Talk:List of ice hockey line nicknames

Untitled

Move to List of famous Ice hockey linemats? // [[User:Sander of Sweden|SA N D E R O F SW E D E N | 讲话]] 17:36, 2004 Nov 20 (UTC)

I think another famous line that should be add is the Vancouver Canucks "West coast Express" line that includes markus naslund, bertuzzi, and morrison.

How long has this line been together, and exactly how famous is it?

Are there exact qualifications that a line must meet before it can be dubbed a "Famous" line, and not simply a "Current" line? Is there a number of seasons, a degree of notoriety (statistically or otherwise), or some media coverage that will make a line (such as the CASH Line) a "Famous" line? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.54.138.240 (talk) 02:45, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reformatting

I have divided the list into widely acknowledged (and historically) famous lines and more locally remembered (or current) lines.--Mogilny 12:10, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have integrated material from the List of hockey nicknames page--Mogilny 11:35, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Errr ... from where do some of these nicknames come? I was an active hockey fanatic in the Seventies, and I've never heard of the terms "Dynasty Line" or "Nitro Line"; some pundits after the fact tried to stick Lafleur-Shutt-Mahovlich with "Flower Power," but neither they nor the Esposito line had any contemporary, acknowledged nicknames. This really needs to be cleaned up and possibly sourced. Ravenswing 14:35, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, please clean away... As for sourcing - and "Nitro" and "Dynasty" (and "Trio Grande") were not part of my childhood memories - I came across these on a website by Pat Houda, "The Best North American Lines of the 1970s" online at: http://www.chidlovski.com/personal/1974/liners/na70s.htm

His bio-blurb says that he is a contributor to The NHL Guide and Record Book, and that he is a member of Society for International Hockey Research and the Hockey Research Association. The website says he is member of the Society for International Hockey Research, and the Swedish Icehockey Historical and Statistical Society (I kid you not). I am obviously curious as to where he got these from.

"The Bicentennial Line" is on an old hockey card that I recently found.--Mogilny 20:08, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like he's just making up names to make up names. "Trio Grande?" "Hot Line?" "LCB Line?" Someone ought to tell Mr. Houda that not all famous lines had nicknames. Ravenswing 20:12, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So it would seem, except for the "LCB Line." I have the O-Pee-Chee 1976-77 Card (#215). Other "line" cards included in that set: #214 French Connection; #216 Long Island Lightning Company; #217 Checking Line (Bob Gainey, Jim Roberts and Doug Jarvis); #218 Bicentennial Line.--Mogilny 21:59, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think we should separate the famous lines, to pre 90s and post 90s, to suit it to people who are new to hockey, and only know more recent players.

Errr ... no. History ought not be segregated in such a fashion. Ravenswing 17:33, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have put all current lines in short-lived category (and added "current" to the heading. I say if they stand the test of time, they can move to the first category.--Mogilny 00:06, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Question - Were Stan Mikita and Bobby Hull ever on the same line together? I thought they were, but there are Mikita lines and Hull lines listed here, and they're not together. Maybe they just weren't named. Also, the other winger - Phil Esposito? Ken Hodge? Eric Nesterenko? Kenny Wharram? NjtoTX 03:04, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not for very long, anyway; Mikita was on the Scooter Line with (generally) Doug Mohns and Ken Wharram. Esposito was Hull's center for four years, and Chico Maki was on Hull's other wing during and after Espo's tenure with the Black Hawks. Ravenswing 15:35, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. Also, a book I have from 1965 lists Esposito as a forward, not a center at that point. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by NjtoTX (talk • contribs) 17:43, 20 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Centers are, generally, "forwards." Esposito always played center, never any other position from at least his minor-league days on. Ravenswing 18:45, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Notable non NHL related lines

There's a few good examples from Elitserien with some famous nicknames. I can add them but just wanted to see if there's any interest in it or is the SEL to far off? --Krm500 12:33, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I say go for it. The NHL is not the only league in the world. Schmloof (talk) 08:15, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. The name of the article is "ice hockey linemates," not "NHL linemates." Ravenswing 12:30, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

KLM

Krutov-Larionov-Makarov - Green line? What are green jerseys? Both USSR and CSKA always used red (or white) jerseys, never green! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Greutungen (talk • contribs) 12:57, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The forward trio was the KLM line but the "Green Unit" (not Green line) included defencemen Fetisov and Kasatonov. In Europe, particularly in the former USSR and Czechoslovakia, it is normal to have set five-man units. The green jerseys were the colour they wore in practice--each unit wore a different colour. That's typical of many teams, even in North America.Djob (talk) 11:42, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"Famous" lines / recent lines

