all about the NBA. The NHL was really only mentioned more or less to clarify that no expansion to the city of San Diego is happening anytime soon, but either way this paragraph does not seem to me like it belongs here. It's very much original research to suggest that this really has much to do with the NHL's prospects for expansion. But I didn't want to just outright remove it, I didn't want to seem like a WP:DICK. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 05:12, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

The vast majority of this article is OR and SYNTH anyway. oknazevad (talk) 11:27, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

@Zeke, the Mad Horrorist: I agree with Oknazevad, most of this page has fair amount of SYNTH. However, San Diego's inclusion here is a stretch when compared to the others listed. Of the four Canadian locations and four US locations currently here, SD is the only one that has not been sourced as actually talking to anyone involved with the NHL in nearly 40 years (QC bid in 2016, Ham in 2010 w/ Thrashers bid, possible GTA bid in 2015, Sask bid in 2012, Hartford talked to NHL in 2008, Houston in 2017, and KC in 2007 via Penguins). The source provided explicitly says the current proposed arena has NOT talked to the league or anyone interested in the putting a hockey team there; only that the arena could hold one if there is interest. At best, it certainly needs some trimming; at worst, it should be removed entirely. Yosemiter (talk) 21:31, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

In all honesty, I'm in full agreement with oknazevad. I've been mulling over having an RfC about even having articles on potential sports leagues expansion such as this one. A lot of it comes down to, "This MIGHT happen," but Wikipedia isn't about what MIGHT happen, it's about what HAS happened or WILL happen. It's a huge stretch to go from "X place has inquired about expansion" to "X place could be a site for expansion", and there is absolutely no policy-abiding way to make that happen. It's all gazing into a great, big crystal ball and extrapolating from known information using pure guesswork. If anything, I believe much of the information here can easily be condensed and placed into the article History of organizational changes in the NHL as its own subsection, with a strict reliance on info that is sourced because it certainly is relevant to mention significant attempts at organizational changes in the League, without some overly detailed fixation on hypothetical scenarios and barriers to NHL expansion or relocation. It's much more difficult to find reliable citations for things that could happen in subject areas such as this one. "Could" doesn't require an inside source, but "will" or "is pondering it" do, so literally anyone, reliable or otherwise, can say, "Such-and-such area COULD receive an NHL team." It takes actual credentials to go from "could" to "will" or "is trying to", which means "could" falls entirely outside of Wikipedia's purview.

All that being said, my concern with the San Diego section here is pretty much as said by Yosemiter. It's even more of a huge leap to suggest San Diego even belongs on this list, let alone with respect to recent information regarding their attempts to build a world-class arena. "No one said anything about the NHL coming to San Diego, but their future arena will be NHL-compatible" is a great way to sum it up, and is really all we can say about any connection between the NHL and the city of San Diego at the present time. Which all but strikes it from the list. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 22:01, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

@Zeke, the Mad Horrorist: The RfC would be interesting, especially if it was as a proposed merge to History of organizational changes in the NHL. I don't think outright deletion would be an outcome since the subject of bids and official talks about expansion seems to meet the WP:GNG. It is certainly difficult to draw a line between and "city/potential owner has talked to the NHL" vs. "it was rumored that someone might have talked to the NHL", not to mention the various articles of "why does my city/arena not have an NHL team when we are big enough to host one" as written by some local sports journalist. It seems like there should be some sort of expiration date to them as well. How many of the cities on this page are actually a potential market "Right Now"? Likely none as the league has not mentioned expanding past 32 and relocations are all just rumors as of today. How many of the proposed owners listed in this page (like Jim Balsillie) are still interested? Lamar Hunt Jr. is on record more recently stating there are no potential owners in KC anymore; surely that section could be removed by now? At some point, failed expansion efforts become WP:UNDUE and are probably only worth one or two sentences similar to the one sentence about the Hampton Roads Rhinos. If the SD arena is built, and it gets an NBA team, it probably fits better in the sentence about NBA arenas capable of hosting NHL teams instead of having its own section. Yosemiter (talk) 23:10, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Right, I didn't think an AfD for this article would go anywhere, and it seemed to be jumping the gun or overreacting. Actually, I thought at least one similar article for the NFL existed, but I can't seem to find it. If it did, though, best to lump it in with this article in an RfC; I think an RfC would go a much longer way in terms of clarifying what we're trying to accomplish here, plus it's not like any sort of action, deletion or otherwise, is a guaranteed result of such a discussion, so nobody has to jump in to defend it as Keep just so nothing does happen to it. We could keep the RfC open as long as we want, and it's not such a pressing matter that something HAS to be done by such-and-such a time. I'm not sure it's worth pointing out which arenas are NHL-ready, though, since while it may be true that they are, that should really only go on the articles for the respective arenas as it doesn't really strike me as relevant to say, "The NHL could come to X city if they wanted since that city has a compatible arena," since that standard seems to change every 20 years or so, and any attempt to link it to the NHL's actual intentions or desires, which is the purpose of this page, is WP:OR unless someone representing the NHL or at least the market in question says, "Yeah, we've tried luring the League here." Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 05:17, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

