Jump to content

Talk:Toronto Maple Leafs/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2

Roster Incorrect.

The Current Listing of the Toronto Maple Leafs roster is incorrect. It is missing Jiri Tlusty #11 upon first glance. Also other players are missing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tlustygirl11 (talk • contribs) 03:52, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

He's on the marlies for the playoffs http://www.torontomarlies.com/news/News.asp?story_id=715 ccwaters (talk) 13:38, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Jeff Finger is listed as #6, which is the number he wore with Colorado. The number 6 is one of two retired numbers in Toronto, for Ace Bailey (Bill Barilko's #5 is the other) so that should be changed as he definirely won't be wearing it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.71.9.199 (talk) 03:36, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Luke Schenn was the leafs 2008 1st round draft pick and he is not mentioned on the roster list as a defenceman. I believe it should be changed immediatly as I know he will make an impact thus deserving to be on the wiki page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.225.217.80 (talk) 06:10, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

There are no guarantees that Schenn, or any other draft pick, will make their respective teams. Wikipedia does not work on predictions. Until Schenn is actually placed on the Leafs roster, it is inappropriate to add him. Resolute 06:16, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

As of this posting, the Wikipedia roster for the Toronto Maple Leafs does not agree with its source (that is, the roster on the Maple Leafs website: http://mapleleafs.nhl.com/team/app?service=page&page=TeamPlayers&type=roster ). At first glance, the Wikipedia entry lists Mats Sundin on the roster and as the team's captain; the source material lists no captain, and Sundin is no where to be found. I suggest that the Current Roster section be changed to reflect its source; otherwise, a different source should be used. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jlongpre (talk • contribs) 20:15, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

That is because until, the official roster is set on opening day (or just before it) there is technically no roster yet, as such we leave on all UFA's until the start of the season or until they sign with another team or announce retirement officially. -Djsasso (talk) 20:26, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Instead of listing Mats Sundin as the captian, it should say "vacant", as he is no longer the captain as of July 1st, barring him choosing to re-sign with the Maple Leafs. --70.24.11.104 (talk) 22:03, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

If the season has constructively started, then as of the first game, I think it's reasonable to note it as vacant. Per project standards, it's not vacant while he's a UFA over the summer, though. —C.Fred (talk) 23:17, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Nikolai Kulemin obviously was not acquired in 1996, as the roster states. --99.238.59.26 (talk) 03:41, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

WP:SOFIXIT -Djsasso (talk) 05:05, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
To the IP's credit, that was a tricky one to fix, because 1) it was on the roster template, not this article and 2) it involved a link pointing to one year but displaying another as its text. I've fixed it, though. —C.Fred (talk) 16:01, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
Ahh I saw that it said the right year so I didn't look that the link wasn't linking to the right place. -Djsasso (talk) 16:04, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

the current roster lists Luke Schenn as Captain. This is incorrect. We do not know who the captain is. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.175.99.139 (talk) 19:19, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Dian Phaneuf was named the new Captain of the team today, so "vacant" is now incorrect.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/sports/hockey/leafs-to-name-phaneuf-captain-monday/article1601382/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 154.20.241.108 (talk) 19:05, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

 Done Johnny Au (talk/contributions) 20:12, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Michael Zigomanis, Lashoff and Finger should be on the marlies.C.Doucet--72.38.168.133 (talk) 07:10, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

They still appear on the Leafs roster on their web site as of Oct. 6. Zigomanis cleared waivers but has not been assigned to the Marlies. Finger might go down when Lebda comes back. ʘ alaney2k ʘ (talk) 14:26, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

The roster needs to be updated for the 2011-2012 season, I was on my way to do that but found it was protected. Please take the protection off of it so I or another person can update and correct the roster. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TopJPOX (talk • contribs) 00:42, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

WP:SOFIXIT. The roster is actually in its own template: Template:Toronto Maple Leafs roster. It is not semi-protected. Johnny Au (talk/contributions) 01:59, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Leafs

The comment about spelling is incorrect. The plural form "dwarves" was created accidentally by J R R Tolkien when he wrote "The Hobbit", and he was embarrassed when someone asked him about it after publication, since he was perhaps the leading scholar of his day on the history of the English language. Tolkien stuck with it for his later publications, as the correct form in his imagined world, but it has no historical justification in ours. This is totally off on a tangent for the Maple Leafs article of course. The relevant point is that the reason for the spelling Leafs remains an open question, and I actually had come to this article to see what the answer was! —Preceding unsigned comment added by JoeBrennan (talk • contribs) 20:55, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

This is the reason for the leafs name seeming to have been spelt incorrectly: the leafs were originally named after another Toronto sports team, a baseball team, called the Leafs. This was used as a proper noun, so the spelling did not change to leaves when referring to the plural. This stuck with the hockey team. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.35.217.148 (talk) 23:32, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

The story I remember hearing was that the owner just liked the sound Leafs better than how the proper form is pronounced. -DJSasso (talk) 00:14, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Ken Dryden

Ken Dryden was inducted into the Hall of Fame as a player, and since he never played for the Leafs I don't think he should be included among the others in the "Hall of Famers" section. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.154.47.18 (talk) 01:03, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

 Done for a long time. Johnny Au (talk/contributions) 02:16, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Someone Please Correct POV injected into comments on the Leafs vs. Kings Conference Final

With all due respect to Leafs fans, hear-say, repeated in an internet opinion piece, on Slam.ca HARDLY qualifies as an appropriate reference. Especially when used to back up a blatant POV injected into the article. Whether or not people think Gretzky high-sticked little Dougie Gilmour shortly before scoring a goal is first irrelevant, secondly POV, thirdly completely uncorroburated, fourthly a blatant "homer" statement, and fifth, quite frankly, also part of the game. Shall we also discuss Gilmour blatantly charging McSorley at the blue line, banging into him like a flea hitting a concrete wall, falling to the ice, and drawing a penalty against the confused LA player? Or how about Pat Burns crying in the media during a Detroit/Toronto series (where through 6 games Detroit had outscored Toronto something like 4 to 2 on Toronto powerplays!) about the "unfair officiating" and "too many penalties". No penalties called in the 7th game which Toronto won in OT having scored late in the 3rd less than two minutes after a BLATANT high-stick against a Detroit player. Perhaps this article wouldn't have to be "semi-protected" from vandalism if a little less Leafs Fan weasel behaviour were evident. Contrary to typical Leafs fan belief, Toronto probably never should have been in the Conference final in the first place and probably only got there due to beneficial reffing. Whining that this is the only way they were prevented from their destiny in the Finals vs. Montreal is sickening and needs to be removed. Refs and players are human. Mistakes happen in a game, and yes, life can be unfair...boo hoo hoo, but this is why they have the playoffs in the first bloody place. Otherwise, you would just give the cup to the team at the top of the league at the end of the regular season. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.105.47.80 (talk) 10:15, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Ron Wilson Nationality

If he is a dual citizen, and was originally born (and grew up) in Canada, why does the American flag get put beside his name? Not only is he a 1) Canadian citizen, he was also 2) born in Canada. The only reason for the American flag is that he is also an 1)American citizen. Thats 2 against 1. Either we change is to the Canadian flag or we have both. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.234.145.123 (talk) 05:46, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

He has an American Flag because he grew up in the US and because he played for and coaches the US national team, not the Canadian team. We base the flags on the international team they represent. -Djsasso (talk) 20:42, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Rivalries

Never in my life, and I'm not that young, have I heard the term "forever rivals" applied towards the Leaf-Canadiens rivalry. It sounds fake and manufactured, like a CBC advertising gimmick. If this is what it is, then I think it should be removed. I googled and found it was the title of a book which seems to have been put out by the CBC. If the only use of "forever rivals"' was by the CBC to promote the book and/or some program they did then it has no place in Wikipedia. As far as the accuracy of the term "forever rivals", the rivalry between the Leafs and the Canadiens hasn't existed since the 70s. How many cups have the Leafs won compared to Montreal since 67? It's a great historical rivalry, but a rivalry is a two-way street, not one team dominating the other. P.S.: I'm a Leaf fan. BashBrannigan (talk) 16:42, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

I removed "has been labelled forever rivals" as this is a term only used on CBC promotions as the title of their book and documentary. Saying "has been labelled" implies a wider use. To be accurate you could say "the CBC has called the rivalry 'forever rivals' ", but... so what? Unless it has wider use it has no relevancy other than a link to sell the CBC book.BashBrannigan (talk) 01:07, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Other than an advertising gimmick for a book by the CBC, the term "forever rivals" should be removed. Johnny Au (talk/contributions) 02:13, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Johnny, why was my contribution removed? Is it not possible that there could be a meeting between the Wings and the Leafs in the Stanley Cup Finals? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Spxmet (talk • contribs) 05:54, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Please ask BashBrannigan, who reverted your edit. You can do so here. Next time, please sign your comment. Thank you. Johnny Au (talk/contributions) 15:52, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Eh, Bash? Why was my blurb removed? Sorry, Johnny, I'm still getting used to the talk pages and the courtesies. Only a few more days till the greatest sport in the world resumes! Thanks, Spxmet (talk • contribs) —Preceding undated comment added 05:33, 7 October 2010 (UTC).

