Jump to content

Talk:Vancouver Canucks

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

WHL Canucks section

[edit]

Why is there a separate page for the "WHL Vancouver Canucks" and why is there no mention of the Canucks founding in 1945 on the NHL page? This is the same franchise. When the Canucks moved to the NHL many players from the WHL team were included and even their WHL owner - Coley Hall - was involved with the NHL ownership group. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.199.44.55 (talk) 01:15, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The 1945 founding date is mentioned in the infobox, as well as in the early history section. As far as the WHL article goes, I believe the intention was to allow for much greater coverage of the pre-NHL days than would be possible if it was all mashed together. Resolute 05:13, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The NHL Canucks are not a continuation of the WHL franchise otherwise it's history would be recognized as the former WHA franchises are by the NHL. The connections are worthy being mentioned in the body of the article but not in the infobox. That information should the limited to official league and club history to avoid confusion caused by editor's POV. I recommend the infobox be cleaned up to reflect official NHL history. Straykat99 (talk) 02:31, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • What "confusion" do you fancy there is? As with the Seals, the franchise was granted entry into the NHL. As with the former WHA teams, its previous league records are neither credited nor honored by the NHL, and the team's franchise date - as far as the NHL is concerned - dates from its entry into the NHL. Since this is Wikipedia, and not NHL.com, we are not bound to take the NHL's opinion for proven fact, nor are we bound to obey the NHL's version of history. Ravenswing 04:29, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • There is, however, a discrepency in how we treat this. The Detroit Red Wings article lists a founding date of 1926 rather than 1911 (as the Victoria Cougars). In reassessing my opinion from two years ago, I think there is some merit to counting 1970 as the Canucks' founding date in the infobox while using the prose to explain the links to the WHL team of the same name. Resolute 15:44, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • The Red Wings article doesn't represent a discrepancy at all. Despite the persistent, inaccurate but surprisingly unkillable rumor, the Red Wings franchise has no connection with the Victoria Cougars franchise. The Detroit owners purchased the right to the Cougars' players from the Patricks, and named their club after the famous team in their honor, and that's as far as it goes. There was no continuity in city, no continuity in ownership, and no continuity to the franchise. Ravenswing 21:11, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry IP-99, it looks like the '45ers aren't gonna budge. GoodDay (talk) 23:29, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Media - 7th Canuck

[edit]

I think this section should be deleted. The banner ceremony only happened once, and the #7 banner was unceremoniously taken down from the rafters during the 2009 offseason. I don't see what it has to do with anything, as it is now a very insignificant part of Canucks team history, consisting of a single small ceremony before a game. As far as the organization is concerned, the idea was a failure and it has been abandoned. Chris Zimmerman, the man responsible for the idea, isn't even with the Canucks anymore. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.118.74.23 (talk) 02:05, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Be bold! Feel free to remove it if you so choose. I would, however, ensure that the banner ceremony is noted in the proper season article, as it would be relevant to the season that it was raised. Cheers! Resolute 02:13, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, and have removed the section from the main article and placed it within the proper season article. I think The 7th Canuck banner is relevant only to the 2008-09 season and not Canucks history as a whole. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.118.74.23 (talk) 16:25, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

NHL Honours

[edit]

Why does this section get removed? This is good information that is included on other NHL teams' wiki pages. I see no reason why it should be removed, so whoever is removing it please explain yourself.

Bascially we have a standard section that deals with honours that is standard across all 30 teams. -DJSasso (talk) 16:02, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
IMNSHO, this information is better contained in its own article. Rather than a bare bones list that offers little context or value, it could be moved to List of Vancouver Canucks award winners, which could be expanded to offer greater information. For comparison sake: Calgary Flames and List of Calgary Flames award winners, both of which are featured. Resolute 16:05, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ted Lindsay Award

[edit]

Under the awards section, it has recently been edited that Markus Naslund was the recipient of the recently re-named Ted Lindsay Award, which at the time of his win was named the Lester B. Pearson Award. I believe that it should remain as the Lester B. Pearson award on this page because that was the name of the award when Naslund won it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.68.15.106 (talk) 18:08, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rogers Arena

[edit]

When the stadium was built it was GM place. When talking about the history of the arena we cannot say that it was called "Rogers Arena" while it was being built, it is currently misleading. For example, if while the Hoover Dam was building built, an engineer referred to it as "The Hoover Dam" and it later changed names to The President Obama Dam, you couldn't go back and change the quote so that the engineer said "The President Obama Dam." Sorry this is the best example I could come up with. I am going to change this...