Part of the role of this article is to act as a lightning rod to keep articles like "Proposed Moose Jaw National Hockey League team" from proliferating. Personally I wouldn't want a "History of organizational changes" article to contain details of expansion efforts that have not come to fruition. I do think, as I've expressed previously, that there should be explicit, credible plans by a future ownership group in order to be included in this article; a few press releases doesn't cut it for me as anyone can put out a few announcements. I also think there should be a sunset clause of sorts, though I'm not sure yet how it should work. Basically, as the potential success of a given bid fades, it becomes less relevant for the topic of potential expansion. (Should a bid succeed one day, then the history of proposals can be resurrected in the new franchise article.) isaacl (talk) 19:17, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

I believe it's still important to document failed attempts, there shouldn't be any expiration placed on that. But I agree that it should be restricted only to credible efforts. There have been many of these in the past and they should all be described in the article. I don't believe the purpose of this is strictly just potential future expansion necessarily. Maybe the older efforts can be placed under Previous/Failed efforts? If efforts ever come to fruition, like Seattle, then those sections just get moved to the team's History section. But as long as it was a real efort, and not just pure speculation, it should be here. Jmj713 (talk) 20:43, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

@Jmj713: I don't think Isaacl is proposing deleting failed attempts from the page entirely (once it is clear that it is no longer relevant like my KC example), just simply not having an WP:UNDUE section dedicated that city anymore. Otherwise, we could have short sections on every city's history of teams and bids in the last 100 years. I would guess that could add about 20 US cities and 10 or so Canadian ones. Clearly, some locations no longer have any relevance as a current "potential" location, like the Hampton Roads Rhinos. Yosemiter (talk) 21:07, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

I'm thinking primarily about how far along did the proposal progress. I don't think it's necessary to keep track of every concept-stage proposal that gets floated, decades after the fact, even if at the time it seemed like a reasonable initial proposal. Regarding locations that are no longer relevant: the literalist in me thinks the article should cover current potential, while the historian in me thinks that perhaps a historic candidates section might be nice to have. isaacl (talk) 21:55, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

Honestly, the place for historic passed over proposals is in the article about organizational changes where they discuss the candidates for a given round of expansion. That the Hampton Roads area was a candidate three decades ago is relevant for that round of expansion, and has zero bearing on any potential future expansion. Ditto to with Saskatoon being a potential relocation spot for the Blues. Relevant to the history of the team, zero bearing on future expansion possibilities, as it was decades ago and does nothing to describe the current potential for ownership or venue and market suitability of the current league.

As for the ones that have some actual modern relevance, the answer simply put is there are none. The league has said plainly that they're not expanding again any time soon. Frankly, I get the idea that this is supposed to head off the creation of useless articles of pie-in-the sky proposals, but placing them all in one article is not better in the least. It's still unverified, non-notable, irrelevant self-promotion.

