Draft Results

I just created this page but couldn't find any kind of round-by-round data for the draft, just a list of the players chosen by San Jose. I have no recollection of this event and don't know how the draft was conducted (indeed information in general about this seems to be really scarce, hence me creating a page about it), but it seems like there should be a list of round-by-round choices for both San Jose and Minnesota. Of course the draft itself was not very important or interesting (the purpose for it and the decision to have it, more so), but it would be nice to be accurate. GT 08:20, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So they rip apart an existing team, franchise and fan base, simply to stock a new one as a fop to certain owners. Can someone please find a third party source that rips the NHL, the Gunds and anyone else involved for allowing something as corrupt and stupid as this to occur? The NHL in those days was a joke, and this was simply one more example. Please see Alan Eagleson to understand just how corrupt the NHL was. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jrgilb (talk • contribs) 03:46, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Inconsistencies

I note that yes, each expansion draft the NHL has held was under varying circumstances, but it is irksome that the charts and presentation are not handled consistently from article to article. Aside from that, there are inconsistencies within this one: states that the Sharks were to take 14 North Stars skaters and 2 goalies, and then we have a chart with 24 skaters, 4 of whom are goalies. Echoedmyron (talk) 17:25, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A result of missing information that I will try to add. They did in fact take 14 skaters and two goalies, who were playing professionally for Minnesota or Kalamazoo. The final 8 and 2 were players that the North Stars had rights to, but were either in junior, college, high school, or europe.18abruce (talk) 21:51, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 17 March 2024

– Per MOS:CAPS and WP:NCCAPS, reserve caps for proper names. These are most often lowercase in sources. Dicklyon (talk) 02:32, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Tony1, I think you've come up with a good description of at least two reasons why lowercasers want to lowercase. Someday somebody is going to do a thesis on "Casing on Wikipedia, the Eternal Internal Struggle for the Perfect Proper Name". Randy Kryn (talk) 04:09, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • The very putting of this in terms of "lowercasers" as a label to pin on editors who are simply following the guidelines and the sourcing is a very bad sign. This kind of "us vs. them" approach is the complete and sole cause of any "eternal internal struggle" on such matters. Tooth-and-nail resistance against simple and consistent guidelines applying to particular subjects (and, more to the disruptiveness point, constant interference with editors who are not engaging in such anti-guideline activism, but just following the guidelines and the sourcing) are the only reason there is any "struggle" at all and the only reason it is dragging it out into "eternity". It needs to stop.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  07:51, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Closure

I see no reason to re-list, so will be requesting closure when the RM tag expires. GoodDay (talk) 01:58, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Categories