Two Questions

[edit]

1) Should we use this table to show the retirees?

12 Stan Smyl
16 Trevor Linden
19 Markus Naslund

2) Should we make a different page for the Ring of Honour?

Waseemg 20:55, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

No to both accounts, the retired numbers list is standard across every team. The Ring of Honour if it belongs anywhere, which I am not sure it does, would belong on the Vancouver Canucks award winners page. Which I am not sure that it has been created yet for the Canucks. An example is List of Calgary Flames award winners. -DJSasso (talk) 11:51, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ooh, I like that page. I think I'll clone it for the Bruins and merge the team award articles I created into it.  Ravenswing  14:25, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes its one of Resolute's many nice featured pages. -DJSasso (talk) 18:08, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm actually not opposed to such a table, but I'd probably add the years the player was with the team for context. But yeah, if we wanted to go that route, it would be nice to discuss it at WT:HOCKEY and decide if we go for all teams. And, appreciate the compliments on the Flames award list. Resolute 18:18, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The table is nice looking, but it would be colour for the sake of decoration, which is a no-no. And for Vancouver atleast this particular table would be unreadable by anyone with colour blindness because its green and blue. Personally my favourite was the "banners" we used to have on the Montreal Canadiens page many years ago. However, they were removed for the decoration issue. -DJSasso (talk) 18:19, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I would pretty much insist on a white background for them all for that reason. I was contemplating how it would look on the Flames article, and thought that the colour and table could break a text wall nicely, depending on how it was implemented. Alternatively, a table like what is done at History of the Montreal Canadiens would work. Resolute 18:23, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

1981-82 Smythe Division Champions

[edit]

Anyone who's been to Rogers Arena might notice there is a banner hanging in the rafters for the 1981-82 Smythe Division Champions. This currently isn't reflected in the "Division Championships" section of the page because it wasn't a regular season division championship, but because the NHL used a different format for the playoffs that year, the Canucks were actually the 1981-82 Smythe Division Champions in the PLAYOFFS (Edmonton were the division champs during the regular season). How should this be reflected in the division championships section? (I think it should be, because technically it was a division championship and there is a banner hanging in Rogers Arena for it).24.69.65.132 (talk) 17:53, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, it should be changed, imo. For most teams between 81-82 and 92-93, the division championship was won in the playoffs, not the regular season. The Oilers do not recognize 81-82 as a season in which they won the Smythe. Likewise, they do not recognize 85-86 as a division win, nor do the Flames recognize 87-88. It becomes confusing because prior to 81-82, the division and conference championships were won in the regular season due to the playoff format being division and conference independent. After 93-94, the divison returned to being a regular season achievement when the new conference playoff format was added. Per that standard, I'm adding 81-82 to the Canucks article and removing it from the Oilers. Resolute 18:04, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Now that I think about it, I've removed the 91-92 and 92-93 titles from the infobox on the same reasoning. Resolute 18:07, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of bracketed statement about Vancouver and Buffalo becoming the 13th and 14th teams to join.

[edit]

I removed that small statement because it was inaccurate. They Canucks and Sabres became the 13th and 14th teams in the league at the time of joining the league in 1970. Given the large number of defunct teams before the 'Original 6' era, the Sabres and Canucks were not the 13th and 14th to join from the NHL's inception as was implied. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Helmut Hedd (talk • contribs) 00:28, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Injuries on the Roster

[edit]

I noticed that eight Canucks have this [1] next to their name. According to [2], only Hamhuis and Samuelsson are injured. Also, as a diehard 'Nucks fan, I have heard nothing about the other six who are supposedly injured. Does anyone have a source to back these up? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jmfriesen (talk • contribs) 23:01, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have sources handy but certainly alot of them are definitely injured. Raymond for example broke his back and is out until at least Christmas. That being said it doesn't really matter since the season is done. All of the injury flags should probably be removed. There is not disabled list in the summer. I am betting your link just hasn't been updated since there is no DL in the summer. -DJSasso (talk) 23:47, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oooh, I forgot about Raymond. That's embarrassing. Anyways, I think only the ones that aren't confirmed should be removed, and I noticed Kesler doesn't have the symbol, even though he played in the Final with a lower body injury. Jmfriesen (talk) 00:54, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I went ahead and removed the symbol from all of the player except Raymond per DJSasso's comments. Raymond should be the only one out by the start of next season and if I'm wrong the symbol can be added back at that time. here is an article mentioning most of the players who were listed as injured.--Mo Rock...Monstrous (leech44) 12:48, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
File:CanucksBySeason.png