There is a mistake, or at least a misuse of the term "to swipe" in the description of 2007 rivalry with the Habs. The current description implies that the Leafs did make the playoff instead of the Montreal team they beat on last game. However, none of the team made the playoffs, what with the Islanders also winning their last game and claiming n.8 spot : 2006–07 NHL season. I recommend we use other terms such as "stopped Montreal from playoff contention" — Preceding unsigned comment added by MaBaoLuo (talk • contribs) 21:25, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

That will be done. Next time, please remember to sign your comment. Thank you. Johnny Au (talk/contributions) 21:52, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Uniform

In the picture of the uniform, the alternate jersey is shown with a blue helmet, when the Leafs actually wear a white helmet with this jersey. If you don't believe me, here is proof. http://i.cdn.turner.com/si/multimedia/photo_gallery/0812/nhl.third.jerseys.rating/images/maple-leafs-grabovski.jpg Someone should fix this. 99.234.145.123 (talk) 04:35, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

I think you're right. I'm not sure, but I think that usually the helmet is supposed to match the predominant colour of the sweater. The problem will be, if the correct graphic doesn't exist, someone will have to correct the colour then post it to the wikipedia commons pictures.BashBrannigan (talk) 16:09, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

I also just realized that there are stripes missing at the bottom of the alternate jersey as well. This should also be fixed. http://www.disabledonline.com/images/uploads/pro_sports/51-82646-F.jpg That's a picture of what is should look like. 99.234.145.123 (talk) 18:15, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Also, the socks depicted with the alternate jersey are incorrect. With the alternate jersey, the Leafs wear their white socks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.49.237.113 (talk) 22:57, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

History

It says in the opening paragraph that they have won one stanley cup as the toronto arenas, in 1917-1918. But if you look in the infobox under history, during 1917-1918 the team was just called Toronto. But if you go to the toronto arenas page, it says that they won a stanley cup during 1917-1918. Should we remove the just "Toronto" from the history section and make toronto arenas last from 1917-1919? 99.234.145.123 (talk) 18:27, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Ahh it should say Toronto Blueshirts not Toronto. That needs to be fixed along with the cup on the arenas page. We had someone pushing POV awhile back now that I think about it on this topic, this probably got missed when his changes were reversed. -Djsasso (talk) 18:34, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
What is your source for saying that it should be the blueshirts. "The Official Encyclopedia Of The National Hockey League," states that the Toronto team that played in 1917-18 was the "Arenas", that could not possibly be POV, it is official and encyclopedic.70.28.250.106 (talk) 12:13, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
But it can be incorrect, the NHL has gotten its own history wrong on more than one occasion in its various books. The Toronto team wasn't called the Arena's until 1918-19. The year after they won the cup. During they 1917-18 season they didn't have a name, but were commonly called the blueshirts in the papers which is why they are now known as the Toronto Blueshirts. But for the season of 1917-18 they didn't have a team name like teams of today have such as the Maple Leafs, Canadiens, Sabres etc. -DJSasso (talk) 12:18, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
It is anachronistic, but the 1917-18 team is more commonly called the Arenas today. It would be most accurate to call the team that season just the "Torontos" or the "Toronto Hockey Club", since the Blueshirts name more accurately reflects the NHA team that died with the demise of that league. Resolute 13:39, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Stanley Cup Wins

Should the first two Stanley cup wins be included? If you watch the video from the Leafs winning the cup in '67, Clarence Campbell says something along the lines of, the 1967 Stanley being the 11th win for the leafs. And if the leafs won the Stanley cup this season im sure they would say this is the 12th win, not the 14th. We could have a link going to somewhere on the page talking about pre "maple leafs" wins.99.234.231.54 (talk) 04:51, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Roster

Souldn't the roster be put in a organized list like rosters for MLB or NBA teams. Also, should the players that are shown on the training camp roster be added and then taken away when they are send somewhere else. (ex.minors) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.64.179.228 (talk • contribs) 21:46, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

It is: it's organized by position. Players on injured reserve are noted with a superscript next to their name, per ice hockey WikiProject standards. The roster is expanded currently because training camp is open; as players get assigned to the Marlies, etc., the roster size will condense - those players will be removed from the Leafs' roster. —C.Fred (talk) 21:56, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
Oops. The roster is sortable, so readers can arrange it as they see fit. Default is by name, but by number and by position are other obvious sortings. —C.Fred (talk) 21:59, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

"Leaf" v. "Leafs" Nation

To my knowledge, the term began as "Leaf Nation" while official Maple Leafs sources use "Leafs Nation." It seems to me that this would be to harmonise the term with their other marketing efforts. However, I don't believe it sounds as good. I also feel that the fans and the media came up with the original term and the marketing folks should respect that--it is, after all, the fans that support the team. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.246.154.79 (talk) 17:31, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Attendance

The Leafs haven't sold out every game at the Air Canada Centre.

The following games were not sold out since the Air Canada Centre opened:

Feburary 24th 1999 had 18,460 tickets sold October 11th 1999 had 18.637 tickets sold October 13th 1999 had 18,765 tickets sold October 8th 2001 had 18,585 tickets sold October 23rd 2002 had 18723 tickets sold October 31st 2002 had 18790 tickets sold


According to both the Wikipedia article on the ACC and the ACC website the capacity for hockey is 18,800. I did this a while ago and the attendance numbers seem to have changed or I was careless. Either way, they didn't sell out. Here's the link to the 2002 dates: http://www.nhl.com/ice/app?service=page&page=gamestats&fetchKey=20032TORAATAll&viewName=teamGameByGame&sort=gameDate&pg=3 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Htown (talk • contribs) 02:27, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

I'd have to agree. The cite for the every game sold out at ballparks.com, doesn't say that they sold out every game, but that they sell out night after night. Not a reliable source, where the nhl page should be considered to be. Alaney2k (talk) 15:22, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Team Captains

I put in the source for the team captains list, because often books do not list Corbeau as the first Leafs captain, although he was captain for the 26-27 season. So people would not remove Corbeau from the list. Alaney2k (talk) 15:16, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

I see, he was also the 'last captain' of the Toronto St. Patricks. GoodDay (talk) 21:20, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Rivalry section-poor!

The section on rivalries is without ANY references and much of it reads very casual and not "encyclopedic". Some of it may be correct, but when it comes down to it, it is likely just the opinions of wikipedia editors. Also some of the grammar isn't the best. Considering this article is rated "B" and was once a Feature candidate this is pretty lame. BashBrannigan (talk) 18:01, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

WP:SOFIXIT -DJSasso (talk) 18:17, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
Personally, I'm too busy at the moment and the only thing I could do now would be to delete the entire section, which I'm hesitant to do. BashBrannigan (talk) 22:11, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Practice facility?

I had removed the section on Leaf's practice facility, but another editor added it back in. I'm unconvinced that where the Leafs' practice is important enough for an entire separate section. Perhaps, if it was worked somewhere in the body of the article it might be better, but even then this seems trivial and only Leaf die-hards would even care. I also checked and where other teams in the NHL practice is not included. What do others think? To me, this type of "fan-triviality" is part of the problem with this article. BashBrannigan (talk) 22:15, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

I restored the section because your edit summary indicated that you meant to remove it from the infobox (which I agree it does not belong in) but you removed the section and left the infobox item. As for whether it belongs, I think I section on facilities would be appropriate, provided it discusses all of them neutrally and provides reliable sourcing. That's my complaint with the section: it's unreferenced. —C.Fred (talk) 22:20, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
Perhaps a section titled something along the lines of "Community", that would discuss the fan base, practice facilities, charitable endeavours, etc? Resolute 22:41, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
That should be included. Johnny Au (talk/contributions) 23:41, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Truculence

no mention? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.220.64.157 (talk) 05:21, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

No mention. That a blogger turned a word into a running joke does not make it notable. Resolute 06:38, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

History of the name is dubious

"After taking control on Valentine's Day 1927, Smythe immediately renamed the team the Maple Leafs (the Toronto Maple Leafs baseball team had won the International League championship a few months earlier and had been using that name for 30 years). The Maple Leafs say that the name was chosen in honour of the Maple Leaf Regiment from World War I."

30 years before 1927 was 1897. WWI wouldn't start for over a decade and half. So was the hockey team named after the baseball team, or the WWI regiment? If anyone who knows better could clarify this paragraph, that would be helpful.

Maybe something like, "The Maple Leafs say that the name was chosen in honour of the Maple Leaf Regiment from World War I, though the baseball Toronto Maple Leafs had been using that name since before the war." 128.237.251.176 (talk) 05:24, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Sure, go for it.  Ravenswing  11:15, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

There was no regiment in the Canadian Expeditionary Force of World War I called 'The Maple Leaf Regiment'. The Maple Leaf was, with the Crown, the symbol of the Canadian Expeditionary Force and most of the numbered battalions that were a part of it. Someone should tell the Maple Leafs organisation. Of course, the Maple Leafs hockey team even uses the dreadfully sanitized CBC version of 'The Maple Leaf Forever' so it is not surprising that they don't know their own history.pidd (talk) 20:14, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

You could well be correct , and you sound like you know what youre talking about, but you need references. I also had to revert because the way you edited made the sentence confusing and meaningless. BashBrannigan (talk) 23:33, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
Hockey teams, especially when nationalism is involved, are seldom sticklers for accurate history. Witness the Montreal Canadiens' continued insistence that they originated with the NHA's Les Canadiens franchise, rather than the Haileybury franchise they really took over.  ῲ Ravenswing ῴ  06:33, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Stavro Question

Please correct the notation about Stavro's first act being the hiring of Fletcher. This was done by my father; Don Giffin and was opposed by Stavro. The 90's ressurgence had little or nothing to do with Stavro. It should be noted that Don Giffin was instrumental in the initiating the turn around of that period. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.88.196.78 (talk) 20:27, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

