Jump to content

Talk:Dallas Stars

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Professional Ice Hockey Team

[edit]

The Dallas Stars are not a professional men's ice hockey team, they're just a professional ice hockey team made up entirely of men. Women can play in the NHL - nowhere does it say they're excluded, therefore no team in the NHL can be a professional men's ice hockey team. This should be rectified in the first sentence. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.58.81.61 (talk) 22:01, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of Dallas Stars players

[edit]

I have made a List of Dallas Stars players. As of the end of the 2003-04 NHL season, this list is 100% complete. When new players play for the Stars, it would be a great help to keep the list accurate if the new players were added to the list. Thanks! Masterhatch 15 August 2005

Dallas Stars 2006/07 Schedule

[edit]

This is the 2006/07 Stars Schedule just click on the link to get it.

http://www.dallasstars.com/gameday/schedule.jsp

Recent History

[edit]

added mention of the 07 all-star game. also did a bit of cleaning up and moved Modano's 500 goal milestone to the Recent History section. took Steve Ott off of IR.

Logos

[edit]

The captions make reference to the "alternate logo" and "'controversial' alternate logo". Someone who knows please explain, lest these images both get deleted. Unschool 01:08, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Both are alternate logos, what's more to explain? --Krm500 03:14, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've never seen this term used before (not that I'm super knowledgable about such things), but I'm wondering:
  • a) Who's calling them "alternate" logos—the team, or some independent entity?
  • b) If they're "official alternate" logos, when and where are they used, and, (most importantly),
  • c) Why is the one logo supposedly "controversial"?
Just thought it was unusual, I guess, and wondered if someone had just made this up. Unschool 03:05, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • a) Well I guess both the team, the league and all the fans call them alternate logos. I have never heard anything other then that. See here for example http://www.sportslogos.net/team.php?t=10.
  • b) The "Texas map" one is used on the shoulder of the jersey, on both sides. The controversial one is used as the main logo instead of the original logo on the alternate jersey or "3rd jersey".
  • c) It's controversial since the logo looks like this and is widely considered as the ugliest jersey in the NHL.

And it's not made up but maybe it should have a better explanation --Krm500 03:22, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for explaining. Of course, I didn't see the uterus until you pointed it out, but my wife, the RN, saw it before I told her what to look for. Maybe it should be mentioned in the caption? Unschool 03:55, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply] 

  Hilarious! But actually irrelevant and the opinion is not appropriate,
whether it has broad agreement or not.Bizfixer 23:05, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Under Dominance in 1998-99, 1999-00, and a Stanley Cup, the main logo here is incorrect, this is a version of their last logo from their days in Minnesota, the ones they used of this style had a darker green colour. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 153.2.247.30 (talk) 12:02, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WTF?

[edit]

Are any of the Dallas fans out there freaked out that the 2006-07 season has eight paragraphs devoted to it, while the franchise's Stanley Cup victory has a single sentence devoted to it?  Ravenswing  03:28, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Though I'm not a Dallas fan, the 2006-07 section is 'way too long'. The Stanley Cup victory season (1998-99) should have the most info. GoodDay 17:51, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Another non-Dallas fan, but I agree. I wish I knew more about them so I could re-write that part. Maybe I'll do some reading up later, but probably not since I still have to finish off some other stuff on this site before committing to more things. And you wanna know why that section is so long (not sure if it has been reduced since you brought it up or not) it has almost a day-by-day type record. Forgot what they usually call that, but you know what I mean. They're adding every little thing that happens instead of only putting more important things. Bsroiaadn 06:43, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

First Round Draft Picks

[edit]

Is that section really needed? Seems like a waste of space to me, honestly...either that or someone originally used it as filler. Either way, I don't think it should be there. Anyone else agree? Bsroiaadn 06:38, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think it is an interesting bit of data that I have not seen elsewhere.Bizfixer 23:02, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Minnesota North Stars?

