Talk:Wayne Gretzky

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Wayne Gretzky article.

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.
Featured article FA This article has been rated as FA-Class on the Project's quality scale. [FAQ]
(If you rated the article, please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)
Featured article star Wayne Gretzky is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. If you can update or improve it, please do.
Main Page trophy Wayne Gretzky appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on July 13, 2006.
Other languages WikiProject Echo has identified Wayne Gretzky as a foreign language featured article. You may be able to improve this article with information from the Russian language Wikipedia.
This article has been selected for Version 0.5 and the next release version of Wikipedia. This Everydaylife article has been rated FA-Class on the assessment scale.
This article is part of Wikipedia:WikiProject Ice Hockey, an attempt at building a useful ice hockey resource. If you would like to participate, you can choose to edit the article attached to this page (see Wikipedia:Contributing FAQ for more information).

Sports and Games Portal

Archive
Archives

An event mentioned in this article is an August 9 selected anniversary


Contents

[edit] Archiving

I archived all of the talk and created Template:GretzkyArchive to facilitate future archival.  RasputinAXP  c 20:50, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Archived again.  RasputinAXP  c 13:52, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Rehashing An Old Debate, Perhaps

having said that, I feel that the "greatest player" issue is still not sufficiently resolved. The text currently states: "He is regarded as the best player of his era." I don't think this is an accurate representation -- this is clearly not an all-inclusive statement, as I can point to many people that do NOT consider him to be the best player of his era. Therefore, it should be changed in one of two ways: 1 - Make the statement restrictive, by saying that "He is regarded by many as the best player of his era." 2 - Make the statement more general, by saying that "He is regarded as one of the best players of his era." Any other statement, including the current wording, is simply not true. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 151.201.222.149 (talkcontribs).

I really don't feel like hashing the debate out again. But who would you put forward as better than Gretzky of his era?  RasputinAXP  c 16:26, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
If we're going to have this debate again, can someone at least come up with a new argument? If the anon wants an answer to his particular question, he can find a labored discussion on it in the archives. --djrobgordon 17:36, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
Interestingly enough, the arguments surrounding Gretzky's credentials revolved around the likes of Bobby Orr and Gordie Howe or older superstars such as Newsy Lalonde, Maurice Richard or Joe Malone. No one advanced any arguments regarding contemporaries of Gretzky. That being said, I agree the argument wasn't resolved to the satisfaction of the anti-Gretzky minority, but then again Wikipedia operates on consensus. RGTraynor 17:45, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

There is no "answer" to the question in the archives. There are a bunch of unanswered points made and ignored. The only reason that a consensus was "reached" is because most people became tired of bashing their heads against a wall, trying to make your "majority" understand that the statement you're making does not belong in the wikipedia. I have now seen that, no matter what, you will not be concerned with facts, and instead will revise this article to the way YOU personally want it. Oh well. I'll get over it... you people apparently won't. Isn't it tiring being so petty? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 151.201.222.149 (talkcontribs).

No, tiring is rehashing this argument for the seventh time. The consensus was reached a while ago. You still didn't answer the question...who in his era do you consider better? The only person I could possibly see you making a case for is Lemieux, and he was so injury-plagued he has to "settle" for second place.  RasputinAXP  c 23:05, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
Agreed; what is "petty" is rehashing this yet again. The side this sockpuppet (and for someone whose first edit was day before yesterday to be so conversant with old debates, I don't think that an unfair characterization) is pushing lost, and either they should get a consensus around their own POV or lose gracefully and give it a rest. But as far as the player regarded the best of the era? MVPs for Roy and Hasek and Messier and Lemieux combined? Seven. MVPs for Gretzky? Nine. Gretzky won nearly half of the MVPs awarded in his career. That's a dominance unmatched not merely in hockey history, but in professional sports history. RGTraynor 05:53, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

I'd consider Roy, Hasek, Messier, Lemieux, and Gretzky to be the "best" players of the modern era. I can't give a ranking within those players, because they each have strengths and weaknesses, and "best" is far too subjective of a term. So, yes, I have Gretzky in that list. Duh ;-) I just don't like the use of the term "the best". By your logic, I could go to the pages of all the players listed above (and others) and add the "so-and-so is regarded as the best player in his era" as well, because there are lots of people that will believe it (and go on record as saying so).