Many of the lines listed as "famous" are just recent/current lines that have been together for a season or less and certainly aren't "famous." The "ESP line" for NJ were together for what, a month or two early this season? Daemonw (talk) 01:49, 23 May 2012 (UTC)daemonw[reply]

Any of the lines from the last few years whose nicknames aren't household names should be moved to the recent/short lived section

Line formats

Lines should be listed as left wing-centre-right wing, as that's how they align on the ice. Looking at the lines listed, there doesn't seem to be any convention here--they are listed in any old order. I realize sometimes people don't know who the centre was, but he should be the name in the middle.Djob (talk) 11:47, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on List of ice hockey line nicknames. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20110604021324/http://www.nhl.com/worldcup/countries/can/canada_side091404.html to http://www.nhl.com/worldcup/countries/can/canada_side091404.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 19:02, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Errors to fix

The Crazy Eights are listed twice. (Once as The Crazy 8s.)

Second, The Sesame Street line, Oscar is the Grouch, so it's probably Oscar, Ernie and Big Bird.

Mdnahas (talk) 04:43, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on List of ice hockey line nicknames. 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) 21:12, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This article is an unsourced mess (April 2020)

I'm taking out all of the unsourced entries. Also propose that any entry here be required to have at least 2 reliable sources noting its existence. JimKaatFan (talk) 16:13, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I've tried to redo the page to include only sourced information. Since I received no responses to my previous comment, I'm going to ask for comments from more editors to try and set a guideline for future additions to this article, so that it doesn't turn into an unsourced mess again. I've written the RFC already, and am about to add it and publicize it. JimKaatFan (talk) 23:49, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Request for comments about the criteria for including a line in List of ice hockey line nicknames

What should the minimum requirement be for listing an ice hockey line in this article? (these are in order, from most restrictive requirements to least restrictive)

Option A: Ice hockey line should have its own article in Wikipedia, such as Punch line (ice hockey) or The French Connection (ice hockey)
Option B: Line should be detailed in at least 2 reliable sources, with at least one written after the era that the line existed (ie, not a contemporaneous account)
Option C: Line needs only a mention in 1 reliable source
Option D: No formal requirements.

JimKaatFan (talk) 23:52, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

Personally, I'm for A and B. If we don't attribute/add nicknames to a BLPs article if onle one reliable source calls them that, then we shouldn't do the same with these. HickoryOughtShirt?4 (talk) 00:07, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'd also be inclined for A or B, and would even lean towards A. If a line is well-known enough by a name, it should be able to stand on it's own as an article. It would also cut down on several short-term lines that are only given names because a writer is trying to find a way to fill a story, and leave ones that actually lasted for some time. Kaiser matias (talk) 00:20, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I believe this page was created for those lines that don't meet A on purpose. As items on a list don't have to be notable in and of themselves. Only the list itself has to be notable. They should however have a source if possible. And finding sources is generally easy as most local papers will mention such line names. So I guess C would be my opinion. I do want to stress again however, that items on a list don't have to be individually notable, only the topic of the list itself. -DJSasso (talk) 14:10, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

~~option B~~ Option A, with a caveat (see below): I agree with DJSasso that items on a list don't have to be notable in and of themselves, and also, there might be entries already that could get their own article, just no one has bothered to write one yet. But, I also agree with Kaiser matias that we should "cut down on several short-term lines that are only given names because a writer is trying to find a way to fill a story" - I think that's why having a non-contemporaneous reliable source is a good idea for a requirement. It eliminates that possibility. JimKaatFan (talk) 14:26, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see short term lines as an issue (other than maybe a one time mention), that is sort of what a list is about, I think if you are asking for non-contemporaneous you are likely going to have to remove most lines as very very few lines, even the really notable ones will not always be mentioned by line name in the future. And requiring two sources makes it harder because then in most cities likely cancel out any lines from those cities as two references from one paper are considered one source, so locally notable lines end up being removed. So even a current reference and a future reference from the same newspaper end up not being enough. -DJSasso (talk) 14:30, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I believe that for every line currently in the article, there either already is a non-contemporaneous source listed, or I could find one easily. Same goes for the handful of lines that have their own article and aren't currently on this page. JimKaatFan (talk) 17:25, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I support A and B in principle. Regarding A, there are some lines that ought to be included here that currently aren't, and whose own articles are woefully unsourced, such as the GAG line and S Line (ice hockey). I imagine there are similar other standalone articles that could use reinforcing. There's also Category:Nicknamed groups of ice hockey players, which mostly contains lines with a couple of exceptions, and could additionally use some boosting. Echoedmyron (talk) 15:24, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Option B: alone. (And honestly, I'm thankful that this article's been trimmed so heavily as it has been since the last time I saw it.) As has been stated above, too damn many ephemeral lines have been given ephemeral names for the purposes of page filler. IMHO, I can't think of lines in the last 30 years beyond the Legion of Doom and the West Coast Express that had consensus circulation. Even going back into the past, heck ... I'm a native Bostonian well aware that Cashman-Esposito-Hodge was not only one of the most dominant lines of all time, but the three were together for seven seasons, and they just plain didn't have a contemporaneous moniker, even back in the day when lines held together longer and much more frequently had consensus nicknames. Ravenswing 04:10, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I adjusted my vote based on convincing arguments from Echoedmyron and Kaiser matias. By caveat, I mean that lines that are currently in the article (before we had this discussion) without their own article should probably stay, as I feel most (if not all of them) could have their own article. If someone wants to add a line here that doesn't have an article, then the answer should be "yes" if there's enough material to justify a standalone article. If there is, let's start that article first and then add the line here. JimKaatFan (talk) 19:32, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Question for voters who said "A" and/or "B"