Couple that with unsourced analysis (aka WP:SYNTH) as seen by the San Diego section being discussed. There is currently a vague proposal to build a new arena to replace the old, small, outdated arena in the city so they don't get left out of concert tours and the like. There is no actual push for either an NBA or NHL team for the building. (A fact the proposers have said outright; they've said they'd be open to having one come in if it happened, but it is not the purpose of the building.)

I honestly think this article should be deleted outright. It's just a magnet for unacceptable OR. Of course, I've been saying that for years (look above in the #Article status section.) oknazevad (talk) 22:35, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

I wouldn't be opposed to pure deletion, I just didn't think consensus would back me on that one. I definitely agree that whatever this article is trying to be, it's kind of unattainable. There is a lot of excessive focus on proposals that ultimately fell through, probably because this article was written incrementally as these bids progressed years ago. Whatever valid material there is in this article belongs somewhere else, but I'm not entirely sure where for some of it. Definitely the entire unsourced paragraph about "The five largest metropolitan regions..." can get cut, but otherwise there's good material folded in with excessive or unnecessary material. This will take some serious pruning to get something acceptable out of it, but the article's a bit of a mess as is, I definitely agree. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 04:23, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

@Zeke, the Mad Horrorist, Oknazevad, Isaacl, Azure1233, and Jmj713: So this section on San Diego has been up for a few months now for us all to stew over its possible inclusion. I am still not seeing any non-original research type sources here for any serious consideration for SD as a Potential National Hockey League expansion site in several decades. Even that was not much of a real attempt, it was market research for potential owners ("Neither bid advanced with any serious traction" is in the article here), with one deciding on a different city. Its current sources for inclusion here is "large city"[fact] + "no team"[fact] = "maybe team in city?"[speculation] That is pure WP:SYNTH. Before I remove it, I would like some outright WP:CONSENUS here first though. Yosemiter (talk) 03:56, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

My view continues to be that absent explicit, credible plans for an expansion bid, there shouldn't be an entry in this article. isaacl (talk) 04:03, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

Have at it, my friend. We've given plenty of time for it to become more than it was when we first initiated this discussion, and San Diego remains far on the outskirts of anyone's radar when it comes to potential NHL expansion. This information may have a place here on Wikipedia, but it's not on this article. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 04:45, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

Feel free to remove San Diego. And while your at it feel free to remove any section where there is little more than idle speculation based on the same synthesized combination you mention in regards to San Diego. Which, frankly, would amount to more than half the article. oknazevad (talk) 12:22, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

Expansion sites in the United States

Just so nobody gets their panties in a wad over what I just did: I removed nearly everything from the intro to this section. There were some sources in it, but none of them were used elsewhere in the article, and we can figure out the useful parts later. Just getting it off the page and (mostly) out of public view seemed the most prudent thing to do based on recent conversations. If anything, I would say the good bits go on different pages, e.g. Sports in X city, but none of it seems to belong here. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 18:34, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

Relocation talk

I've been removing talks of relocation lately because while they may seem relevant, arguably they are not; this article is solely about expansion prospects, not teams who may be relocated or places they may go, even insofar as the latter may damage expansion prospects (e.g. the Islanders being invited to play in Hartford, which never happened anyway). Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 23:18, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

@Zeke, the Mad Horrorist: To be fair, the intent of the article dating back to its creation in 2009 was potential host cities for NHL teams. It always included possible relocations. In fact, it seems there is probably far more content and sources in the last two decades solely on relocation destinations than true expansions since the league hit 30 teams. Pre-30 teams, the content was about expansions. There is enough sources about potential relocations that it should likely be included somewhere. The current article title can be changed to be more inclusive of that fact (although WP:CONCISE can certainly apply) or be WP:SPLIT out into "Potential NHL relocations" or something. However, as there is a fair amount of overlap between potential expansion locations (most pre-2000 sites) and relocation destinations (post-2000 sites), the former renaming proposal probably makes more sense. (Examples: Hamilton, Hartford, and Saskatoon all have sources for both and Winnipeg had both before a relocation took place). Yosemiter (talk) 23:43, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