  • laughing to myself* okay, you guys win. you're right, whatever. enjoy your "victory"

[edit] The New Road

I am sad to say that today, Edmonton City Council has voted in favour of changing the name of Wayne Gretzky Drive to Mark Messier Boulevard.--Killswitch Engage 02:58, 2 April 2006 (UTC)Killswitch Engage

Don't suppose you noticed what day that proposal went through, eh? ;) Relax, Gretz's road is safe. Doogie2K 05:29, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
Heh, it could be worse. They could have voted to change the name to "Dave Semenko Alley". Think of the screeching that would have caused! RGTraynor 14:16, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

It has just been announced that the Gary Suter Expressway will be cutting across the spine of Gretzky Drive.

[edit] Off the Ice

If you're ever looking to add something to the off the ice section, one possible thing would be that he lent his name, image, and likeness to a Cartoon Series, Pro Stars, featuring him, Michael Jordan, and Bo Jackson and Sports Superheroes. Alslammerz

Already mentioned in Off the Ice.  RasputinAXP  c 19:06, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Team photo tradition claim

Where does this claim that Gretzky started the team photo with the Stanley Cup tradition come from? It pops up in article related to him occasionally. Here's evidence otherwise: http://www.collectionscanada.ca/hockey/024002-119.01-e.php?uid=10085&uidc=DOTS_ID ccwaters 23:00, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

It's just another silly rumor. Considering that most sports fans (and far too many sportswriters) have a tough time believing that their favorite sport really existed before they were, say, eight years old, trying to get them to believe the Montreal AAA actually existed is a stretch, never mind that some elements of hockey date back that far. At least Original Six worship -- which oddly enough, almost always stemmed from Toronto, Montreal and Detroit -- is dying out. RGTraynor 04:32, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
I got someone further qualifying it as the first "impromptu on ice" team photo. See the edit comments at Edmonton Oilers. I think the burden of proof is on them. ccwaters 18:55, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
Just speaking as someone who watched hockey for a few decades and also recently watched the CBC Sports classic replays of all five Oilers Cup wins, I can say that the on-ice team photo happened only after Game 5 of the 88 finals. The announcers kept announcing their surprise that fans were not rushing onto the ice as had become customary, and had no idea what Gretzky was doing when he was orchestrating the team photo. Gretzky didn't invent the practice, he just brought it back after their 4th Cup. MJR 02:40, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Fair Use vs. Free Use