More than the contentious sentence above, much of the Maple Leaf article is not sourced and has multiple other issues. Sadly, I tend to think it doesn't even qualify as a "B" article anymore. I've added a "citation needed" tag to the Stavro sentence subject of the above paragraph. There is also a "citation needed" from the previous sentence from october 2008. Of course, the identity of the above editor is not sufficient to add the information about Don Griffin provided. It would need independed sources also. BashBrannigan (talk) 20:54, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
The Giffen-Stavro period is covered in the book "Why the Leafs [censored]". Despite the title, it is written by an established newspaper sportswriter who covered the Leafs for most of the last 30 years. From my recollection, I believe it confirms the Giffin connection. Fletcher wanted more power than Stavro wanted to give up. Possibly a salary issue too. ʘ alaney2k ʘ (talk) 21:23, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
I should be able to get a copy of the book. Unless someone else can add it first, I'll try to get a citation from it. Thanks, BashBrannigan (talk) 23:17, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
Actually, I just found the following in the Cox/Stellick book '67, page 12: "Fletcher like to tell the story of how Stavro had insisted on driving him back to his hotel after Giffen had introduced him to the Leaf board in June 1991. The board had enthusiastically greeted Toronto's newest hockey saviour, but Stavro was not so welcoming and warned Fletcher he planned to fight his hiring. "Look, it's nothing personal," Stavro told Fletcher, tapping Fletcher on the leg repeatedly for emphais. "But I'm going to be running this operation and I have different people I want to run it."
That definitely seems to support the argument that Giffen hired Fletcher and not Stavro as is in the article now. I won't make any alterations immediately, but wait for any comments. BashBrannigan (talk) 23:32, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

I made the change. I'm confident that what was in the article was wrong and I've replaced it with referenced material. BashBrannigan (talk) 02:39, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Montreal Rivalry

I must defer to those more knowledgeable about the Leafs, but is this (in the lead) still true in the present tense "The Leafs are well known for their long and bitter rivalry with the Montreal Canadiens"? Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 19:43, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes, the Montreal rivalry is still valid. It's obviously more historical than current, but it's place in NHL and Canadian history is so great it would be wrong not to mention it. In fact, the problem with this section is not with the Toronto-Montreal rivalry, but with the others that are mentioned. There's no references given and it's doubtful that the Buffalo or Philadelphia are at all notable. BashBrannigan (talk) 21:16, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
Right. I'm convinced. Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 19:30, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
If you are not convinced at the Leafs-Habs rivalry, then I recommend that you read The Hockey Sweater and visit the College TTC subway station platform to view the murals. There are substantial amounts of discussion about the rivalry in art and literature. Johnny Au (talk/contributions) 02:38, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Longest Stanley Cup Drought

It should be said that they are tied for the longest drought with LA Kings and St. Louis Blues since none of the have won a cup ever since 1967, and the Kings and Blues entered the league in 1967. --Ajthepage (talk) 22:44, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

No, I'm sorry, but you're incorrect. Almost by definition the word "drought" implies a spell between two events. It wouldn't be correct to say that the Mojave Desert was having a drought since it never has had rain. Likewise, Kings and Blues aren't in the "middle" of a drought. Stanley Cup-wise, they've been in a desert! BashBrannigan (talk) 23:36, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

New Uniform Too Bright

The picture of the new uniform is perfect other than the abnormally bright blue. It's supposed to match the other jersey. If you don't believe me watch the press conference. The new jersey was the same colour as the jerseys worn by the other past captains. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.234.231.54 (talk) 23:58, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

I agree. Please speak with Rickyharder here, since he uploaded the image. Thank you. Johnny Au (talk/contributions) 01:56, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Roster Missing

The roster was vandalized, I dont know if im doing this right to report it?, but yes the roster has been deleted entirely and says its "current as Oct 5" also I would recommend there be a mild lock on what can be removed and added, not to block anything added just make sure its reviewed before edited. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.38.168.133 (talk) 22:46, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Restored. It wasn't vandalized, per se, but another editor appears to have attempted to clean up the roster (which is on a separate page, btw) but broke the syntax. Resolute 00:25, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from Changedude, 22 January 2011

{{edit semi-protected}} At the and of the caption under the photograph of the murals on the Toronto subway, after the last word "Gardens", add the following; ". The murals were painted by noted Canadian artist and Order of Canada recipient, Toronto-native Charles Pachter."

Changedude (talk) 06:05, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Here might be some sources:

http://www.theepochtimes.com/n2/content/view/49371/

http://transit.toronto.on.ca/spare/0008.shtml

BashBrannigan (talk) 22:16, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Not done: It seems tangential to the Toronto Maple Leafs article, so I'm not adding it here. However, I will add it to the description of the image. —C.Fred (talk) 23:00, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
That information is already stated in the more relevant article and has more relevant information: College (TTC). Johnny Au (talk/contributions) 00:27, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Mats Sundin Stats

I noticed that under the "Franchise Scoring Leaders" section Sundin was listed as having under 500 goals, under 1000 points, and under 600 assists. All of these are incorrect. Mats_Sundin#Career_statistics —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.130.179.8 (talk) 16:55, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Be aware those are his totals while he is with the Maple Leafs. Not his entire career. -DJSasso (talk) 17:00, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
Note that his time with the Nordiques and the Canucks increased his goals, points, and assists. Johnny Au (talk/contributions) 00:47, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

The Guardian Project

Should we mention the Guardian Project? The template {{NHL Team}} has a line for the Guardian Project as |guardian = minus the italics. Johnny Au (talk/contributions) 02:05, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

As long-time Maple Leaf fan, and putting aside all proper Wikipedia objectivity, since the Toronto superhero is "A giant walking and talking maple tree"... I beg you, please don't! BashBrannigan (talk) 03:05, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
As a Leafs fan, it would probably be best not to mention the Guardian Project, because new anti-Leaf jokes can be generated from a walking maple tree, especially as compared with the other teams' superheroes that may have "more superior" superpowers. If we were to mention the Guardian Project, expect vandalism (if it were unprotected or if it were here in the talk page) such as Haha, the Leafs have a sappy mascot! My favourite team has more awesome superpowers! Can your sappy mascot shoot awesome laser beams? Mine can. and the like. Hence, I brought this into discussion, but not add it into the main article, since it has strong potential to breach WP:NPOV policies. I just want to know if it is appropriate to mention it, after this edit was made. Johnny Au (talk/contributions) 03:25, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
I guess, to be serious, the question is actually whether it is notable? If it hasn't been mentioned in other news sources, then Wikipedia is just serving to advertise the comic. BashBrannigan (talk) 10:44, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
It's not. The template was just recently changed and reverted. Not important enough to be in an infobox. Barely important enough to be a single sentence in an article. -DJSasso (talk) 11:08, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
Yep, such changes were made in several team topics and just as promptly reverted. I don't consider this at all notable for the team articles, any more so than any other temporary and ephemeral promotion. Heck, a local hospital had a commercial on last night proclaiming it to be the "Official MRI" of the Bruins; we don't include lists of the teams' official sponsors of any given year.  Ravenswing  12:20, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
Agreed. I can't speak for elsewhere, but in Calgary, the entire Guardian Project thing went over like a lead balloon, so much so that the team never mentioned it again after the All-Star Break. For the team articles, this marketing gimmick is as trivial as trivia gets. Resolute 14:35, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
Come to that, the Guardian Project's website hasn't been updated since the All-Star Break. I suppose there'd be too many sources to AfD the article itself, but there's no room for this trivia anywhere around a hockey article.  Ravenswing  15:17, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
Three is not too many to put this article for AfD. In fact, many articles that have over three references were successfully deleted in the AfD. I will put it up in WP:AFD. Johnny Au (talk/contributions) 15:54, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
I wouldn't put it up. It was a major comic series by a major comic producer. Its clearly notable in its own right. Just not on the individual team pages. -DJSasso (talk) 16:15, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
Three is what's cited in the article, but I don't doubt that there are dozens of sources sufficient to qualify for WP:V, even if the majority of them are chuckling sports columnists writing WTF? articles.  Ravenswing  16:46, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
We need to find more reliable sources (ouside from blogs of course) for it to survive the deletion process. For now, it looks like a side project by a notable comic book artist and the article reads too much from an in-universe perspective anyways. Johnny Au (talk/contributions) 17:34, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Improving this Article

I'm thinking of taking a shot at improving this article. The article is rapidly falling apart and in danger of becoming an embarrassment. The biggest problems are with the newer sections. There is huge need for citations. It is often written very POV. There is also seems to be a lack of thought put into the structure. The entire "Brian Burke" section needs trimming if not removal. The "Fan Base" section is a good idea, but poorly written in content and prose. There needs to be thought into differentiating the article from the History of the Toronto Maple Leafs. The History article is in far better shape. I'm going to see what I can do to improve/fix it. Any help or suggestions would be very appreciated. BashBrannigan (talk) 22:09, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Much of the Brian Burke section was written by an IP user, who may not be familiar with Wikipedia policy. Bash, I even put a {{welcome}} template for the IP user, recommending him/her to register. Johnny Au (talk/contributions) 22:49, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
Yes, you're right, it's from one editor. But it probably all has to go. It's far too much detail. If you put this much detail for every trade every manager of the Leafs has made the article would be the size of War and Peace! BashBrannigan (talk) 02:19, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
A lot of that sort of information could go in the respective season articles where information of that nature is supposed to go but people rarely write about it there so the pages sit as mostly stats. -DJSasso (talk) 02:49, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
Here is the editor in question: 99.255.29.159. Maybe we can contact that editor as well. I welcomed the editor and gave him/her some hints. Johnny Au (talk/contributions) 03:08, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
Yes, the editor seems to mean well; using citations, etc. I could be moved to the "season articles" as mentioned above, but it would have to be edited. BashBrannigan (talk) 04:42, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
This article has been vastly improved. Johnny Au (talk/contributions) 02:10, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Label the year correctly

This is not how you label the year: 1966-67 it should be labeled like this: 1967 OK?

