Talk:World Hockey Association (proposed)

Article, Talk deleted, restored[edit]

Some character called "rcf" took it upon himself to show everyone how easy it is to mess with Wikipedia. I replaced the deleted content. Masspete 04:02, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Franchise selection[edit]

Is the new franchise going to be in Miami or Jacksonville? I can't find anything on a franchise in Jacksonville. The WHA's web site says Miami. Is this going to be the Jacksonville Barracudas? RADICALBENDER ★ 13:52, 10 Jun 2004 (UTC)

According to an article on the WHA site at [1], it says: The six teams with arena leases or commitments now in place are Halifax, Nova Scotia (Metro Centre); Quebec, Quebec (Le Colisee Pepsi); Detroit, Michigan (Pontiac Silverdome); Dallas, Texas (Reunion Arena); Orlando, Florida (TD Waterhouse Center); and Jacksonville, Florida (Memorial Arena). Toronto and Hamilton, Ontario remain franchises in good standing pending the completion of lease negotiations prior to the July 10, 2004 Free Agent and Entry Level draft. Woodsy 02:02, 12 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Quebec?[edit]

Qubece and the "Nordiks" seem to have been edited out w/o any explantion. Shouldn't whoever removed them justify it somehow, by adding to the article something like "On September 1, 2004 it was announced by the league that the plans for the proposed Quebec franchise had been put on hold," or whatever the case may be? That information is important, and we are ill-served by just deletion with no explanation.

Rlquall 15:47, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)

"Current event" tag?[edit]

Why is this "no longer a current event"? This thing is either going to go, or not, within th enext couple of months, and for it to go, things have to start happening now. Seems pretty current to me. Rlquall 12:09, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I deleted this tag. The text that appears is: This article deals with a current or ongoing event. Information may change rapidly as the event progresses. Although the first sentance is fairly accurate, I do not think that the second sentance is appropriate for this article. I do not see this event as 'progressing'. If you compare this to the Orange Revolution, there have been events happening around the world continously since the last week. I even participated in a minor such event today in Calgary, AB. Since this is an event that progresses daily if not hourly, I believe that this article does warrant having the {{current}} tag. Another reason I feel the tag is not appropriate, is that this article is for an entity, not an event. Similarly National Hockey League does not have the {{current}} tag, but National Hockey League labor dispute (2004) does. This was my gut feel, which is why I made the change. After I saw your reply, I figured I should check to see if there was any policy about what should be tagged current. The closest information I could find was Template talk:Current. It doesn't appear that any formal policies have been formulated. If this discussion continues any further, I would recommend we take it there so that it can be turned into policy. -- JamesTeterenko 22:16, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I've added some discussion to this at Template talk:Current. RADICALBENDER ★ 23:27, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Palm Beach Icehawks[edit]

I just found a web site for the Palm Beach Icehawks. I just want to make sure it is correct before I put it in the web site. http://www.palmbeachicehawks.com/ John R G 05:50, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Looks correct to me, even if that logo and color scheme is a direct ripoff of the AHL Springfield Falcons. Ravenswing 13:44, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dallas Americans[edit]

I see that the Dallas Americans website is still working but it hasnt been updated in awhile. http://www.dallasamericans.com/. Im thinking of putting it back up on the page. Any thoughts. John R G 17:47, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. Why? The franchise is as dead as a doornail, the league as a pro league was beyond stillborn, and that website's not been updated in two years. Ravenswing 19:02, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Expansion" plans[edit]

(Although you need a league in the first place in order to expand ...) In any event, what's the basis for the assertion that they have pro franchises back in play? Not from the WHA's website, because its only press release this calendar year is about opening up that western junior loop. Ravenswing 13:55, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

NHL labor problems[edit]

I figure I had better explain to everyone the reason I removed some items from World Hockey Association (proposed). The information about the NHL lockout and its labor problems is something for the NHL and not the WHA. They are two seperate leagues. I feel that that should not be in the World Hockey Association (proposed) site. As far as the league itself I feel that it can survive even with the nhl. That is why I removed that information and I feel that I am correct. If you want me to dispute this I will. This site is about the World Hockey Association (proposed) and not the NHL labor problems. John R G 05:35, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

NPOV dispute[edit]

Here is the part that I do not agree with in quotes.