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Fhsig13 (talk • contribs) 08:14, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Canucks Jerseys season by season

[edit]

I notice that Jerseys change every year and that the current ones get uploaded to wikipedia but once a jersey isn't used anymore, it doesn't seem to be on wikipedia anymore. I was looking through the BC Lions page and they have their current Jerseys on the main page like every other sports team. One interesting note with them if you search through their individual seasons such as their 1994 BC Lions season, they have the Jerseys that they wore that year on that page. My suggestion is that we do that for the Canucks season by season pages so the pages can be more insightful about what Jerseys that wore each year. Secondcube (talk) 23:25, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! I added a homemade table to the Canucks page, detailing their jerseys for every season, plus I included the Millionaires/Heritage Classic Alternate Jersey.Fhsig13 (talk) 04:08, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That is pretty clearly copied from NHLUniforms.com, which is copyrighted both by the owner of the website and the respective teams, the Canucks in this case. If you can prove you are indeed Andrew M. Greenstein, the creator of the website, then that should be made apparent in the image description. If not, it can't stay up here. Kaiser matias (talk) 04:15, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not the owner of that site, and we already have every last one of those Canucks logos on the page, so if you are correct, the entire Canucks Wikipedia site would be in violation. If I need permission from owner (which I shouldn't since I changed the images and created my own master image, this is according to Wikipedia's rules) I will, obtain it. Otherwise, please tag an Admin and allow them to decide this case's fate. Thank you. Fhsig13 (talk) 20:25, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hey all, I'd like to reopen the dialog on this issue, if I may. @DJSasso could I get your point of view (as an admin) on this, please? Is it a violation of Wikipedia rules? I think not, but I'd like to be sure. I'll add the image here for context. I've also re-added it to the article for the time being (with rights released this time), for the time being

as no one voiced an objection. Fhsig13 (talk) 08:01, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Fhsig13: You only gave others a few hours to object, some editors only check a couple times a day. I for one, upon looking at the addition on my computer, the image takes up most of the screen and completely breaks up the format of the page. I can only imagine what it would do on mobile. I am not sure this is really necessary as wikipedia does not need every detail on everything ever, it should simply be a summary. There are other sites dedicated to this sort of thing and I am not sure a giant image is really helpful to a reader. (Especially if we have to make it really small to fit on the screen, then you can't see any of the details; or really large to see the details and not fit on the screen). And even though it is one image, does this not also violate the fair-use clause of WP:GALLERY with the use of multiple logos? Yosemiter (talk) 18:36, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Yosemiter I don't see any violations there, and can make the image smaller, that's no issue. Just let me know what size you think would be best. Fhsig13 (talk) 18:47, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I am saying that the size will be an issue no matter what, so I don't know what's best. I choose to let others decide. For those who would like to see how the page looks with the image with sorting through the edit history: here is the page. (Also as stated before, give this some time. Some of us have lives and only check occasionally, especially on the weekends.) Yosemiter (talk) 18:52, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize. Take all the time you folks need. I only added the image so it could be viewed in respect to the page. Fhsig13 (talk) 18:55, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've deleted the image. It is a CLEAR copyright violation from http://www.nhluniforms.com/Canucks/Canucks.html. Simply taking the images and making one bigger image out of them does not excuse copyright. only (talk) 22:39, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@only May I ask how not only making the larger image but modifying it as well is a violation? And it's all images of logos we already use on this page, so I don't understand you deleting it? Fhsig13 (talk) 23:26, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

it’s a derivative work. What you’ve done is taken someone else’s copyrighted work and modified it. That person’s copyright still applies, even if you have modified it. If this was something you made wholly on your own it’d be fine. However, you used someone else’s work to create your own image so that’s a violation. The other images are being used under fair use policies. Yours would not fall under that policy. only (talk) 23:44, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retired numbers

[edit]

