Talk:World Hockey Association

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

Did the Calgary Broncos fold outright or move to Cleveland?[edit]

On the Calgary Broncos Wikipedia page (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Calgary_Broncos) it says that that they moved to Cleveland, but on this page, it says they "folded outright". It would be good to have both pages saying whatever the truth is.Yellowpelican (talk) 01:46, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

WHA rules[edit]

I've heard time and time again that the WHA used different rights than those in the NHL at that time, some later being adoputed by the NHL itself, can someone check that out?

The WHA reintroduced regular season overtime, which the NHL abandoned due to war time travel restrictions. I believe the WHA had a 10 minute sudden death extra session. The NHL later added a 5 minute sudden death extra period. 19:39, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Aeros[edit]

Aren't the Aeros in the AHL now? Does anyone know if the team moved right after the switch or whether it disappeared for awhile? Basil Fawlty

  • It is a different team with the same nickname.

Only 4 players?[edit]

An IP address recently added that when the four WHA teams merged with the NHL, they were only allowed to protect two goalies and two skaters. Is this true? Masterhatch 18:18, 14 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Correct. Some deals were cut on the side -- for instance, Chicago agreed not to reclaim Real Cloutier in return for a draft pick with which the Hawks grabbed Denis Savard -- but that was the official arrangement. It was exacerbated by some very poor decision making on the WHA teams' parts (they had a preference for rugged defensemen and elderly players on their last legs over young promising stars). Ravenswing 22:24, 14 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Did you mention the other WHA's?[edit]

You know, the two failed ones and the new Super Junior League?

All that's worth mentioning (nothing much) is under World Hockey Association (proposed). Ravenswing 18:04, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dayton[edit]

According to Ed Willes' The Rebel League, the team name was actually spelled "Arrows." Doogie2K 09:45, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Every other single source I've ever seen, from the league media guides I have to Frank Polnazek's and Scott Surgent's histories, says "Aeros." I'd have to go with the preponderance of the evidence here. Ravenswing 17:07, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There was actually league media on the Dayton team? I wouldn't have thought there'd actually have been anything on them, given that they never played there. Then again, we know about the Miami Screaming Eagles, so... Doogie2K 06:16, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
For reference, here's the passage: "Shortly after [the draft], [Dayton owner Paul] Deneau flew some of his people down to Mexico for a fishing excursion. While waiting for their flight in Los Angeles, the new hockey man consumed a quart of Scotch, then looked out the window and saw an AeroMexico plane. Deneau thought about this for a moment. His team was moving to Houston, but the name 'Arrows' meant nothing there. 'Aeros,' on the other hand, sounded like space travel, which sounded like Houston. Hockey fans in Houston can only be glad there wasn't a Virgin Airlines at the time." (p.24)
Unfortunately, there's no explicit mention of where "Arrows" came from, in the first place, but I have to imagine there's some reason for him to use that name instead of the more obvious "Aeros" for both locations. Doogie2K 16:14, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Snappy anecdote, but every other source has always said 'Aeros'. What's Willis' source for his assertion? Ravenswing 15:47, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You'd have to ask him. He interviewed a significant number of people associated with the league, but there are no explicit sources beyond the interviews cited, at any point. He writes for the Vancouver Province--I'm sure it'd be easy enough to email him and ask. Doogie2K 04:47, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Welll ... I think we'd have to go with the preponderance of the evidence here failing verifiable sources. Ravenswing 14:59, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

NHL/WHA Exhibition play[edit]

In fall 1978 or even fall 1977, the NHL allowed teams to play WHA teams in exhibition games as they were in pre-season training in September. This is the only inter-league play between the two leagues. If I could find information to back it up, I would add it to the article. I only know from newspaper sports pages showing the schedules of games between WHA and NHL teams. I don't remember the year, but it was in the WHA's dying days.

The WHA was also sometimes nicknamed the World Rocky (Rhockey?) Association. GBC 18:34, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It was by no means in dying days; interleague exhibition games in camp happened in 1976, and I think the Red Wings and the Jets played as early as 1975; I'd have to check my books at home for a reference. It's certainly worth mentioning in the article. Ravenswing 19:31, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WHA players and executives inducted into the NHL Hockey Hall of Fame[edit]

At first glance, these contributions by User:Biscuit-in-the-Basket appear to be valid, despite the user's bad history on Wikipedia. I think the section should be restored. Any thoughts? Flibirigit 04:08, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Only in so far as their playing/coaching careers factored into their HHOF election. In most of those cases that's the case. In the case of Pronovost, Richard and Rollins, certainly not, and Bathgate's 11 game WHA career's damn tenuous. Plainly the WHA had significant impacts on the careers of Gretzky, Howe, Hull, Sather, Cheevers and Keon, though. Ravenswing 17:56, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So.. we include it with a disclaimer.. something like.. the Following HHOF inductees were involved in the WHA.. or something more specific? Flibirigit 20:51, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Wha.jpg[edit]

Fair use rationale completed. Flibirigit (talk) 01:21, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fact tags: Truthful or not[edit]