The only information in the article that I've found so far — and as of this writing I've removed all of it that I've found up to the section on Hartford — concerned failed bids and hypothetical outcomes. Relocation gossip is extremely cheap, articles on it are a dime a dozen and the article has experienced considerable bloat from failed or again hypothetical bids over the years. If anything, there are far more rumors about relocation than there are of expansion, which not only increases the potential for more out-of-control article bloating but also increases how much needs to go right now. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 23:46, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

Also, the only information that can really go in this article about relocation is hypothetical or failed. Once it actually happens it ceases to be "potential" and just becomes notable in the corresponding article for the reborn team in question. The same can be said of expansion, minus the bit about being reborn of course. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 23:49, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

I don't agree with removal. While the title is "expansion", it's really been about any change in cities, in large part because a team relocation means that city is no longer an expansion candidate, and indeed makes overall expansion less likely. The two are far too intertwined to really separate them. While I still think the article is mostly lousy, especially in being filled with speculation and outdated junk, and should probably be deleted, if it's going to exist, relocation should be part of it and the article moved to "potential National Hockey League expansion or relocation". oknazevad (talk) 23:50, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

I disagree that the two concepts are so intertwined that failed bids are notable enough for inclusion for the following reasons:

• It goes without saying that a city that receives a relocated team cannot receive an expansion team instead. This serves to the detriment of the information's notability, not to its benefit.
• Failed bids for relocation don't really make expansion any more or less likely, at least not in any provable way.
• Whether a city receives an expansion or relocated team, it would then no longer be "potential" and, as I said before, would no longer belong on this list. That brings me to a few more points:
• There really is no hope for a good or featured article to emerge from this particular topic because either it will evolve with candidates coming and going, thereby fundamentally changing the article too much to go without being reviewed from time to time which is not a good use of editors' time...
• ...or the list will remain static, which undermines itself because cities that never receive teams in any way shape or form cannot possibly be potential expansion or relocation candidates. That is a complete and utter contradiction of the article's very premise. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 00:11, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

The reason relocation is intertwined with expansion is that a for city seeking a franchise there is no significant difference if that franchise is an expansion team or a relocated one. As such, any plan or proposal that is put forth for one is inherently also put forth for the other. Of course, my perspective on this is colored by the events of the summer of 1995, when Nashville made overtures to entice the Devils to move there. While that relocation didn't happen, the efforts put in by Nashville lead them to be a top-of-the-list candidate for an expansion team only three years later. Even on this article's own history, Winnipeg was listed as an expansion candidate until the Thrashers became the new Jets, because from Winnipeg's perspective it did not matter if a new team was an expansion or relocation. If the purpose of this article is to list cities seen as legitimate possible NHL cities, then the possibility of relocation is just as valid as the possibility of expansion. The issue is not that. The issue is that the article is full of idle speculation, poorly sourced rumors, and outdated material with zero relevance to the present situation. oknazevad (talk) 02:39, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

I'll second what Oknazevad is saying. Most potential ownership groups worth their salt will look at any option to get a team. I mentioned Winnipeg earlier, but it happens across all levels such as the newer Maine Mariners (ECHL). In both cases, an owner saw a potential location and openly (verifiably) pursued getting a team. Relocation is often just slightly easier, especially when a league does not wish to grow any larger. The intent, though, is basically the same. Yosemiter (talk) 02:48, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Finally, and I admit I'm posting entirely off the cuff here (thus three posts rather than just one, I keep thinking of more to say after the fact), I and no doubt many others don't see the point of including information on bids that failed since those are just like bids that succeeded in that they are no longer potential anymore. "Potential" just reeks of that that dreaded crystal ball (for the hat trick, yay!). Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 23:52, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

I think this discussion really only underlines the absolute absurdity of the very concept of this article. As far as I have been able to find, no such article exists for any other franchise-based league; at best, they exist solely as sections of articles about the history (that is, actual bids that succeeded) of expansion in respective leagues. This is the closest candidate we have for such an article for the NHL; this is really a strong argument for merging the relevant bits in this article with History of organizational changes in the NHL which is also truly unique to our coverage of the NHL on Wikipedia. We should not be doing things differently for each league; we need to be doing the same things for all of them. Perhaps total deletion of this article is off the table, but again, we can keep much of its content as long as we merge the two articles into one that's actually consistent with the way other leagues are covered here on Wikipedia. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 00:01, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