[edit]

Why are the Dallas Stars and Minnesota North Stars pages separate? the Minnesota Wild makes no claim to the North Stars history. There is no reason for them to be separate. --Kitch (Talk : Contrib) 14:05, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Because all the 'relocated' NHL teams are seperated. It cuts down on page lengths. Also, the Minnesota Wild page makes no claims of being linked to the North Stars. The Minnesota North Stars and Dallas Stars pages cleary explain each other connections. Thus no need, for merging. GoodDay 14:22, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong oppose to a merger. There is no good reason to combine the articles, and WP:IDONTLIKEIT is not nearly good enough. While they may be different aspects of the same franchise, they are historically distinct. It is completely ridiculous to attempt to condense 26 years of history to three or four paragraphs on another article. Resolute 14:53, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There is no need to compress their history in the Dallas Stars article. The old history can remain perfectly intact. In addition, there is a good reason to keep the Quebec Nordiques/Colorado Avalanche, Hartford Whalers/Carolina Hurricanes, Winnipeg Jets/Phoenix Coyotes and Atlanta/Calgary Flames articles separate: they were in the World Hockey Association. That reason is not valid in this case, as the North Stars are an indigenous NHL team. There are not separate articles for the New York Baseball Giants, the Brooklyn Dodgers, the Boston Braves, the Philadelphia Athletics, the Kansas City Athletics, the Los Angeles Rams, the Los Angeles Raiders, the Houston Oilers, the Minneapolis Lakers, the Vancouver Grizzlies, or any other current team that has moved elsewhere and is still extant. The only precedent are teams that existed in other leagues. --Kitch (Talk : Contrib) 15:27, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The Flames franchise was never in the WHA. GoodDay 15:59, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Their history can remain perfectly intact as two separate articles as well. So really, what is your reasoning for a merge, aside from WP:IDONTLIKEIT? Resolute 16:12, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Oppose: Such separation is the standard throughout the Wikiproject, whether in NHL, WHA or minor league articles. There are several reasons to keep the status quo. (1) As we've seen, recentism glorifies the past handful of seasons, while ignoring much of a team's past; until quite recently, for instance, the Philadelphia Flyers' 06-07 season received much more ink than both the team's Cup wins combined. Combination would swiftly marginalize the earlier history of the franchises; (2) The prior incarnations of longstanding teams have their own independent identities and fanbases; (3) Oh, yeah, article size :) ...  Ravenswing  15:30, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rebuttal As I explained, I am not proposing merger of the former WHA teams. And this separation is only used in the NHL, not in the WikiProjects for any other North American sports league. --Kitch (Talk : Contrib) 15:33, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In addition, your first point endorses the other person's opposition (that merging may needlessly discount the history of the North Stars) as a reason to oppose it. Forgetting the past is not a good reason to keep the status quo. Keeping the full history in the merged article will permit the preservation of a full singular history for a single team. --Kitch (Talk : Contrib) 15:37, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rebuttal To say only the NHL does it is not true. It also is done to MLB and NBA articles. And the point on losing history is a valid one as article sizes are supposed to stay around a certain size at which point you either cut out information (which we don't like) or you separate the information out into its own article.(which is already the case) --Djsasso 19:23, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Reply: And not only to sporting articles. Buick and Oldsmobile have their own articles, detailing their histories beyond General Motors. Filene's, Kaufmann's and Jordan Marsh haven't been turned into paragraphs of the Macy's article. And so on and so forth ...  Ravenswing  20:55, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Oppose, per Ravenswing. GoodDay 15:47, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment such a proposal, would have to include the Golden Seals and Barons in a North Stars merger to the Stars. GoodDay 18:56, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Oppose, per Ravenswing. BsroiaadnTalk 18:12, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Oppose This has been gone through or various teams in various leagues before. And it comes down to there is too much info to merge. When articles get large you split off pieces to new articles, that is normal Wiki procedure. This is no different. We are just splitting off the Minnesota North Stars history. --Djsasso 19:21, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Oppose for all reasons stated above. Merging would be an idiotic move, at best. Gmatsuda 19:34, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - All previous incarnations of a team should be separate pages, to differentiate their histories. I note, however, that hockey is the only sport on Wikipedia that does this; all other sports have redirects to the current franchise, which I disagree with. The history of the Oakland Athletics is long enough; when you try to encompass not only Oakland, but Philadelphia and Kansas City before that, it becomes unwieldy. I think all versions of a franchise should be separated, with limited exceptions (the Oakland/California Golden/Regular Seals/Whatever they called themselves being the primary example). Anthony Hit me up... 19:48, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