No that would be incorrect. The titles are for a season not for a single year. A team won the cup for the 1966-67 season not the 1967 season. -DJSasso (talk) 14:12, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
  • We are not labeling years. We label seasons. That is how the NHL does it, that is how Wikipedia does it, and that is how it's commonly done in the sports world for seasons which straddle years. Ravenswing 14:12, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
Note though that not all NHL teams do that. The Maple Leafs' Stanley Cup banners from Maple Leaf Gardens had it as 1942, 1945, 1947 etc. GoodDay (talk) 00:49, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Section on logo and uniform

I created a new section on the history of the Leaf logo and uniform. I have no doubt it needs copy editing and I will be doing it, but anyone would be welcome to help. There were a few major sources for this section. One of the most important was a pdf on the NHL.com website. It appears as if this is a pdf from a book [1] as it has a page number at the bottom. If anyone know what book this may have been from, please leave that information here. I used multiple sources to attempt confirm all the facts and dates. Obodiac's book has Leaf team pictures from 1926 to 1976 and I used that as a final visual confirmation. However, I didn't use it as a primary source as I assume that would be OR. I know that further editing will be needed; for example I've sometimes given a year, when a season would have been more appropriate. Any assistance or criticism would be appreciated. BashBrannigan (talk) 02:31, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from 142.179.125.4, 15 September 2011

The Toronto Rock have been a major sports team in Toronto ever since they won the nll lacrosse championship in 2010. I request that they be added to the list of major sports teams in toronto please.

142.179.125.4 (talk) 02:35, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

I don't see why the lead mentions any of the other major sports teams in Toronto. Doesn't seem relevant.BashBrannigan (talk) 02:42, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
It doesn't so its been removed. That belongs in an article about the city where it already is. -DJSasso (talk) 11:57, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

 Not done for the above reasons. It is irrelevant and all mentions of other sports teams have been removed. Johnny Au (talk/contributions) 16:02, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

History section size

I'm going to attempt to reduce the size of the history section. Its the same size as the main article on the history of the Leafs, so why bother having a separate article on the history? I'll attempt to turn it into a summary of the main article. Reducing the size will also allow other sections to increase in size without the article becoming too large. I felt I should clarify ahead what I was doing in case anyone freaks out. Please comment if you feel I've edited out anything significant. BashBrannigan (talk) 16:02, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

We can move some extra information to the History of the Toronto Maple Leafs article. We have to make sure that IP/new editors do not keep adding substantial amounts of minutiae into the history section of the main article. Good thing about semi-protection; it makes it easier to do major changes to the article. Johnny Au (talk/contributions) 23:19, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

New Alternate Uniform

Can someone edit the uniform picture with the new alternate uniform please? The pants for the alternate have a white stripe going down the side, I thought I should mention. 99.235.90.228 (talk) 23:01, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Please speak with Rickyharder here, who is responsible for the uniform picture. Johnny Au (talk/contributions) 23:29, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

I posted on his page more than a week ago and still no response. Is there any chance someone else can do it? 99.235.90.228 (talk) 23:11, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

He cleared his own page with an equals sign. All we have to do is to find another person willing to change it. Johnny Au (talk/contributions) 00:04, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
I googled "toronto maple leafs alternate jersey 2012" and what I saw looked no different than the current. What is the source for "white stripe going down the side."? BashBrannigan (talk) 03:08, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

The jersey is completely different. It's a replica of the one they wore in 1967-1970, their last stanley cup. It's blue. If you go to the leafs website there should be some info on it, including talking about the white stripe. 99.235.90.228 (talk) 21:07, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Here is a link about the jersey, listing all of its info with pictures. http://mapleleafs.nhl.com/club/news.htm?id=589543&navid=DL%7CTOR%7Chome&navid=DL%7CTOR%7Chome 99.235.90.228 (talk) 21:09, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

I noticed that the alternate uniform colour is a little off. It should probably be changed. 99.235.90.228 (talk) 22:26, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Only team not making the playoffs in this current CBA

Not would be worth it or sufficiently notable to add in the article, but just in one single sentence, but with the Florida Panthers making the playoffs this year, the Leafs are the only team who have not made the playoffs in the post-2005 lockout or the post-lockout CBA or something similar or just they have the longest active streak without a playoff participation. Just don't put too much173.179.155.183 (talk) 23:39, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

GA Checklist

Dom497 brought an idea to improve this article to GA status on my talk page. The checklist is to be written in this section. Johnny Au (talk/contributions) 02:09, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Here is what needs to be done to get this article to GA level. If I or someone else finds a issue with the article, list it in this checklist below.

Early years

  • Paragraphs 1, 2, 3 and 4 need references.

Conn Smythe era

  • Paragraph 1 and part of 2 need references.

1930s: Opening of Maple Leaf Gardens

  • ALL paragraphs in this section of the article need references.

1940s: A second decade of success

  • ALL paragraphs in this section of the article need references.

1950s: The Barilko Curse

  • Section needs references.

1960s: New owners and a new dynasty

  • ALL paragraphs in this section of the article need references.

1970s and 1980s: The Ballard years

  • This section needs additional references.

Early 1990s: Resurgence

  • This section needs additional references.

A new home and a new millennium

  • Entire section needs references.

Post-lockout era

  • Additional references are needed.

Brian Burke era

  • This statement needs a reference (should be extremely easy to find) : "On March 2, 2012, Burke fired Ron Wilson and named Randy Carlyle as the Head Coach."

History of the logo and uniform

  • "Over the years the Leaf uniform has had four major incarnations and numerous minor alterations." and "In 1942, the 35-point leaf was introduced. In 1946, the logo added trimming to the Leaf with a white or blue border and “C” for captain and “A” for alternate captain appeared on the sweaters for the first time. In 1947, the logo’s “Toronto Maple Leafs” was lettered in red for a short time. In 1958, a six-eyelet lace and tie was added to the neck and a blue shoulder yoke was added. In 1961, player numbers added to the sleeves." need references.
the references for these are in citations already present in the section. Although they may not be cited directly on each sentence. BashBrannigan (talk) 12:55, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Rivalries

Montreal Canadiens

  • Paragraph #2 needs references

Home rinks and practice facilities

Maple Leaf Gardens

  • Section needs references

Air Canada Centre

  • Section needs references

Fan base

  • Needs a few references.

Farm teams

  • Does this section need a reference or two?
Look through the other NHL team articles first, since it is considered a grey area. Johnny Au (talk/contributions) 17:00, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
Took a look, and I think this section should be deleted all together....it has nothing to do with the Leafs anyways.--Dom497 (talk) 17:27, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
They do actually. Minor league farm teams are part of the Leafs organization. Johnny Au (talk/contributions) 02:09, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
Current farm teams should be readily identifiable from the AHL website, etc. Former farm teams may be a bigger challenge. —C.Fred (talk) 02:14, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
Possible, but far more work than it's worth. Ravenswing 03:31, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Conclusion

Conclusion: My main concern about this article is the lack of references in some areas. This should be addressed in order for the article to have a chance at GA status. Regarding the Maple Leaf Gardens and Air Canada Section of the article, do they need references if a different article links to the section?--Dom497 (talk) 19:26, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Some of the sections also need some updating. Johnny Au (talk/contributions) 16:42, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
References are not the biggest problem to GA. There is a Leaf fandom POV to the history section. A rough word count gives the era from inception to 1970 as 1,901 words and from 1970 to the present is 1,941 words. In other words, the section dealing with the 42 years in which they never even made it to the finals is longer than the 53 years in which they won 13 Cups! The content of the post-1970 year deals with excess details and achievements that pale with those of other NHL teams during that time. The section title "Early 1990s: Resurgence" is overblown as a return to a modicum of respectability is what it was. Why single out "Brian Burke Era" when he's only been here 4 years? It's a daunting task to fix, but it needs objective editing.BashBrannigan (talk) 04:21, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
*Thank* you. Heavens, do I hate recentism. Ravenswing 13:21, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
I agree that there is too much recentism. Some of the stuff can go to the History of the Toronto Maple Leafs article. Johnny Au (talk/contributions) 02:10, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

2012-2013 Review

It would be great to do a review of the entire Toronto Maple Leafs article for the current season, as they are returning to the playoffs (and thus receive more attention from bandwagoners). Johnny Au (talk/contributions) 02:39, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Firsts for Kessel

Can someone add in brackets that the firsts for Kessel turned into Tyler Seguin and Dougie Hamilton? 144.137.4.219 (talk) 07:21, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Ravenswing. Here is the article that should have that information: Boston Bruins. Johnny Au (talk/contributions) 02:11, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

ECHL Affiliate

The Reading Royals are no longer the Toronto Maple Leafs ECHL affiliate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.233.250.58 (talk) 19:29, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

 Done Johnny Au (talk/contributions) 01:24, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Rivalries - Montreal Canadiens

Currently in par. 1: "Although the rivalry declined after Toronto defeated Montreal in the 1967 Cup Final, it reemerged in 2007. With one game left in the season, Toronto trailed Montreal for the final playoff spot in the Eastern Conference by only two points. Down 5–3 in the second period, the Leafs won 6–5, taking the spot from Montreal."

The above wording does not reflect the situation correctly, by insinuating that the Leafs comeback win propelled them into the playoffs at the expense of the Canadiens. Strictly speaking, a win or overtime loss would have put Montreal into the final playoff spot over the Leafs and New York Islanders. The Leafs needed a win in regulation time, combined with a loss by the Islanders the next day, in order to take the final playoff spot over the Canadiens and Islanders. The Leafs did their part by completing a third-period comeback against their historic rivals, putting the Canadiens out of contention. The Islanders, however, spoiled the Leaf's party by completing a shootout victory the following day against New Jersey (who were already in the playoffs). Furthermore, prior to the Leafs/Canadiens game, Toronto trailed Montreal in the standings by one point, not two. Scores and dates taken from http://www.nhl.com/ice/scores.htm?date=04/07/2007 and http://www.nhl.com/ice/scores.htm?date=04/08/2007.