From a historical point of view, failed expansion or relocation bids are notable and interesting to know about. Not speculation, but if there was actual effort from a group or a city, we should have coverage of that, regardless of what transpired later. Jmj713 (talk) 00:09, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

If so, my view is that it belongs somewhere else. Like the merged article I suggested earlier. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 00:12, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

But why can't we have, let's say, a section for historical failed attempts (and it would be good to do more research on this, I'm sure there were efforts over the league's entire history), and then current potential expansion sites that are notable and sources, such as Quebec. Jmj713 (talk) 00:16, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

Why does it have to be in this article, then? As I said before, this article and History of organizational changes in the NHL go completely against the standard used for other leagues (e.g. Expansion of Major League Soccer, which has sections for the actual expansion of the league and, further down, hypothetical scenarios). It may be relevant somewhere, somehow, but I strongly disagree that it matters in this article as presently named or intended. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 00:18, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

I do like how the MLS article is structured, but I just quickly glanced through it. The NHL doesn't have something like that. I don't mind the current status, but I believe this and "History of organizational changes" could perhaps be combined to have a more thorough overview of NHL expansion (both actual and failed, as well as potential). Jmj713 (talk) 00:35, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

That makes two of us so far. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 00:38, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

I would have no objection to a merger of that variety. I will note that there is similar article about the KHL, but that seems modeled after this one, and I think we all agree that this article is a poor model. The Expansion of MLS article is a far better model. oknazevad (talk) 01:07, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

That KHL article might have even been the one I was thinking of when we talked months ago and I said I thought a similar article existed for the NFL even though I couldn't find it. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 02:49, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

As I discussed previously, I disagree with including all failed expansion initiatives under the history of organizational changes article. Actual failed bids that were officially submitted to the NHL during an expansion round are reasonable to include.

Regarding relocation, I agree that the real intent for the article is to document potential new franchise locations (and, in my view, based on actual, credible ownership proposals). I don't feel the distinction between getting a franchise by expansion or relocation warrants an article split. The key question being answered is what viable ongoing plans are in place to obtain an NHL franchise; whether or not this will come with an expansion fee and draft vs some form of relocation compensation or other agreements doesn't matter for this question. isaacl (talk) 03:27, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

I think some of the conflict here might be the title itself and its interpretation. Potential NHL expansion. Potential does not have to mean current potential, it can be a list of locations that potentially could have hosted an NHL team because of cited and verifiable reasons (interested owners and such). Expansion does not necessarily have to explicitly mean a strictly new expansion team, just a city that the league can expand its footprint. This could be made more explicit in titling or in the lead, but there are plenty of independent and verifiable sources for many of the locations that have been listed here. Some even have articles such as Hampton Roads Rhinos (although I see the link has been removed from this page as the "potential" is not current). Yosemiter (talk) 03:54, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

What we're thinking now is Expansion of the National Hockey League, which lines up perfectly with the other articles in Category:Proposed sports teams (to which the result can be added). What we've found so far is the NHL is the only league with articles such as Potential National Hockey League expansion and History of organizational changes in the NHL, which reek heavily of WP:LOCALCONSENSUS. The only other article along these lines is Potential Kontinental Hockey League expansion which, as stated, appears to follow from the trend started by this article (and should, of course, be converted to the trend established by the articles in the aformentioned category). Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 04:04, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