:Seing as the 'consensus' is clearly against 'merging', can we remove those 'Merge Tags' now? GoodDay 20:32, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong Oppose --Krm500 22:53, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Oppose per Ravenswing. Also I have failed to see any reason listed that gives this idea any credit. Kaiser matias 02:15, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. For the reasons already stated. There is enough material for two great articles, and no pressing need whatsoever to merge them. The notion of a "singular history" in one article makes no sense to me. Skeezix1000 11:52, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Oppose. There is more than enough information for the North Stars to have their own article. --myselfalso 15:03, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose as per everyone else's arguements. Dknights411 03:02, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I am not for merging the two articles, however I think title information (Division, Conference, Stanley Cup) should include the MN years on the Dallas article. Perhaps an asterisk could denote that those specific years were as North Stars. That would not create a longer article, and provide more fluidity between the two articles. Afterall, franchise information is included in the right hand box, so why shouldn't title info? And on a side note, the Indianapolis Colts article includes all information relating to their 53-83 Baltimore era. Bdsnook 13:27, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Stats

[edit]

Is all the NHL stats taken from hockeydb.com? Because NHL´s official guide and record book has Basil McRae listed at 382 pim in 1987-1988.

Most of the stats were likely taken from hockeydb. If the official guide has a different number, please feel free to make the correction. Thanks! Resolute 16:24, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jersey Section, and more

[edit]

Needs to be a Jersey section. Also, the entire article is awful short for a professional sports team. Their Cup win in '99 is hardly explained at all, as if it has no real significance. Does the team have a mascot? If so, it needs to be mentioned. Overall, much more needs to be done here. Love each other, or perish. ~Auden 00:36, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This section could now be improved. Also to include the new Adidas Reverse Retro jerseys to be worn in 2021. Nick.b23 (talk) 14:16, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Stupid Grammar Question

[edit]

Okay, so, link-hopping, reading the article, and I find the following sentences:

In 1993, amid further attendance woes and bitter personal controversy, Green obtained permission to move the team to the Reunion Arena in Dallas, Texas, where they were renamed, 'specifically', the Stars. The NHL, to quell the controversy, 'promised' to the fans of Minnesota to return in the future with a new franchise.

I was just wondering about the reasoning for the single quotes around "specifically" and "promised" (especially for the latter, considering that the next sentence informs the reader that that promise was indeed fulfilled). --Umrguy42 (talk) 00:23, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Because people have this funny notion, in the last few years, that putting quotes around a word means emphasizing it and constitutes good grammar. I'd be quite content for them to go away.  Ravenswing  04:41, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Longest games

[edit]

Where, if anywhere, would be the best place to note that the Dallas Stars have played in the 4th-, 6th-, and 8th-longest NHL playoff games (2nd, 4th, and 5th in the modern era)? Collegebookworm (talk) 06:56, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also, hmm...should Sergei Zubov be listed as born in 1970 Russia or 1970 USSR? To me, the USSR would make more sense, but Sergei's page shows Russia...is this stylistic, or agreed convention for Wikipedia? Collegebookworm (talk) 07:01, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia-wide convention (and, indeed, a convention followed in almost all encyclopedias) is that the country is that at the time of birth, which in Zubov's case would be the Soviet Union.  Ravenswing  09:04, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Uh

[edit]

Why does it say in the General Managers section that Brett Hull is American? Sure, he was American citizenship but he still has Canadian, and since he was born here, hes more Canadian than American. I am changing it. 99.235.198.60 (talk) 21:40, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

By convention, we use the nation that a player represents internationally in the case of dual citizenship. In the case of Hull especially, he stopped being Canadian a long time ago. Resolute 21:49, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This page could use a lot more pictures

[edit]

I've done a lot of content addition filling in some of the gaps the original authors neglected, but now the article is looking very bare... It would be appropriate to add maybe one of the players skating with the cup, or someone from the early Stars days or an example of each meaningful uniform. Could someone with the know-how decorate a little more??? Thanks! 24.139.192.182 (talk) 21:08, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Stars previous incarnations

[edit]