Suggested rewording:

"Although the rivalry declined after Toronto defeated Montreal in the 1967 Cup Final, it reemerged in 2007. With one game left in the season, Toronto trailed Montreal for the final playoff spot in the Eastern Conference by a single point. Down 5–3 in the second period, the Leafs won 6–5, taking the spot from Montreal. (However, the spot was ultimately claimed by the New York Islanders, who won their final game of the season the following day.)" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.14.84.61 (talk) 00:52, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Spelling? Leaves instead of Leafs?

The plural of leaf is leaves, not leafs. Why did the Toronto Ice Hockey team choose a wrong spelling? Is it a Canadian thing? 93.219.131.242 (talk) 07:56, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

Read here: Toronto Maple Leafs#Conn Smythe era. It is a misspelling that actually stuck. You might say that the Boston Red Sox and the Chicago White Sox chose the wrong spelling of "Socks" and say that it is an American thing. Johnny Au (talk/contributions) 14:19, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
The name of the team is the "Toronto Maple Leaf Hockey Club", a player would be a "Toronto Maple Leaf", which is proper name, and therefore the plural is "Toronto Maple Leafs". It has nothing to do with the plural of the noun leaf and is not a misspelling. Secondarywaltz (talk) 17:09, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
Secondarywaltz has the correct answer. It's a failure of our education system to teach proper grammar that this question keeps coming up. BashBrannigan (talk) 19:49, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
Agreed. The IP user who started the thread is not a native English speaker. Johnny Au (talk/contributions) 22:39, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

TML logo text should be changed to read something to the effect that this is a former logo, used from 2000 - 2007. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 153.2.246.30 (talk) 12:49, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

That will be done. Johnny Au (talk/contributions) 02:05, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
 Done Johnny Au (talk/contributions) 02:04, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Redundant sentence.

"They won their last championship in 1967. The 45-year drought between championships is currently the NHL's longest. They are the only "Original Six" team which has not won the Stanley Cup championship since."

To me, this is a looping sentence. My first interpretation was, The Maple Leafs are the only of the original six that have failed to win the Stanley cup, since the last time the leafs have won the Stanley cup.

I think it should be re-phrased to something along the lines of "The Toronto Maple Leafs hold the longest number of seasons between Stanley cup wins." or the like.

My main concern is that it reads loopy, the way it stands now. Am I wrong? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.88.153.244 (talk) 00:34, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

You're right. I simply removed the statement about the Original six for now, as it is meaningless as phrased. Resolute 01:54, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Update to GA checklist

Should we create an updated version of the GA checklist? Some have changed by then. Johnny Au (talk/contributions) 00:47, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

100th anniv

According to this [2], the 2017 WHJC will be used a the centrepiece of centennial celebrations -- 65.94.79.6 (talk) 08:22, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Glaring error

Although the rivalry declined after Toronto defeated Montreal in the 1967 Cup Final, it reemerged in 2007. With one game left in the season, Toronto trailed Montreal for the final playoff spot in the Eastern Conference by only two points. Down 5–3 in the second period, the Leafs won 6–5, taking the spot from Montreal.[36]

This is incorrect. Yes Toronto trailed Montreal. However, neither team made the playoffs. New York Islanders took 8th with 92. Leafs had 91. Canadiens had 90. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.1.124.211 (talk) 03:10, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

It's worded awkwardly, but I think the point is that Toronto's win deprived the Habs of two points and kept them out of the playoffs. —C.Fred (talk) 03:38, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
I get the point. But this literally implies that Toronto took 8th, Montreal missed, and Islanders don't exist. 122.1.124.211 (talk) 03:45, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
That also presumes that winning a single game that affected a playoff berth signifies the restart of a rivalry. I not only find that notion absurd, I'm wondering where the sources are that stipulate the same? Ravenswing 07:12, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
I am utterly confused. Please fix it. Johnny Au (talk/contributions) 16:13, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

I'm just going to take it out because it's wrong anyways.Correctron (talk) 02:55, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Since I can't edit it, someone needs to fix it or remove it.Correctron (talk) 02:56, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
...and now you do and you made the correction. Johnny Au (talk/contributions) 02:22, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 June 2014

In the section concerning the reason for the Maple Leafs name under the "Conn Smythe Era" it states that the Maple Leafs baseball team had been using the name 30 years prior to the hockey team picking it up in 1927. The next sentence states that it was named after the World War I regiment. But, with WWI not starting till 1914 that is just not possible if the baseball team received their name in 1893. If you go to the Maple Leafs official website they state Conn Smythe picked the name after the Maple leaf badge all soldiers wore, and Smythe, being a military man, found that a fitting emblem. Therefore, it had less to do with the Great War and more just a homage to the Canadian Military. While I may be taking those sentences back-to-back too literally, I feel it may be worth editing.

98.224.232.167 (talk) 03:50, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Not done for now: I read that as in 1927 the hockey team was named after the 1914 WWI regiment. That would make sense to me, would it not make sense to you as well? — {{U|Technical 13}} (e • t • c) 14:11, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
Done I take that next sentence to refer to the hockey team, not the baseball team. Nonetheless, I've done an edit which should lead fewer people to scratch their heads. Ravenswing 17:55, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
Used Canadian English as well. Johnny Au (talk/contributions) 02:12, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

TML Front Office

I was wondering what people thought about including more information about the Leafs' front office (I mean the team proper...not MLSE) - there are some things (such as the hiring of Shanahan, etc.) that bear mentioning, imo. I certainly don't think it warrants a separate section - but do others think that some of the more notable changes would fit under, say, the "Dave Nonis Era" subsection (which is out of date as it is, i think). Phil Kessel (talk) 03:17, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

  • Not in this article, in any event. Teams hire and fire people all the time, and those changes aren't any more notable than those of any other era (which are, as I see, seldom mentioned). That info's more appropriate for the separate history article or for the pertinent Leafs' season articles. Ravenswing 07:32, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Ravenswing I get where you're coming from and I think that, overall, you're right. However, I do think that the hiring of Shanahan himself warrants mention under 'nonis era' - b/c imo his hiring is a 'notable event' for the nonis period...there have already been organizational changes since he came on board, and probably more in the future. ITA w/ you that usual hiring/firings shouldn't be included - you're right...it's easy to get off track with that. I've put in some language in the 'nonis era' section re shanahan's hiring (and left the recent org changes at that). If you're think there's a better way of phrasing things then plz go ahead - but i do strongly feel that shanahan's hiring warrant's a mention. GLG GLG (talk) 05:34, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
    • If you go back and include every similar hiring in team history in the main article, sure, that's okay. If not, then this is just recentism. Ravenswing 05:39, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
      • you posted while i was trying to edit my numerous embarrassing grammar mistakes - so it didn't go through. but fwiw i did notice them. re recentism - we have sub sections for 'eras' re the 2 most recent GMs - so wouldn't that be a very good example of the same? So long as we're having a 'nonis era' sub section, I think it's germane to mention Shanahan has been hired b/c i think it's a defining moment of the 'nonis era'...the next one being when nonis and carlyle get fired - but we'll leave that until the 'day of'. GLG GLG (talk) 05:47, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

We should update the GA checklist for 2015

It is 2015 and it would be a good year to update the GA checklist. Johnny Au (talk/contributions) 03:19, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 February 2015

The Toronto Maple Leafs (officially the Toronto Maple Leaf Hockey Club) is a professional ice hockey team based in Toronto, Ontario, Canada. They are members of the Atlantic Division in the Eastern Conference of the National Hockey League (NHL). The team is one of the "Original Six" league members. They are owned by Maple Leaf Sports & Entertainment, Ltd. and are represented by chairman Larry Tanenbaum. Their general manager is Dave Nonis. Their interim head coach is Peter Horacek.[2][3] In February 1999 they moved to Air Canada Centre, which replaced Maple Leaf Gardens, their home since 1931. Tankmurdoc (talk) 03:08, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Please be more specific on what is needed to be changed as per the above semi-protected edit request template. Johnny Au (talk/contributions) 03:16, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. Edgars2007 (talk/contribs) 06:03, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

1.7 Post-2004–05-lockout era

Re the post-lockout eras - the current "era" the Leafs are under is the "Davis Nonis" era. This should probably be changed. I didn't change it myself, b/c I wasn't sure of what the 'best revision' would be. I'll think about it. But wanted to flag the issue for those more quick thinking than I am - who might think of a good way to correct things. GLG GLG (talk) 06:42, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

 Done by Djsasso Johnny Au (talk/contributions) 14:10, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

Someone more interested should probably also condense the whole section so that it doesn't smack of recentism. -DJSasso (talk) 15:12, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps some of the material can be moved to History of the Toronto Maple Leafs. Johnny Au (talk/contributions) 13:45, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

Edit Request-Dubas/Hunter should be co-GM

I think Kyle Dubas and Mark Hunter should be listed as co GM's of Toronto, replacing "Vacant".Mhoppmann (talk) 18:07, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

  • The team, however, doesn't agree. The Leafs' web page lists Dubas as "Assistant General Manager" and Hunter as "Director Player Personnel," and we can't appoint people to positions that Shanahan's declined to do. Ravenswing 05:32, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
    • Are they the guys essentially acting as GMs with no permanent "General Manager" planned to be hired? If so, then we probably need to make some sort of change. Given the proliferation of the President of Hockey Operations role in the NHL, I've been thinking for some time now that we need to revisit the infobox structure. Resolute 14:03, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 September 2015

On July 1st, 2015 the Leafs traded Phil Kessel, Tyler Biggs, Tim Erixon, and a second round pick to the Pittsburg Penguins for Nick Spaling, Kasperi Kapanen, Scott Harrington, a conditional first round pick, and a third round pick.