I think Yosemiter hits the nail on the head with the intention of this article. This page was always intended to be a page that discusses the places that the NHL currently isn't and the places that have been discussed in the media and are sourced as being potential places that could get teams either through expansion or relocation. The problem here as Yosemiter gets to is that we are not using the term expansion here solely in the way sports leagues often use it where a new team is created. It was intended to be talking about the expansion of the footprint of the league. I would note there there has always been strong non-local consensus that one shoe doesn't fit all leagues when it comes to the way we create and organize articles. It is expected and even often encouraged that the different sports do things differently. The two articles you point to serve different purposes and definitely should not be merged. Another way to try and explain this page is that it wasn't so much intended to be a list of places it could expand to but about the topic of the league expanding and the way in which that is covered by the media through showing the places that have been heavily talked about in the media. In that way its not synth or crystal balling because the subject is more about the the places the media keeps talking about as opposed to trying to say these are the places the NHL is going to expand. And one very important point that Yosemitter makes is that potential doesn't mean current potential, it just means it had potential at one point which may or may not be current/future. So any plans to move or failed bids etc, all were at one point potential expansions of the footprint. -DJSasso (talk) 18:24, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

"[T]here has always been strong non-local consensus that one shoe doesn't fit all leagues when it comes to the way we create and organize articles." Evidence? Discussions? I do not find that just because no one has tried doing anything about it until now to be an acceptable rationale. "It's just always been that way" is not a valid reason in cases like these. There is no reason whatsoever that this league should be treated any differently from any other that we cover. We have many reasons discussed on this very page as to why this is not beneficial to our coverage of the NHL and why this violates a number of Wikipedia's policies. That this pattern is confined entirely to major league ice hockey coverage is by definition a WP:LOCALCONSENSUS; leagues in any sport that rely on fixed franchising rather than promotion and relegation should not be treated any differently from each other in terms of the means by which coverage is presented. It's not a matter of what each sport does; each league is a business and fixed franchise leagues, especially those in North America, are identical to each other from a business standpoint. They do business fundamentally the same way. They expand their leagues the same way, they operate their existing franchises the same way, and so on. To suggest that they operate so differently from each other that we should cover them any differently from each other would require vast amounts of verifiable justification. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 21:04, 18 June 2021 (UTC) modified 21:19, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

You are making essentially the same argument you are telling us not to make. Your argument is that we shouldn't do it just because the other leagues have never done it. Just because articles have never been created yet is not proof of consensus to never create that type of article, it just means that this sport did it first. Well the biggest example of consensus that we don't cover things the same for all sports is the fact the wiki stopped using the old WP:ATHLETE which used to use one shoe fits all methodology and moved to WP:NSPORTS which taylors to each sport. But there are many many discussions on topics like this. Some sports for example have new articles for teams when they move, others sports decided just having seperate history articles would suffice, and others treat it as though a move was a minor thing that barely happened. There have been lots of discussions and Rfcs that always come down to, different subjects organize their articles differently. You also keep saying this article violates a number of wikipedia policies, however you keep using those policies incorrectly, SYNTH for example does not apply to most of the things you have removed. SYNTH means using multiple sources to make claims that the sources never make. However, all this article ever states is that certain places were potential expansion sites, which the sources did state. You also claim its OR, however, its not OR because the sources also backed up the statements which means it wasn't OR. You arguments frankly, are just plain wrong. -DJSasso (talk) 01:12, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

That we haven't done it for other leagues suggests we won't be doing it for them because what we have for them already is sufficient. I for one have not been using synth or original research arguments in THIS section, but we have used them in the past because this article has long been a magnet for speculative conclusions not supported by the sources. You can check my latest edit summaries for this article, I only used SYNTH twice as a rationale - once for a particular case in which I checked the sources, next for a case in which sources were often totally missing and therefore the information in question was clearly conjured out of thin air (as far as Wikipedia is concerned). I also cited as "gross speculation" a baseless accusation against Bettman that he had conspired to prevent a relocation of a team. In that case, that wasn't about synth or original research but media being able to publish whatever think pieces they want that we really don't care about. That's another thing that this article has attracted over the years; anyone with a job at any news outlet we cite on a regular basis can publish this or that piece about X market should get Y team through relocation when it really isn't relevant as it doesn't imply anything is currently happening or could. It's also worth pointing out that just because so-and-so on the inside said so, that doesn't make it true nor worth mentioning here.

