Jump to content

Talk:Wayne Gretzky

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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Ptikobj (talk | contribs) at 06:37, 13 July 2006. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Template:Featured article is only for Wikipedia:Featured articles. Template:Mainpage date Template:V0.5

WikiProject iconIce Hockey Unassessed
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Ice Hockey, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of ice hockey on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
???This article has not yet received a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

Template:GretzkyArchive


An event mentioned in this article is an August 9 selected anniversary


Archiving

I archived all of the talk and created Template:GretzkyArchive to facilitate future archival.  RasputinAXP  c 20:50, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Archived again.  RasputinAXP  c 13:52, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rehashing An Old Debate, Perhaps

having said that, I feel that the "greatest player" issue is still not sufficiently resolved. The text currently states: "He is regarded as the best player of his era." I don't think this is an accurate representation -- this is clearly not an all-inclusive statement, as I can point to many people that do NOT consider him to be the best player of his era. Therefore, it should be changed in one of two ways: 1 - Make the statement restrictive, by saying that "He is regarded by many as the best player of his era." 2 - Make the statement more general, by saying that "He is regarded as one of the best players of his era." Any other statement, including the current wording, is simply not true. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.201.222.149 (talkcontribs)

I really don't feel like hashing the debate out again. But who would you put forward as better than Gretzky of his era?  RasputinAXP  c 16:26, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If we're going to have this debate again, can someone at least come up with a new argument? If the anon wants an answer to his particular question, he can find a labored discussion on it in the archives. --djrobgordon 17:36, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Interestingly enough, the arguments surrounding Gretzky's credentials revolved around the likes of Bobby Orr and Gordie Howe or older superstars such as Newsy Lalonde, Maurice Richard or Joe Malone. No one advanced any arguments regarding contemporaries of Gretzky. That being said, I agree the argument wasn't resolved to the satisfaction of the anti-Gretzky minority, but then again Wikipedia operates on consensus. RGTraynor 17:45, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There is no "answer" to the question in the archives. There are a bunch of unanswered points made and ignored. The only reason that a consensus was "reached" is because most people became tired of bashing their heads against a wall, trying to make your "majority" understand that the statement you're making does not belong in the wikipedia. I have now seen that, no matter what, you will not be concerned with facts, and instead will revise this article to the way YOU personally want it. Oh well. I'll get over it... you people apparently won't. Isn't it tiring being so petty? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.201.222.149 (talkcontribs)

No, tiring is rehashing this argument for the seventh time. The consensus was reached a while ago. You still didn't answer the question...who in his era do you consider better? The only person I could possibly see you making a case for is Lemieux, and he was so injury-plagued he has to "settle" for second place.  RasputinAXP  c 23:05, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed; what is "petty" is rehashing this yet again. The side this sockpuppet (and for someone whose first edit was day before yesterday to be so conversant with old debates, I don't think that an unfair characterization) is pushing lost, and either they should get a consensus around their own POV or lose gracefully and give it a rest. But as far as the player regarded the best of the era? MVPs for Roy and Hasek and Messier and Lemieux combined? Seven. MVPs for Gretzky? Nine. Gretzky won nearly half of the MVPs awarded in his career. That's a dominance unmatched not merely in hockey history, but in professional sports history. RGTraynor 05:53, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'd consider Roy, Hasek, Messier, Lemieux, and Gretzky to be the "best" players of the modern era. I can't give a ranking within those players, because they each have strengths and weaknesses, and "best" is far too subjective of a term. So, yes, I have Gretzky in that list. Duh ;-) I just don't like the use of the term "the best". By your logic, I could go to the pages of all the players listed above (and others) and add the "so-and-so is regarded as the best player in his era" as well, because there are lots of people that will believe it (and go on record as saying so).

  • laughing to myself* okay, you guys win. you're right, whatever. enjoy your "victory"

The New Road

I am sad to say that today, Edmonton City Council has voted in favour of changing the name of Wayne Gretzky Drive to Mark Messier Boulevard.--Killswitch Engage 02:58, 2 April 2006 (UTC)Killswitch Engage[reply]

Don't suppose you noticed what day that proposal went through, eh? ;) Relax, Gretz's road is safe. Doogie2K 05:29, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Heh, it could be worse. They could have voted to change the name to "Dave Semenko Alley". Think of the screeching that would have caused! RGTraynor 14:16, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It has just been announced that the Gary Suter Expressway will be cutting across the spine of Gretzky Drive.

Off the Ice

If you're ever looking to add something to the off the ice section, one possible thing would be that he lent his name, image, and likeness to a Cartoon Series, Pro Stars, featuring him, Michael Jordan, and Bo Jackson and Sports Superheroes. Alslammerz

Already mentioned in Off the Ice.  RasputinAXP  c 19:06, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Team photo tradition claim

Where does this claim that Gretzky started the team photo with the Stanley Cup tradition come from? It pops up in article related to him occasionally. Here's evidence otherwise: http://www.collectionscanada.ca/hockey/024002-119.01-e.php?uid=10085&uidc=DOTS_ID ccwaters 23:00, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's just another silly rumor. Considering that most sports fans (and far too many sportswriters) have a tough time believing that their favorite sport really existed before they were, say, eight years old, trying to get them to believe the Montreal AAA actually existed is a stretch, never mind that some elements of hockey date back that far. At least Original Six worship -- which oddly enough, almost always stemmed from Toronto, Montreal and Detroit -- is dying out. RGTraynor 04:32, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I got someone further qualifying it as the first "impromptu on ice" team photo. See the edit comments at Edmonton Oilers. I think the burden of proof is on them. ccwaters 18:55, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Just speaking as someone who watched hockey for a few decades and also recently watched the CBC Sports classic replays of all five Oilers Cup wins, I can say that the on-ice team photo happened only after Game 5 of the 88 finals. The announcers kept announcing their surprise that fans were not rushing onto the ice as had become customary, and had no idea what Gretzky was doing when he was orchestrating the team photo. Gretzky didn't invent the practice, he just brought it back after their 4th Cup. MJR 02:40, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fair Use vs. Free Use

Hi all; On account of a broad interpretation of Wikipedia:Fair use criteria, it would appear the very nice photograph on this page - which unfortunately was copyrighted - has to be replaced by fair use. See the talk page at Talk: Stephen Harper for some other discussion of this.Michael Dorosh 04:37, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The New Road

Hello everyone. The picture at the beginning of the article is pretty much the same picture at the "Reunion in New York" section. Wouldn't if be better is someone remove one or change it?