Pittsburgh is misspelled:

On July 1st, 2015 the Leafs traded Phil Kessel, Tyler Biggs, Tim Erixon, and a second round pick to the Pittsburgh Penguins for Nick Spaling, Kasperi Kapanen, Scott Harrington, a conditional first round pick, and a third round pick Dudaspm (talk) 13:18, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

Done Also fixed the formatting of the date (July 1st) and removed an extra space before the reference at the end of that paragraph. @Dudaspm: Thank you for pointing that out! —C.Fred (talk) 14:01, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

Proposal for New Section

The formatting can be played around with, but how well received would a new section detailing the Leafs' current front office be? The front office is an integral part of the team, and all the information is gathered directly from the Leafs website.

Front Office section example

General Manager: Lou Lamoriello       Head Coach: Mike Babcock

-Uncleben85 (talk) 20:06, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

  • I'd say No, myself. A lot of those posts are minor and ephemeral, and keeping those listings up to date would be a good bit of work; I expect the organization would be unlikely to issue a press release stating that they'd replaced their Assistant Athletic Therapist. I'd suggest that for those readers with a burning desire to know who (or whether) the Leafs have as "Player Evaluation Consultants" or "Video and Technical Services Analysts" can just go to the Leafs' website. Ravenswing 23:58, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
  • I agree with Ravenswing. While Wikipedia does incorporate elements of media guides, as a matter of practicality, we simply include add all aspects of one into our articles. In this case, lists of overwhelmingly non-notable people is not something I would favour for inclusion. Resolute 00:05, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Some of the people on that list don't even have articles, therefore, I agree with Ravenswing on this and therefore, all of these tidbits should not be included. Johnny Au (talk/contributions) 02:17, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
  • I'm not a fan of those boxes (some NHL team articles use boxes for their GMs, coaches & captains, which I dislike) & besides, those aren't highly notable positions. GoodDay (talk) 02:52, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
  • I seriously doubt that any of the physicians in the medical staff are notable enough for mention on Wikipedia for example. Johnny Au (talk/contributions) 16:36, 25 October 2015 (UTC)


All understandable points. I included exactly what was listed on the Leafs Front Office page on their website. Would there be value in including just the higher level management team (stop at Fletcher) and coaching team? Those two sections are much more notable, and information that readers may actually be curious of. -Uncleben85 (talk) 21:03, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

Where's Leo Komarov?

What's the situation with Leo Komarov? At his article, he's listed a playing with the Maple Leafs. But, he's no longer listed on their current roster, here. GoodDay (talk) 12:23, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

Ok, I didn't see his name in the current roster section, earlier. No prob, I see him now. GoodDay (talk) 20:55, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

typo in "Fan base" section

"...where fans have thrown Leafs jerseys onto the ice to show disgust for the team's poor performances *in since* the past few decades." <suggest remove the word "since"> — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.246.34.112 (talk • contribs)

Thank you, I've corrected it. Gloss 21:30, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Maple leafs tickets are not hard to acquire

The article contains the text: "Maple Leafs home games have long been one of the toughest tickets to acquire even during losing seasons.[65]" The statement misrepresents the information in the citation. The tickets are not hard to get. Just walk up to the stadium and buy one from the tens of people standing there and selling tickets. I don't disagree that tickets can be fairly expensive and that the leafs sell out a lot, but that is not precisely the same as the tickets being tough to get, which they are not. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.161.62.138 (talk) 14:35, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

There is no doubt one can purchase tickets through scalpers, but you need a reliable source to back this up or else this would be original research, which is not allowed. Read here: WP:OR. Johnny Au (talk/contributions) 15:04, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

First, I just read the article cited and it does not say that leaf tickets are "tough to acquire". Second, if you need a reference for the ability to buy tickets on the street, here is one: http://www.theglobeandmail.com/sports/hockey/leafs-beat/leafs-seats-increasingly-going-empty-as-team-bottoms-out/article23589820/ . I am not suggesting that anybody includes this new reference, just that the original wording be modified so that it is no longer incorrect. I think that being correct trumps any requirement for no original "research", though you can meet both requirements by either rewording or simply removing that sentence. Or, if you don't mind that it is incorrect, then I suppose you can just leave it as it is. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.246.34.112 (talk) 22:05, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

@Ravenswing:, @GLG GLG:, @Resolute:, and @Walter Görlitz:, what are your thoughts on this? I would like to get more opinions before I would add it. Johnny Au (talk/contributions) 02:18, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
It's made the news so it's difficult. It's the first sport in a market of more than 10 million people, and has a stadium that at beast seats 20,000. Seasons tickets are bought and sold like stocks. Passed from parents to children. Individual seats go quickly. Walter Görlitz (talk) 02:22, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

I haven't yet read about whether or not the cites accurately reflect what is being said, however I would say that the statement as presented is accurate. It is clearly referring to regular ticket sales, not the secondary/scalper market. Every team's tickets are easy to get if you're willing to meet a scalper's price. Resolute 03:24, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

  • Well, for one thing, if the source doesn't say "one of the toughest tickets to acquire," the article shouldn't say it either. Beyond that, compared to what? Other hockey teams? Sports generally? Entertainment in the GTA? Sourced from where? Yes, I've heard anecdotes about how tough it is to get a ticket to a Leafs game. And when someone comes up with reliable sources not only saying so, but comparing the numbers to other teams/sports, we can put that in. Ravenswing 06:15, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

The tickets aren't tough to acquire. Even if the game is sold out there are always a bunch on stub hub - and if it's a mid-week game against a less popular team (Carolina, Columbus, etc) you can usually get them below face. I also don't understand how you measure "toughest to acquire" - through attendance as a % of capacity? In any event, I don't think that the addition of that comment is helpful to the article. Lol, a more accurate statement would be to reference to price of the tickets having regard to the team's consistent failure. GLG GLG (talk) 14:22, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

That section of the article is outdated and needs much clarification upon closer inspection. Johnny Au (talk/contributions) 02:19, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
Perhaps is it a good time to update this section? Johnny Au (talk/contributions) 03:12, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

Time to update Maple Leafs new logo?

Seeing that Leafs have officially unveiled their new logo, is it time to change the Leafs logo on top of page? the last remnant of the Ballard days has officially come to an end.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.237.224.154 (talk • contribs)

Yes, the logo needs to be changed. The logo on the article is not the current logo the team is using. - 104.158.6.132 (talk) 04:42, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Of course not. The logo in use today is the one that's been on the article all along, and will be so through to the end of the season. The jerseys won't change until, according to THN, the 2016 Entry Draft. Ravenswing 06:07, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
The logo at the top of the page is the current logo, and will be until the end of the season. Once the new one actually comes in use, then we can switch. -Uncleben85 (talk) 03:18, 4 February 2016 (UTC)


The main logo and the ones on the sweaters have been changed DakotaJumpen (talk) 01:54, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

I have added a hidden note in the infobox not to change the logo until the start of the 2016–17 season. Johnny Au (talk/contributions) 17:37, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

I would suggest that it would be appropriate to place the new logo at the top now. As of June 10, the team has made the change on their web site and on Twitter, and all the references on nhl.com are to the new logo. Bjhtn (talk) 05:01, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

 Done The logo has been updated, though not by me. Johnny Au (talk/contributions) 02:12, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

New Uniforms in info box

Leafs have officially unveiled their entire new sets, home and away, new sweaters, pants, socks, needs to be included in the box again like all other teams. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.227.127.250 (talk) 03:31, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

Jake Gardiner's age is incorrect

On his wiki page it says his birthday is July 4th 1990 and that he is 25 years old. This page lists him as 26, I understand though that he will officially turn 26 in less than a week so not sure if it's worth the effort of changing it, cheers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.227.127.250 (talk) 04:38, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

Retired numbers

The Maple Leafs have retired all honored numbers, along with Keon's. Joining them with Bailey's & Barillko's. GoodDay (talk) 00:27, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

Legends Row

I believe this should be mentioned in some form as the Leafs organization have been creating statues to honour some of their past players. --SimN (talk) 08:41, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

Toronto Maple Leafs Stanley Cups

While it may be argued that the franchise has won thirteen Stanley Cups, in fact, the Toronto Maple Leafs have only won eleven. In 1918 they were known as just Toronto or The Toronto "Arenas," and in 1922 they were the Toronto St. Patricks - as the article itself states.

I think it should be changed from "The Maple Leafs have won thirteen Stanley Cup championships..." to "The franchise has won thirteen Stanley Cup championships..." or "The Maple Leafs have won eleven Stanley Cup championships..." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hokstad (talk • contribs) 22:23, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

I think that is unnecessary semantics, really. It is all one franchise, known currently as the Maple Leafs. In this context, "franchise" and "Maple Leafs" are synonymous. Resolute 01:22, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
I agree. Johnny Au (talk/contributions) 00:53, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

I disagree. It is not "unnecessary" semantics. All language is essentially nuanced and based on semantics. However, writing "The Maple Leafs have won thirteen Stanley Cup championships..." is unnecessarily incorrect. Take a look at the Boston Red Sox article; it makes great effort to distinguish between early seasons as the Boston Americans, or simply "Boston." Why? Because it allows a reader to understand the early years - and it is factually correct. Not for semantics sake. The Maple Leafs have not won 13 Cups; however, the Maple Leafs franchise has. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hokstad (talk • contribs) 00:14, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

I also agree that it should be 11 and not 13 and just made an edit to reflect that. The Arenas and the St. Patricks both have their own Wikipedia pages. They are recognized as different Teams on Wikipedia as well as in history itself. The 1 Cup that The Arenas won is listed on their Wiki Page, same goes for the St. Patricks. There is a distinct difference between a Franchise and a Team. If the Quebec Nordiques had won a Stanley Cup, and someone tried to claim that Stanley Cup for the Colorado Avalanche as well, would we still be having this argument? 3 different teams but all part of the same Franchise. So it is correct to say The Toronto Franchise has won 13 Stanley Cups but the Toronto Maple Leafs have only won 11. Sparhawk85 (talk) 16:19, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

Let me counter that with this argument. Say, in 2002, Anaheim beat Detroit for the cup, would the Anaheim Ducks now have 2 Stanley Cups or 1? Technically, they were the Anaheim Mighty Ducks in 2002 and changed their name. Which is essentially what Toronto did between 1917->1927 . I understand there are separate wikipedia entries for the all 3 teams (which there shouldn't be, really) 142.134.203.121 (talk) 18:46, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
The NHL considers them one team. The Hockey Hall of Fame also recognized 13. oknazevad (talk) 19:36, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

Leafs have only won 11 CUPS

The article indicates that the leafs have won 13 Stanley Cups ... I believe the to be incorrect ... they have only won 11 Stanly Cups ...