Much of the article as it existed over the last few months did depend on blatant violations of OR or SYNTH; those bits have largely been pruned. My argument now rests on the fact that outside of this, there really isn't much hope for a good article, in both the general sense of that term and as per WP:GOOD, to come from this as the locations will either become NHL sites, in which case they will be removed from this article and spun off into their own, or they won't, in which case keeping them here is our way of saying, "Well, they could," which is flatly opposed to other Wikipedia policies such as WP:CRYSTAL. It's also contradictory to the article's fundamental premise if a potential site for expansion remains on this article, because the goal should be to eventually remove it to a new article, but if it stays here all the time, the implication is that it will never happen even though its being here says it might. We have not been discussing various team articles that pertain to obsolete chapters in a club's existence, we're referring to an article that can provide a comprehensive, general overview of a league's growth from its inception to the present day with a word or two for the future, for which much useful precedent exists as established, or can be a pile of probabilistic predictions, conclusions drawn by contributing editors, and mountains of "X tried but failed", which if anything goes against the idea that one location or another could host a team.

If you have other articles and topic areas that do things differently than the trend we've established exists, I would like to see them. I have furnished a category of articles that conform to the established trend; what can you show us? Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 03:47, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

I think the history of organizational changes title is more appropriate to cover both contraction and expansion. This article, with a scope covering teams in new cities whether by expansion or relocation, is in essence a spinout from the history of organizational changes article. isaacl (talk) 21:16, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

This discussion seems to be going around in circles, but, seems to me, born mainly out of a misunderstanding of the purpose, as someone mentioned earlier. In my view, the point of the article is historical record, not prediction or speculation. There have been documented official efforts by specific parties to bring an NHL team into a city, such as the Toronto Legacy, as one example. There have been more over the course of the last few decades. And who known how many undocumented or yet to be researched efforts in the 1920s and 1930s, for instance, when the league was still new. Again, the point is to document these efforts and not have them fall through the cracks of history, rather than be a listing of cities where the NHL will certainly expand to. Unlike the MLS, which seems to have a very aggressive and structured expansion plan, the NHL's expansion plans start and end with Seattle, which is already an existing franchise at this point. Quebec is the only real other selection. But there have always been attempts in the past. That's why we even have a section on European expansion, because while it's exceeding highly unlikely, there was a time when such talk was happening, not concrete plans or efforts, but comments and discussions made by people involved in the league. If the NHL would come out today and say the league will 100% never expand outside North America, we still can't remove that section, because it's part of the history. Jmj713 (talk) 17:15, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

Just change the article title to Potential National Hockey League expansion and relocation. GoodDay (talk) 22:02, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

Can't bring back the Nordiques.

Nothing against what sources might say in this article. But the continued expression of "bringing back the Nordiques" is mis-leading to our readers. The Nordiques are 'now' the Colorado Avalanche. The only way to 'bring back' the Nordiques, would be to re-locate the Avalanche back to Quebec City. GoodDay (talk) 01:02, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

@GoodDay: To be fair, I don't think they mean literally moving the Avs back. Probably, more of a Jets situation; relaunch in name, but not the same exact franchise necessarily. Yosemiter (talk) 04:00, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

I'll go over the 'Quebec City' sub-section, tomorrow. Try & clarify the wording. GoodDay (talk) 04:02, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

@GoodDay: It's fine if you want to try and clarify, but the sources, especially the Quebecor expansion bid, were pretty explicit they were trying get a team and be called the Nordiques. So I disagree with completely removing the name everywhere. The NHL still owns the name, and just like when True North obtained the Thrashers and were allowed to be called the Jets, Quebecor was openly (as in sourced statements) trying to do the same. That's my thoughts, maybe bring it up on the main project talk to get more input? Yosemiter (talk) 17:54, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

You can change it to something like "a new team named Nordiques". BTW, the original Jets never returned, no matter how much the current Jets try to pretend otherwise. GoodDay (talk) 17:57, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

I know the original Jets didn't return, I never said they did. The general opinion is that they were "brought back", if in-name-only, and that is good enough for most independent news sites to report it as such. Other than us folks who try and maintain history, the rest of the fans don't care about franchise licenses, relocations, and team/franchise differentiation. Yosemiter (talk) 18:01, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

I tweaked the Quebecor bid description to - "new team named the Nordiques (after the original 1972–95 team)" GoodDay (talk) 18:04, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

Recent talks regarding potential relocation to Hartford.