Before 1978, the North Stars/Stars franchise had 2 pre-incarnations, the 1967-78 North Stars & the 1967-78 Seals/Barons. There was no demerging of this 1978 arrangement in 1991. If so? then not only would the Seals/Barons & North Stars belong in this article's infobox, but would also belong in the San Jose Sharks infobox. GoodDay (talk) 04:15, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Previous incarnations should not be included in this articles infobox or others except those that are part of the league's and the club's official history. Otherwise it opens the door for POV edits from other fans/historians to this and other franchises in the NHL and other leagues. While there are oddities involving the histories of some pro sports franchise it's best to leave information regarding those oddities in the body of the article. Straykat99 (talk) 06:44, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

initial version of new uniforms

[edit]

Initial version of the new uniforms for 2013/14 is now available in the Hebrew version of this article. Tdunsky (talk) 05:57, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Dallas Stars. 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:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

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

Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 23:42, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The North Stars left Minnesota because the owner Green was being charged with sexual harassment. Minnesota wouldn't drop the charges so he moved the team. They didn't move because they were in financial trouble.2601:441:8100:6817:184C:F533:340:33D5 (talk) 22:15, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Dallas Stars. 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:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

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

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 14:44, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Dallas Stars. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:35, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Dallas Stars. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:22, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Dallas Stars. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:10, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

2025-26

[edit]

Don't know why, but for some reason the 2025-26 season is listed as a season the Stars won the Stanley Cup, even though it hasn't happened 170.205.151.54 (talk) 22:00, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism, has been reverted. GoodDay (talk) 23:40, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

How come the division championships that the Northstar had or not listed here?

[edit]

Many other leagues and many other teams In other sports league’s the championship they have won even if they have relocated since, so how come with the Stars the Minnesota north stars divisional championships are not listed, making a total of 10 for the whole franchise? 24.46.90.50 (talk) 17:22, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Because we keep separate team pages for NHL franchises that have re-located. Example, we don't list the 1986-87 Adams Division title, in the Carolina Hurricanes page's infobox. GoodDay (talk) 17:30, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

More information on Stars recent history since 2019

[edit]

How come there are only a couple sentences devoted to the Stars recent history sine the 2019-20 season? There is no mention of (in chronological order): 2019-20 Dallas Stars starting their season 1-7-1 then going on a 14-1-1 run, Jim Montgomery fired in-season and replaced by Rick Bowness, Dallas Stars hosting and winning the 2020 NHL Winter Classic, only 1-2 sentences on the Stars 2020 Stanley Cup Finals run (which included a Game 7 OT win vs. Colorado in the 2nd round)(there are too few sentences here to describe a Western Conference Championship run), the Stars making the 2022 Playoffs during the 2021-22 NHL Season and Jake Oettinger's great performance in Game 7 vs. Calgary, Stars hiring Pete DeBoer and making it all the way to the 2023 Western Conference Finals in 2022-23, also winning their first home Game 7 since 2000 in their second round series vs. Seattle, emergence of Jason Robertson, Jake Oettinger, Roope Hintz, Miro Hesikanen, Wyatt Johnston among others.

A lot has happened for the Dallas Stars franchise since the beginning of the 2019-20 season, and I feel the last four Stars seasons are not reflected accurately, nor in a respectable amount of detail as they should be. Please advise soon. Lathens (talk) 17:10, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You can add it yourself. Most of that is appropriate for the article, but some of those details aren't significant enough. Maybe they would belong in a History of the Dallas Stars article.
I see you added some of that and it was reverted by Callmemirela (talk · contribs) for not being neutral. I don't agree that neutrality was a problem with those additions, but the WP:TONE was. Avoid words like blockbuster, stellar etc. Also there was probably too much detail.--Killashaw (talk) 19:22, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the note! When editing going forward I will be sure to stay away from strong words like "blockbuster and stellar" without context, as outlined. Hopefully if I don't get to it, the additions for Stars recent history are made soon. Lathens (talk) 21:29, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"Dallas Stars Ice Girls" listed at Redirects for discussion

[edit]

The redirect Dallas Stars Ice Girls has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 March 22 § Dallas Stars Ice Girls until a consensus is reached. Utopes (talk / cont) 19:52, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Dallas_Stars&oldid=1265815640"