This is for HickoryOughtShirt?4, Kaiser matias, and Echoedmyron. When you said "A" and "B", did you mean both criteria have to be met? Because if "A" is met, then "B" would probably already have been met, I would think. Or did you mean that either would be okay with you? JimKaatFan (talk) 16:57, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I meant either way. Kaiser matias (talk) 17:59, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The point I was trying to make in my comment above was that while one would expect that if a line has an article, that it would be well-sourced, but some of those standalone articles, like the two I mentioned, aren't. And those articles should probably get enhanced and have their sources boosted anyway. So I kinda mean A and B; A in the absence of appropriate sourcing (B), if that makes sense. S Line (ice hockey) currently has a single, incomplete source. I think ensuring that the line has an article is a good brightline for inclusion to keep the list manageable, and requiring sources in lists is fairly common - and hey, it may lead to source improvements for the articles this list links to. Echoedmyron (talk) 18:29, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think I agree with this paragraph. Additionally, I think most of the entries currently in this list (that don't have an article currently) probably could have an article. So maybe we leave those alone for a bit, until someone can write at least a stub (I nominate myself if there's no interest from anyone else). JimKaatFan (talk) 02:52, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, Echoedmyron - I rewrote the S line article. It's not perfect but it's a start, and if you have any advice, I would surely appreciate you taking a look at it to critique it. Also Kaiser matias, DJSasso, and Ravenswing , if you have time. JimKaatFan (talk) 21:33, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like a good step in the right direction there. I gave the opening sentence a refresher, borrowing the format of the opening from The Trio Grande, mostly for how it works in contextual wikilinks for line and forward. Echoedmyron (talk) 22:18, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestion to add the Merlot line

I don't feel comfortable editing the main article since I'm 1.anonymous and 2.the article has some significant discussion going on about what qualifies noteworthiness in terms of this article. That being said, may I suggest adding the Merlot Line from the early 2010s Bruins? Contemporary source: https://www.nbcsports.com/boston/report-bs-make-extension-offers-merlot-line-kelly Current-day source: https://thehockeywriters.com/boston-bruins-merlot-line/ 73.231.143.107 (talk) 05:31, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I added the Merlot Line, plus an older one called the 'Uke Line' from Boston (Bucyk, Horvath, and Stasiuk) with sources.

The Merlot Line may seem like a stretch since they probably had more penalty minutes than points, but they did contribute to a Stanley Cup win by the Bruins in 2011. 2601:283:4601:FC90:DDEE:F812:C3C4:BB0B (talk) 20:43, 25 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If the Merlot Line had enough material to have an article about them, they should be added to this article. They do not. JimKaatFan (talk) 19:39, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Question about LCB Line

Why is LCB line not listed. It was featured on a hockey card or doesn't that count. Kevinskogg (talk) 22:34, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, you answered your own question there. And you nailed it. JimKaatFan (talk) 19:26, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Converted bulleted list to sortable table

Hi all, I converted what was a bulleted list into a sortable table. I hope this makes the article more easily navigable, and makes it easier to figure out which lines need more explanation/citation. I did not add any information that was not present in the prior article (e.g. team, era) so it's now apparent which entries are more sparse.

I included "League" as a column as there's been discussion about how most of these lines are from the NHL & it also might be helpful for sorting, but I'm not totally sure it's the best way to allow for that. Let me know if you have thoughts!

Wracking (talk) 02:24, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]