Talk:Atlanta Flames

I have just split the Calgary Flames in half. This new Atlanta Flames article is missing some information, but it is pretty close to being complete. By the way, does anyone have a nice picture of the Atlanta Logo? the one on this page looks ugly. Masterhatch 17 August 2005

Good move. I had thought about splitting the article myself.

I've added some more detailed information, changed the picture. Better? --93JC 04:23, August 18, 2005 (UTC)

Much better. Masterhatch 18 August 2005

Nice article. Just noticed that the links for "Ken Houston" lead to pro-football player though. There's no article on the hockey player yet. --DonaldoKun 06:27, 27 September 2006 (UTC)Reply

the first photo is now a patch, but the discription refers to a photo no longer part of this article. anyone know enough about the patch to produce an acurate discription of it?Childhoodtrauma (talk) 19:32, 20 December 2007 (UTC)Reply

Perhaps this has already been answered, but I am a little curious as to why when an NHL team moves and/or gets renamed, each incarnation gets a separate article. This is not done for NBA, MLB, or NFL teams, which only have a single article each under the title of the current or most recent incarnation, which then covers previous locations and names in the franchise history. (For example there is not a seaprate article for the St. Louis Cardinals (football, not baseball) and the Arizona Cardinals. There is just one for the Arizona Cardinals that mentions the past locations and names the team was under. Yet the Calgary Flames and the Atlanta Flames have two separate articles.) Why aren't NHL teams held to the same standard? Or if it is indeed justified to have separate articles for each incarnation, why isn't there separate articles for multiple incarnations of the franchises for the other three major sports? Seems to me that there should be a consistent standard applied and currently the NHL articles aren't held to the same standard as the others... I think it would make sense to pick a standard and apply it to all sports. Unless someone has a good rationale about why the NHL should be a special case? 71.237.10.137 (talk) 20:13, 13 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

Please. This is Wikipedia. There is no such thing as consistency. — Dodiad (talk) 00:06, 13 November 2015 (UTC)Reply

Perhaps there could be a Legacy section added to the article about the Flames' logo now being the primary logo for Calgary's AHL Affiliate in Glenn's Falls, NY, the Adirondack Flames? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.168.151.160 (talk) 16:28, 16 July 2014 (UTC)Reply

I personally don't believe that a separate "legacy" section is necessarily required for that statement, but given the back half of the relocation section deals with several legacy aspects following the team's move, such a statement would fit there, I think. I'll try to find a source to cite the claim in a bit - shouldn't be hard - unless you have one already. Cheers! Resolute 17:05, 16 July 2014 (UTC)Reply

Is it worth noting that just like the Atlanta Thrashers, neither Atlanta franchise ever won a playoff round? While trivial, it's an interesting detail, and (in my mind) goes a long way towards explaining the all-time failure of NHL hockey to succeed in Atlanta. Echoedmyron (talk) 17:58, 24 January 2015 (UTC)Reply

Lacking a source to that effect, I think it might be a WP:SYNTH issue. Either way, I think that would be more relevant to the Thrashers article as it would be anachronistic on this one. Resolute 18:00, 24 January 2015 (UTC)Reply

Though you do remind me that it would be useful to note in the relocation section that the NHL later briefly returned to Atlanta. I will add that much, at least, a bit later. Resolute 18:01, 24 January 2015 (UTC)Reply

Fair enough; I suspected it might be a stretch. Echoedmyron (talk) 18:03, 24 January 2015 (UTC)Reply

This review is transcluded from Talk:Atlanta Flames/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Relentlessly (talk · contribs) 12:21, 28 March 2015 (UTC)Reply

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose, no copyvios, spelling and grammar):   b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):  

   In "Formation", you called Bernie Geoffrion a "great". This word does not appear in the citation and doesn't feel like encyclopedic language to me. I've changed it to "player"; do change it to something else if something good exists.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (reference section):   b (citations to reliable sources):   c (OR):  

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects):   b (focused):  

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:  

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:  

6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales):   b (appropriate use with suitable captions):  

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:  

   Looks good to me. Relentlessly (talk) 12:21, 28 March 2015 (UTC)Reply