1932 1342 1945 1947 1948 1949 1951 1962 1963 1964 1967

please correct me if I am wrong, or fill in the blanks for the other 2 cups ..

thank you— Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.102.89.9 (talk)

1918 as the Arena Hockey Club (Toronto Arenas) and 1922 as the Toronto St. Patricks. Different nicknames, but the same franchise. Resolute 13:56, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

--- ok then thank you .... I was just going with the LEAF name .. I stand corrected ... thank you .. btw, I like the St. Pats logo, uniform, etc. ... 

however, the article reads, "The Maple Leafs have won thirteen Stanley Cup championships, "

it should read, The Toronto hockey FRANCHISE ... Leafs only won 11 ;-p

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.102.89.9 (talk) 14:32, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

The Toronto Maple Leaf Hockey Club has won 13. As the first sentence of the article notes, we're referring to them shorthand throughout the article as the Toronto Maple Leafs, so the sentence is correct. —C.Fred (talk) 16:05, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
Agreed, though it can be clarified. Johnny Au (talk/contributions) 02:13, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
Incorrect. Proper terminology would be "The Toronto Franchise". The Maple Leafs are the current team. The Franchise is Toronto itself. For all we know next year they could be sold again and the new owners could rebrand them again and change their name to the "Toronto Beavers" or something silly like that. Sparhawk85 (talk) 17:06, 12 February 2017 (UTC)Sparhawk85
Then the Toronto Beavers have won 13 cups. Stop creating your own definitions for things. Correctron (talk) 03:11, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

New picture of Leafs uniforms not correct set

The photo depicting the Leafs uniform set is incorrect, the socks and pants are correct but it shows 2 stripes on the jersey waist when the new sweaters have 1 stripe on the waist. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.227.127.250 (talk) 04:52, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

We should check the image below. Johnny Au (talk/contributions) 00:01, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 February 2017

Change the jersey image to [this] because the current image portrays the incorrect jerseys Rohan.saigaonkar97 (talk) 21:56, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

Done —MRD2014 📞 What I've done 03:14, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
Actually, that might be a non-free image that is on Commons. Reopening request. —MRD2014 📞 What I've done 03:16, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
The image should be removed from Wikimedia Commons and re-uploaded to Wikipedia, albeit as fair use, since the Toronto Maple Leafs logo is copyrighted. Johnny Au (talk/contributions) 12:25, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
Done — Train2104 (t • c) 06:12, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

Logic of valuation statements in lead

"With an estimated worth of US $1.15 billion, the Leafs are the third most valuable franchise in the NHL, behind the Montreal Canadiens and the New York Rangers. In 2015, they were ranked by Forbes as the 37th most valuable sports team in the world (and the only NHL team to be in the top 50)."

A team cannot be the only one of its type in the top 50 globally and merely be third amongst others in its league. One of the statements should be removed or the paragraph better elaborated. Dontreadalone (talk) 01:23, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

Not just that, but when were the Leafs valued at US$1.15 billion? Johnny Au (talk/contributions) 02:07, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
In 2015. Forbes. -DJSasso (talk) 15:43, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
 Done but it still doesn't make sense as in how can Forbes list the Leafs as the most valuable franchise and the third-most valuable franchise in the same season. Only one of those may be true. Johnny Au (talk/contributions) 02:09, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

GA Review

GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Toronto Maple Leafs/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: DannyMusicEditor (talk · contribs) 22:00, 31 March 2017 (UTC)


Okay, since I became a hockey fan a little while ago (go Pens, and no, I'm not a bandwagon) AND I'm an experienced editor, I can take this. I don't know a lot of original six history, or even much about the Leafs, but I know enough about Wikipedia to say this is definitely a fail. The nominator was completely uninvolved with the project [3], though I do have to give props to Johnny Au for his work so far. The big thing is that many parts of the article are missing citations, and the article is deceivingly pretty at first ("early years section").

It just gets uglier after that. Conn Smythe barely has any cites on his section, and from then on, you don't see a single footnote until Ballard's years (which still only has one). Way too much research and time necessary for me to hold this. Some places I've skimmed through also have POV violations, and prose might do better with a copyedit.

not "The Maple Leaf Regiment" but the Maple Leaf, the national symbol

The article says:

The Maple Leafs say that the name was chosen in honour of the Maple Leaf Regiment from World War I

This is a crock, as you can see by Googling "Maple Leaf Regiment"; you get only links about the hockey team.

The Maple Leafs, and the minor-league baseball team whose name they copied, are named after the Maple Leaf, the symbol of Canada. The story is told by this page on the Leafs' site at NHL.com, which says:

[Conn Smythe] chose the name Maple Leafs because the grand majority of Canadian military regiments in World War I wore a maple leaf badge

This was mistakenly transformed into a particular regiment. The article also says:

As the regiment is a proper noun, its plural is Maple Leafs (not Maple Leaves).

What does this mean? The regiment isn't a noun (and, of course "regiment" isn't a proper noun). "Maple Leaf Regiment" is indeed a proper noun (though the unit it names, as I mention, does not exist), but that has a regular plural, "Maple Leaf Regiments", and, in any case, that isn't the hockey team's name.

This section should read more like:

The team is named for the Maple Leaf, the national symbol of Canada. A minor-league baseball team in Toronto had used the name "Maple Leafs" since 1896. Conn Smythe, who was a Canadian Army officer and World War I POW, decided to give the same name to his hockey team, in honor of the many Canadian soldiers who wore the Maple Leaf.
Because "Maple Leaf" (the name of the national symbol), is a proper noun, it has a regular plural, "Maple Leafs" instead of an irregular plural like the common noun "leaves". ("The Maple Leafs raked the maple leaves" is a grammatical, if far-fetched, example.)

TypoBoy (talk) 03:28, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

The oldest use of "Leafs" is with the minor league baseball team, which was established almost two decades before the start of the First World War. Therefore, I agree with your proposed change. Johnny Au (talk/contributions) 15:16, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
Since nobody has objected (so far), I'll swap in the text above and put a link to this discussion in my edit summary. TypoBoy (talk) 12:57, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
Done. I did retain the (uncited and kind of dubious) claim that Smythe's having scouted a team called the East Toronto Maple Leafs was somehow related. But I added a [citation needed] tag to point out its sourcelessness and a [by whom?] tag to highlight its suspicious failure to say who is claiming that Smythe scouted the team and named the Leafs after it. Perhaps somebody can either find a cite and fill in the gaps or remove that questionably-relevant factoid. TypoBoy (talk) 13:21, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

Franchise Value

"With an estimated worth of US $1.15 billion in 2015 according to Forbes,[4] the Leafs are the third most valuable franchise in the NHL, behind the Montreal Canadiens and the New York Rangers. In 2015, they were ranked by Forbes as the 37th most valuable sports team in the world (and the only NHL team to be in the top 50)."

That information is conflicting. How can they be the 3rd most valuable NHL team, but be the only NHL team in the Top 50 Most Valuable Sports Franchises? I.e. the NHL teams that were in first and second should also be in the Top 50 list. The answer is that those factoids come from different dates, but in the text this isn't clear and so it appears to conflict. Perhaps one of those facts should be removed, or more recent information should be found.

142.134.58.229 (talk) 12:25, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

It's still not have been fixed... Johnny Au (talk/contributions) 15:28, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

Article's status as of June 28, 2017

Moved here from discussion on the last GAN page.

@DannyMusicEditor:

User:Leventio is making major cleanups to the article. We should do another review. Johnny Au (talk/contributions) 16:08, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

@Johnny Au: I appreciate looking at much more quality work on this article than what was previously presented. That being said, now that it is in such improved condition after my review, I do not know that I would be able to review it fairly and properly, the only reason I reviewed this at first is because I knew it was nowhere near what was required and I just happened to see it was a GAN due to my preference settings saying "Currently a good article nominee", so even knowing it was a GAN was quite an accident. I delivered the necessary quick-fail and that was that. My editing expertise is in music and not hockey (hockey is just another thing I love), and on the off-chance that this is farther than I think it is from GA content-wise, I would not and do not wish to make a whole fiasco at GAR.