"The league was regarded by many as an attempt to fill the void that loomed as the NHL's serious labour problems, which led to the 2004-05 NHL lockout, became apparent. Most hockey writers and many fans felt that the league's best hope was to operate while the NHL playes were locked out and try to develop enough of a following to survive once the NHL labour problems were resolved."

The reasons why I do not agree with this is that this site is World Hockey Association (proposed) and not the NHL. This site is not connected with the NHL and its labor problems therefore I feel that the information above should not be included in this site. The World Hockey Association (proposed) and the NHL are two different leagues. I feel that the World Hockey Association (proposed) could survive on even if the NHL continues to play. That is why I am disputing this. John R G 06:39, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Is it because the syntax is confusing and may be interpretted as a NHL backed replacement?? ccwaters 18:41, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That this is the WHA (proposed) article has nothing to do with anything. The fact of the matter is that the quoted section is accurate and pertinent; few people would have even noticed the new WHA without the impending NHL lockout. The WHA's own website back then had numerous links to articles referencing the NHL's troubles [2], with headlines like "WHA ALREADY TEMPTING SOME NHL PLAYERS" (from the Globe and Mail), "GOODENOW ADAMANT ABOUT NO SALARY CAP" (from NBC.com), "NEW WHA TARGETS NHLERS" (from the Globe and Mail). The league's own press releases had titles like "Roenick's Lockout Plans Include WHA", "NHL Talent Giving New League Big Play" and "Pulford Predicts Lockout in 2004-05". To claim that the NHL labor woes had no impact on the WHA's plans is farcical; the league's entire game plan hinged on it, and the league itself pushed the connection for all it was worth. Ravenswing 18:50, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I will make this simple the NHL and its labor problems are for the NHL and not the World Hockey Association (proposed). I feel that I am right and I hope you agree with me. John R G 18:09, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that the NHL lockout had an impact on this. Any future NHL labour disruptions certainly will. The detailed history of the NHL belongs on NHL pages, but an acknowledgement that an NHL lockout would affect this league makes total sense to me. ColtsScore 08:47, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

At this point, I'm removing the NPOV tag. For one thing, this isn't a "NPOV" dispute at all; it's simply a section that a single editor doesn't want in there. Nearly a month on, no one's concurred with the wish. Ravenswing 13:03, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Founding Date[edit]

The proposed WHA was not founded in 1972. Why are we listing that date on this article? Resolute 06:34, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is where I found the info about the founding date. [3]

Indeed. Doesn't surprise me at all that this band of fools would attempt to leetch off of their predecessor. It isnt a big deal, but I'm not sure it accurately represents the current WHA. Resolute 15:09, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Main" WHA[edit]

Whats this talk about how they're starting up a "main" WHA with teams like the Philadelphia Blazers? I havent been able to find any of this on the web. David Reject 17:38, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well ... so far the new WHA's been hell-on-wheels in creating fly-by-night leagues that last a single season - cf. the WHA2 and the so-called "Super Junior League." What they've never remotely approached is a genuine, serious professional league, and that's to what I presume the entry refers. Not that they've got a hope in hell of doing so -- they'll never have a better opportunity than the lockout year -- but ... Ravenswing 19:47, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Which "Rick Smith?"[edit]

Is the Rick Smith who owns the company really the 1970s' era ex-defenseman? I'd expect the web site to push it were it the case, but nary a peep. Ravenswing 10:47, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No It is Ricky Smith and He is not the NHL player

Logos[edit]

Is it just me...or did they take some logos from NHL teams? Bsroiaadn ^Talk 13:41, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

From original WHA teams, yes, but I'm sure the trademarks long since lapsed on them. Ravenswing 20:37, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on World Hockey Association (proposed). 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: 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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:34, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]