Will you both bring your dispute here, please? GoodDay (talk) 18:16, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well they have to now. Page is protected for a week. -Djsasso (talk) 18:24, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Damn. If I had seen this there would have been 3RR warnings and blocks handed out... As it is, frankly, the fact tags are appropriate in my view. They should stay until the information is sourced. Resolute 18:44, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah I would have given warnings and blocks as well. But as I didn't come along while it was happening I just protected for now and GoodDay basically warned. -Djsasso (talk) 18:50, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Based on one of their talk pages I think the arguement is that the fact tags need not be there if the general article tag is there. But I disagree, both are for different instances. -Djsasso (talk) 18:52, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
For my money, the fact tags as placed were legit. It's quite reasonable to require inline citations for that sort of thing if they're challenged, and it would have been well within the editor's right to remove the sentences outright. Instead, he restricted himself to fact tags.  Ravenswing  19:20, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There's not much I can add. GoldDragon has a long history of removing fact tags without adding sources. Several editors, myself included, have explained on his talk page. He has been told (by another editor) that removing fact tags in an edit is vandalism and will result in the reversion of such edits. That's what I have been doing -- reverting edits where he removed legitimate fact tags. AverageGuy (talk) 22:42, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you, but felt that forcing the conversation here might help him see that edit warring is no good. Personally I would have reported him at ANI long before this if I were you because it does look like you were warring with him. Although I do see your side and agree that it could easily be considered vandalism. -Djsasso (talk) 00:59, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry. I don't know what ANI is. 69.159.10.71 (talk) 03:00, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. — Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 05:15, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

External links[edit]

Internet Hockey Database - standings and statistics

No longer valid:

"Not Found The requested URL /ihdb/stats/generate_league_seasons.php was not found on this server."

TDC (talk) 13:22, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

One section that always has bothered me......[edit]

"On the ice, the WHA teams had proven themselves to be the NHL's competitive equals, winning more games than they lost in interleague exhibition games" I have a hard time with this, as the only evidence is in games that did not count. Do RSs say that they were competitive equals? Dbrodbeck (talk) 15:50, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • The relevance of whether games counted in respective league standings doesn't strike me as a particular factor. As in any sport, the notion of whether you're more or less competitive than the other guy comes down to one factor alone: did you win the game or not? Ravenswing 21:55, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Point taken, though, they were preseason games typically right? Dbrodbeck (talk) 22:41, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Timeline of Teams[edit]

Maybe I'm splitting hairs here, but claiming that the New England Whalers was a team that didn't move during the entire existence of the WHA is not technically correct. As the entry for the Hartford Whalers points out "[o]riginally based in Boston, Massachusetts, it was known as the New England Whalers throughout its time in WHA. The team moved to Hartford in 1974 and joined the NHL in the NHL–WHA merger of 1979." Granted they did not move out of the region, but they did relocate out of Boston because of the inability to book dates in the old Boston Garden which was owned by the rival NHL Bruins. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dmcoxe (talk • contribs) 21:00, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps it would be an idea to add a column for venues, as many teams moved from one venue to another while maintaining a team name - such as the Toronto Toros - and the venue column could flesh out some of this info. It would also add depth to discussion of instability of the franchises in the league by demonstrating how difficult it was to find and keep a home arena for some. Echoedmyron (talk) 21:15, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't say it's not so much "not technically correct" as completely inaccurate. Boston => Hartford is a move. Ravenswing 23:20, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Have to agree. This is one of the reasons I dislike trivia statements. Subject to too much individual interpretation. Resolute 23:42, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
One could make the argument that that is just a move within the same region so not really a move. Sort of like the Carolina Hurricanes which moved a similar distance but we don't say they moved. ie both were named for the region and not a city and both stayed within the region they were named for and moved a very short distance 100 miles. -DJSasso (talk) 01:25, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Except that Greensboro was never intended to be a permanent home for the Hurricanes. Resolute 01:30, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Still the same argument though, whether it was temporary or not they moved about the same distance and kept the same name just as the Whalers did. I don't know that it is much different than other teams that moved from one side of a metro region to the other. Albeit a slightly longer distance than is usually the case but not by all that much in some instances. -DJSasso (talk) 01:38, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
One could make that argument, yes. Why would anyone? This wasn't a move of just a few miles within the same metro area, where the expectation is to keep the same fanbase. Boston and Hartford are different metro areas in different states with different fan bases. 100 miles isn't much on the global grand scheme of things, but it's nearly twice the distance between Toronto and Buffalo, the same distance between New York City and Philadelphia, and just a bit less than the distance between Philadelphia and Washington or between Montreal and Ottawa. Ravenswing 04:33, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Umm The distance from Hartford to Boston is a couple miles more than the difference between Buffalo and Toronto according to google maps so its certainly not twice the distance. But again, no one in their right mind would claim that the Carolina Hurricanes moved when they moved the same distance down the road. Could also be said to be a different metro area and could also be said to be different fans. But they were still representing the same region while they were in the WHA. Their region encompassed the fans from Boston. Once they were in the NHL yes I would claim two sets of fans. But not while they were in the WHA as there was no team in Boston at the same time in the WHA. Maybe my view is skewed because moving 100 miles around the Leafs or the Canadians or the Senators and pretty much any other Canadian team would be considered to easily be the same fan base, traveling that distance to a game wouldn't be weird at all. I can certainly see your argument don't get me wrong, but what I recall from reading old news articles etc. They did expect to have the same fan base when they moved and still considered themselves serving the Boston market. -DJSasso (talk) 15:44, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
More hair-splitting: The driving distance from Boston to Hartford is very similar to that of from Toronto to Buffalo, but as the crow flies it's only about 65 miles from Toronto to Buffalo. FWIW. Echoedmyron (talk) 16:18, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The debate about how far a team has to move before counting as a relcoation aside, is that opening statement even necessary? Resolute 16:12, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I would say that moving cities without a name change still counts as a move, IMO. Echoedmyron (talk) 16:18, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Avco Cup?[edit]

Does there need to be articles for every Avco Cup held (seven in total) to give clarity to how the team won it (as opposed to the article for the Avco World Trophy), or is not needed? Wikidude10000 (talk) 07:09, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You mean like 1973 WHA Playoffs or 1973 Avco Cup Final? Probably not needed unless a split becomes warranted from 1972–73 WHA season due to size. Resolute 13:04, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:World_Hockey_Association&oldid=1206078287"