Update: You know what, I re-read the article, and the prose is actually quite coarse. Some of it looks like broken English to me. Needs some serious copyediting before taking this to GAN again, but this is nonetheless a significant improvement and a lot closer. To try this again, you would need to follow the instructions here and a new nomination and review page would be created. dannymusiceditor Speak up! 19:22, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

I mainly focused on providing references to the history section, and expanded certain sections, while reducing other parts. I was going to start moving on from history section to work on the citations in other sections. That said though, the history section is not entirely done (I haven't checked the citations provided for post-1990s, and some parts of the 2000s just dont have a citation). Some of the other sections could also use more citations (I'd wager thats that biggest critique against this article getting GAN), which admittingly shouldn't be too hard to fix (just tedious). After finishing the references I was planning on submitting this the WP:GUILD for copyediting. Wasn't planning on submitting to GAN (no reason why not, just didn't consider it), but I think the article would probably be ready for a nomination once we fix up the citations, and get this article copyedited (a WP:PR request would help too, but I don't think its entirely necessary). Leventio (talk) 23:36, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
That would be excellent. Johnny Au (talk/contributions) 02:32, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
So I finished adding sources to the article, and Twofingered Typist of the Guild has finished his CE. I submitted this article for a GA nomination, but I'm guessing it'll take a while to get that started, so feel free to correct anything else you folks may see as an issue. Leventio (talk) 23:10, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Toronto Maple Leafs. 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) 14:26, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

Full name of team in first sentence

I noticed that someone made a slight edit to the first sentence. It is supposed to read "officially the Toronto Maple Leaf Hockey club", but someone pluralized the word "Leaf". This is incorrect. The official name of the team is indeed the "Toronto Maple Leaf Hockey Club". Does everyone agree that this should be reverted? Harrison401 (talk) 19:35, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

@Leventio: was the one who pluralized it. Johnny Au (talk/contributions) 02:11, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
He is correct and its my bad, Toronto Maple Leaf Hockey Club is the correct spelling. Leventio (talk) 04:06, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
I have added a note. Johnny Au (talk/contributions) 13:14, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Toronto Maple Leafs. 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) 12:57, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 January 2018

There is a mistake in the years the club was started. Gabemorassut (talk) 02:38, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. Sakura CarteletTalk 03:21, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Toronto Maple Leafs. 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) 18:20, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

St Patricks image

The bot will keep removing the St. Patricks image as the NFC tag it uses only gives the St. Patricks article the right to use it. That said, I'm pretty sure the image is a free one as its crafted nearly 100 years ago (so it should be in the public domain, which is the license the newer St. Pat logo uses). Not really sure why the image has a NFC tag (maybe copyright renewal?), which was why I refrained from changing the tag to a PD one. But anyhow, if we wanna restore the St. Pats image, were going to have to figure that out (and then correct the image tag), or the bot is just gonna take it down again. Leventio (talk) 23:03, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

The logo is in the public domain in Canada, but apparently, the bot assumes that copyright is life plus 70 years, which is true in the United States (and will be true in Canada per the USMCA) and Wikipedia is an American website. Johnny Au (talk/contributions) 01:17, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
Thats the thing, I was under the impression that copyright for English-language/American-published images before 1923 were not under the purviews of American copyright, and fell in the public domain (so USMCA shouldn't really be an issue here). Considering the image was created prior to 1923 (or rather its a rendition of a logo from 1919), shouldn't the license be changed to reflect its an image in the public domain (unless it has some sort of extended copyright? Again, not sure). Leventio (talk) 02:41, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
So, two thoughts here. First, it's not even a logo, but a wordmark. It's doubtful that it's even copyright eligible in the US as it fails to reach a threshold of originality. Second, however, I don't see it as even being necessary in this article. Even as a free image, it adds nothing at all to a section that is already overloaded with five other logo images, including a different St. Pats wordmark. My inclination is to support leaving it out, even if it's deemed fully free use. Resolute 15:17, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
I agree with Resolute. The article is about the Toronto Maple Leafs and there's already a Toronto St. Patricks article. Johnny Au (talk/contributions) 16:13, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
That was my thoughts as well. -DJSasso (talk) 16:57, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
I'm in agreement as well. I removed the content associated with the image from the article. However, my concern is still with the tagging of the image (there are several Toronto Maple Leaf images that are presently tagged incorrectly and I'm trying to get them retagged (the NFC image bot has been removing several Maple Leafs associated images [another being the File:Toronto Maple Leafs wordmark 2016.png], so I'm trying to correct them before it removes it from other articles). Essentially if no one has concerns of this being an NFC image (wordmarks are not applicable for copyright, but some do have trademark protection), I will be correcting the tag with a PD wordmark tag.
Also since, since were on the topic, I'm assuming the current Toronto Maple Leafs wordmark is also not trademarked? The wordmark has been removed by the same bot (it isn't used in this article, so I didn't bring it up here), but it essentially has the same issue as this image. Leventio (talk) 21:41, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

Freddie

Add Frederick Andersen to the alltime winningest goalies as of today (March 15/19) he has 104 wins with the leafs — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.96.113.176 (talk) 15:56, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

That's as of today, not as of the end of last season. Per the instructions above the table, the leaders table is not to be edited until after the season. —C.Fred (talk) 15:59, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
Unless, of course, something like an unfortunate injury were to keep him out. Let's hope it doesn't come to that. dannymusiceditor oops 18:03, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
It is too pre-emptive to add Frederick Anderson now. Adding new leaders as they break previous records (including their own during the course of the season) rather than at the end of the season would be chaotic. It is easier to make changes all at once. Johnny Au (talk/contributions) 02:32, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

Playoffs in 1986 and 1987

The following sentence near the end of "The Ballard Years" is misleading: "Clark managed to lead the Leafs to the playoffs from 1986 to 1988, as well as the 1990 playoffs, although they were always eliminated in the first round."

In fact, they won first-round playoff series in both 1986 and 1987.

I propose deleting the portion after the comma. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pjdukes (talk • contribs) 08:39 2 August 2019 (UTC)

It's not worded in the best way (assume its referring to 1990), but removed the latter portion of the prose anyhow. Leventio (talk) 10:07, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

Caster

If I recall correctly, Paul Romanuk was fired from his position with HNIC...yet he is still listed here. I don't know who it is now, but could someone run an update on this? dannymusiceditor oops 02:49, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

Updated it to John Bartlett. Leventio (talk) 03:47, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
Knew I could count on you! dannymusiceditor oops 05:43, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

Brendan Shanahan era (2014–present)

On May 20, 2015, Mike Babcock was named as the new head coach, and on June 23, Lou Lamoriello was named the 16th general manager in team history.[135][136]

According to the source 136 this line should state:

On May 20, 2015, Mike Babcock was named as the new head coach, and on July 23, Lou Lamoriello was named the 16th general manager in team history.[135][136]

As the article announcing the naming of Lou Lamoriello was published July 23 not June 23.

99.238.252.184 (talk) 03:53, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

 Done, thanks. Vaselineeeeeeee★★★ 04:21, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
Thanks! 2607:FEA8:8460:4185:0:0:0:A (talk) 03:13, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

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

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) 19:58, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

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

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) 14:21, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 29 January 2021

Toronto Maple Leafs are currently part of the Scotia North division according to the authoritative source NHL.com for the 2021 season. This should be indicated on the page. 173.54.201.127 (talk) 04:47, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

No. According to the NHL, North Division is correct.   Aloha27  talk  20:45, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
I've updated the infobox accordingly. BLAIXX 21:23, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
I stand corrected. Checked here. It is indeed Scotia North. Apologies. However this is a sponsorship designation (Scotiabank). Suggest leaving as is?   Aloha27  talk  13:19, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 29 March 2021

Name Tim Peel, number 31? Is incorrect. Tim Peel is an NHL who was recently suspended. #31 is actually goaltender Frederik Andersen.

Please fix. 70.174.83.175 (talk) 00:49, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, that was vandalism at Template:Toronto Maple Leafs roster. Vaselineeeeeeee★★★ 00:57, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

Article size

It would be great if a new article could be created from one of the sections in the existing article. I have added {{section sizes}} to see which sections are large. Johnny Au (talk/contributions) 03:26, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 April 2022

Can you change the Leafs goal records by adding Auston Matthews into the Top 10 Leafs goal scorers of all-time? 2607:FEA8:86DF:FDB0:E475:6010:A20E:4B4E (talk) 04:27, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. - FlightTime (open channel) 04:28, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
I concur. It's too early. Better wait until the end of the Leafs' playoff run. Johnny Au (talk/contributions) 00:59, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 April 2022

Winning their last championship in 1967, the Maple Leafs' 55-season drought between championships is the longest current drought in the NHL. 198.166.184.52 (talk) 10:14, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

It doesn’t look great but it’s math and they may have a chance this year do you want Wikipedia to be wrong for the inevitable run to the semifinals and it becomes national/international news that they will break the drought Trolflagdor (talk) 10:31, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

Done, 53 seasons is correct. BLAIXX 14:57, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

1967 is 55 years ago not 52 can we change that? Trolflagdor (talk) 10:20, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

Don't forget that we count by seasons played, not by calendar year. There are some lockout years when hockey wasn't played (such as the 2004–05 lockout) and, therefore, the article has to be updated manually each season played. Johnny Au (talk/contributions) 15:49, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

Seasons since the 1967 championship

I believe it's now 54 years? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.212.139.99 (talk) 22:10, 14 May 2022 (UTC)

It's 55 years, but 54 seasons, thanks to the 2004–05 lockout. GoodDay (talk) 02:34, 15 May 2022 (UTC)
Thanks for the clarification. Johnny Au (talk/contributions) 16:00, 15 May 2022 (UTC)
Make that 56 seasons & counting, now. GoodDay (talk) 02:09, 14 May 2023 (UTC)
Well then. This may continue until the Leafs win the Stanley Cup once more, which will happen sooner or later. Johnny Au (talk/contributions) 15:14, 14 May 2023 (UTC)
57 seasons and counting by the way. Johnny Au (talk/contributions) 12:49, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 May 2024

Toronto Maple Leafs only won 11 as the Toronto Maple Leafs. The NHL assumed the league after 1925. Two Cups were won with the same club with different names St. PATS BLUE SHIRTS Thus the club did won 13 but not as the Toronto Maple Leafs. 2001:1970:5061:DA00:ECAC:84C5:7570:DDE0 (talk) 11:30, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Charliehdb (talk) 13:04, 4 May 2024 (UTC)
We didn't remove the history of the Coyotes franchise when they changed their name from Phoenix to Arizona because it was still the same franchise, same thing with Detroit. This franchise has had three names in its history but it is still the same team. Deadman137 (talk) 06:40, 5 May 2024 (UTC)
Agreed. It is still the same club, regardless of name. Johnny Au (talk/contributions) 12:50, 5 May 2024 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:Toronto_Maple_Leafs/Archive_2&oldid=1258410699"