Before I make the go ahead to create the topic in the article I wanted to bring it to people's attention that Connecticut's Governor Ned Lamont has been in talks with Bettmann concerned the possibility to bring the Pheonix Coyotes into Hartford. (Sources: 1) https://www.si.com/nhl/2023/05/20/connecticut-governor-ned-lamont-meet-with-nhl-about-bringing-back-franchise-hartford-whalers-coyotes-relocation and 2) https://www.boston.com/sports/sports-news/2023/06/14/hartford-whalers-return-connecticut-governor-ned-lamont-comments/)

While I am aware that, there would be obstacles concerning the renovations that would be needed for the XL Center to be made and funding for the relocation, and how that could cause some competition between Boston and New York teams, and of course re-adjusting the divisions and conferences. I don't think it would hurt to put that back into the article due to the news that has been coming out in recent months. Especially considering that some people in Western Mass and the Springfield-Hartford business district would welcome the relocation and the re-ignition of the Boston-Hartford rivalry. DioShiba (talk) 15:43, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

Page move

I don't think I agree with the renaming of this page. Expansion of the NHL is covered in History of organizational changes in the NHL. As I understand it, this article's subject is future cities for the NHL, as discussed earlier on this talk page. isaacl (talk) 00:29, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

The page move shouldn't have been done, without an RM being held. GoodDay (talk) 01:34, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

I agree that an RM should have been done. You may reverse the move, I can open the RM if I notice its been reversed again. I'll remain neutral on this though. It's semantics that I don't care to stress too much about. Conyo14 (talk) 05:29, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

As the person who made the page move, please do correct me. As I understand it, this article is not just about future cities for the NHL. It appears a great deal is about past expansions. I look forward to the RM. Thank you, BeFriendlyGoodSir (talk) 07:05, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

I only intend to open an RM if it's required. isaacl or someone else would re-move it back and then I can open it up. But if no one re-moves it, then I will not open an RM. Conyo14 (talk) 08:09, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

I don't wish to move it back just for the sake of process. More feedback is welcome from any interested editors! isaacl (talk) 18:48, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

Comment - on a side note, regarding History of organizational changes in the NHL, why is it not called Timeline of the National Hockey League? As far as I can tell, It has the same article format as Timeline of the National Football League, Timeline of Major League Baseball, Timeline of the National Basketball Association. My view is that similar titles should be used, where appropriate, to make the user experience easier to navigate. I will leave this alone to avoid conflict and let you guys decide on this. Thank you for the help. - BeFriendlyGoodSir (talk) 07:15, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

It has a brief overview of some past expansions, but details are in other articles. The vast majority of the article is about potential expansion to new cities, as per the previous title. There is a series of "History of the National Hockey League" articles, and you may have noticed that "Timeline of the National Hockey League" already redirects to a section in the parent article. Regarding alignment across sports, different consensuses can be reached by the interested editors in different topic areas. If the editors interested in one sport agree to revamp the structure of the related articles to match another sport's, that's fine, but as a collaborative, volunteer project, it's not something that can be mandated. The vast majority of readers reach Wikipedia articles via search engines, in any case. isaacl (talk) 07:50, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

Disagree with the move as well. This article is meant to cover any potential expansion, past and future, not just expansion in general, which is why previous unsuccessful attempts should be mentioned for historical context. Jmj713 (talk) 14:55, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

• Per WP:BRD, I've decided to move the page back to its prior title, as the article rather clearly focuses on potential future expansion rather than past actual expansion. Anyone is welcome to open an RM to restore the removed title, however. The Kip 03:52, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

The only solution would be to split the page. Put all info about expanded teams into their own page. GoodDay (talk) 23:21, 3 March 2024 (UTC)