Wayne Maki - The Canucks unofficially retired his Number 11 jersey until Mark Messier, who had worn Number 11 with the Edmonton Oilers and New York Rangers, joined the team. Buffalkill (talk) 13:13, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Is the number 38 really unofficially retired? The article says it was pulled from circulation after Demitra's death in 2011, but Victor Oreskovich wore it for one game during the 2011–12 season and Derek Joslin wore it for two games during the 2012–13 season according to hockey-reference. According to this article, Oreskovich said he would have no problem changing his number if the team asked him to, but he ended up wearing it that season. --Parkfly20 (talk) 11:25, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. There is no citation regarding that, so unless there is something proving that those numbers are thus honoured, I'll take it down within a few days. Kaiser matias (talk) 12:50, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Kaiser matias: I also could find no references for the number's retirement (except a blog, but it seemed written in such a way that it was referencing this page). However, @Hawkeye75: re-added it back when it was removed in March stating, "The number has been taken out of circulation, it's stated on a board at Rogers Arena" in the edit summary. I am not positive, but it seems like since there has never been any number retirement announcement, it might just be his name and number were raised as a memorial due to his tragic death. Meaning, maybe the man himself is what is being honoured, not the number. Yosemiter (talk) 13:24, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
To preempt a discussion, I removed the names and numbers a few hours ago, and had that reverted, with a source at least, with a summary questioning my motives. However as that source only mention's Maki and #11, the others have once again been removed, and until something substantial can prove they are out of circulation, they should be. Don't let this be interpreted as me being against their inclusion though, or unfamiliar with either the team or the article; I support noting them on the page, however they need to be backed up, and there is currently no evidence to prove that they are. That said, I noted here a week ago that unless a source was found I'd remove them, so it shouldn't come as a surprise. Kaiser matias (talk) 10:59, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Yosemiter: Here is a source showing that #28 (Bourdon) and #37 (Rypien) are out of circulation: http://www3.telus.net/dmarchak/cannumb.htm. I re-added them to the list as well.Fhsig13 (talk) 23:27, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Fhsig13: I have no horse in this race, but is that a reliable source? It reads like it could have been taken from wikipedia. (Also since the claim for removal has been as "unsourced", you probably should have made it an inline citation.) The source you are pointing out also never says it was taken "out of circulation", just that it has not been used. Is there a source that come from the team or a player being told they could not use those numbers? Yosemiter (talk) 01:01, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Yosemiter: I have emailed the Canucks fan services email, asking for verification of the numbers, and I await a response. (I asked about 11, 28, 37, & 38, as well as if there are any others we didn't know about. I also re-added Demitra to the list for the time being and updated the info surrounding who wore number 11 after Wayne Maki, as the source I stated above shows that Chris Oddleifson wore it for two seasons, from 1974-1976. Fhsig13 (talk) 18:48, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Move sub-section 2013-present: John Tortorella era to Head coaches section

[edit]

The section titled 2013-present: John Tortorella era should probably go under 7. Head coaches. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Buffalkill (talk • contribs) 01:53, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The section is about the team from 2013 through present time. Head coaches is a list of Canucks head coaches. Gloss • talk 02:24, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 4 external links on Vancouver Canucks. 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 23:41, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Vancouver Canucks. 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 20:06, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Vancouver Canucks. 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 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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 17:41, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 8 external links on Vancouver Canucks. 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 13 external links on Vancouver Canucks. 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) 06:35, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Brian Burke was fired.

[edit]

Brian Burke was replaced by Dave Nonis on May 6th 2004. Burke's contract was set to expire June 2004. Burke immediately after he was replaced by Nonis started working for the CBC. He could not do that unless he was no longer under contract to the Vancouver Canucks. Therefore, by the truest definition, he was fired. The "non renewed" was simply being polite. He was replaced before his contract was over, he started working for the CBC before his contract was over. If he was "still under contract", he would have been sued for breach R-Boy8 (talk) 20:20, 3 December 2020 (UTC)R-boy8[reply]

The team can give permission for him to work for CBC without it being a firing, teams often give permission to work for other teams or television if they are no longer actively working for the team because they were replaced. -DJSasso (talk) 13:16, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Change Jim Rutherford era to Patrik Allvin era?

[edit]

Hello! The History section currently lists the team's eras by General Manager, but the current era is titled by the current President of hockey operations Jim Rutherford, not the current GM Patrik Allvin. The previous "era", currently titled the 'Jim Benning era' had Trevor Linden serving of President of Hockey ops but is titled under the name of the GM. Basically what I'm trying to say is shouldn't the current era be called the Patrik Allvin era rather than the Jim Rutherford era to reflect continuity in the era naming styles?

Interested to hear what others think, and sorry if this matter has already been settled else where. Thank you, Oangie (talk) 23:00, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I concur, I think this was just there while we were waiting for the official new GM. I think (really I should know, I'm a Penguins fan) that Allvin was hired after Rutherford, so it was meant to be temporary. Now that Allvin is running the office I think it makes sense to change it. dannymusiceditor oops 23:15, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 19:30, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Vancouver_Canucks&oldid=1205399278"