Hi all; On account of a broad interpretation of Wikipedia:Fair use criteria, it would appear the very nice photograph on this page - which unfortunately was copyrighted - has to be replaced by fair use. See the talk page at Talk: Stephen Harper for some other discussion of this.Michael Dorosh 04:37, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Hello everyone. The picture at the beginning of the article is pretty much the same picture at the "Reunion in New York" section. Wouldn't if be better is someone remove one or change it?Ptikobj 06:38, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
I've removed the duplicate.Michael Dorosh 14:35, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
Excuse me? The fair use was confirmed during the FA review. It is an iconic photograph of Gretzky, and it's at a smaller screen resolution than can be reproduced. See the image page for the Fair use criteria.  RasputinAXP  c 15:19, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
I've restored the image as listed in the Fair Use rationale I previously provided. There is no suitable free-use image, and it was used by Bruce Bennett Studios as a PR tool for their photography.  RasputinAXP  c 15:24, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
Hi - my understanding is that fair use is to be removed from all articles if a free use image can be found. Can you direct me to the earlier conversation you are referring to?Michael Dorosh 15:38, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
If a free-use image can be found, yes. The picture would also be defined as "iconic," which is to say that this is one of the most widely known photos of Gretzky. The discussion is in the archived FA proposal link at the top of this talk page, and the fair-use rationale given is on the image page itself.  RasputinAXP  c 15:42, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
Hey, many thanks for the quick reply. I definitely need to read up more on this. Some editors are having trouble interpreting Fair Use on the Stephen Harper page. Thanks for your help.Michael Dorosh 15:51, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
Your understanding of policy is wrong. Fair use images can be removed from articles when a suitable replacement is available. The two free images in this article, frankly, suck - both are quite poor in quality (and very out of focus). Do not remove the '84 image unless you can provide a reasonable replacement. Raul654 16:23, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
Raul - we had the same debate on the Stephen Harper page- I was told that just because a picture sucks, it doesn't matter - free use trumps fair use, with the rule being intrepreted by User: Jeff3000 as being that aesthetics are totally unimportant, and that as long as the image identifies the subject, that is all that matters. I disagree with that interpretation of the rules, but have not been able to make a solid case, so unless you can convince the other editors that aesthetics are important, they unfortunately are not a determining factor in the free use vs. fair use debate. I suppose if enough people objected, perhaps we can rally and have the policy changed, but that would be a huge undertaking.Michael Dorosh 16:59, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
Your position is that replacing unfree content with no authorship information, no licensing information, taken from a no-longer-in-existence website with a freely-licensed image should be treated like vandalism because the freely-licensed one is blurry. I don't think that is okay. Jkelly 16:38, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
Bennett Studios apparently sold the photos to Getty Images. They're all credited to B Bennett: [1] ccwaters 17:13, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
(Edit conflict 4tw!) No, the position is that comparing the quality of both images, the smaller, free image is suitable for being the lead image in a Featured Article. The Fair Use rationale behind the Bruce Bennett photo (which has been purchased, along with all of Bruce's NHL work, by Getty) was entirely appropriate. That being said, I will be taking care of this shortly.  RasputinAXP  c 17:15, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
I think Raul654 has a completely valid point, which he explained perfectly well. I would put the picture back myself, but I have no interest in starting an edit war. I'll let someone else do the dangerous work :-) - Runch 16:53, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Unindenting...I have replaced the image with a completely confirmed and sourced, fair use, freely available promotional shot released by a PR company for Pepsi featuring Wayne.  RasputinAXP  c 17:25, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Without the action shot of Gretzky on the ice, the opening of this article just loses a lot of its original visual appeal. That's just my opinion, though. Would possibly placing this new image elsewhere on the article, while moving one of the other photos to the top (such as the one of him hoisting the Cup) be a good idea? Or would it possibly undermine the layout of the article, since the Cup shot is meant to mesh with the section on his being a key part of the Oilers?--Resident Lune 17:45, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
The subject matter of the photo is unimportant - the fair use images have to go; fair free use images only are permitted since they adequately illustrate the subject of the article. Since the free use image of Gretzky playing hockey adequately illustrates the subject, there is no need to use a fair use image of Gretzky selling Pepsi. Incidentally, the photo of him hoisting the cup is also a fair use photo and should probably be deleted.Michael Dorosh 17:49, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Gretzky is famous for exactly one thing: hockey. The photo should illustrate that fact. The free image does that job. Image:GretzkyPromo.jpg is totally unacceptable. It's a promotional shot for the "Pepsi-Gretzky partnership". This article does not mention that at all, so it illustrates nothing in the article. Conceivable if we had a section devoted to this "Pepsi-Gretzky partnership" we could use the image, in that section. Per WP:FUC #1, we should be using a free image, regardless of which is the "nicest" image. We simply don't have the option of picking whatever is the best image. --Rob 17:59, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

ISTM that the rules state that "Can this image be replaced by any other image, while still having the same effect?" - therefore, if the answer is no, it stands to reason that the fair use image could be retained. If it can be successfully argued, then, that the fair use image has a superior effect to the free use image, then the fair use image could be used instead. Wayne 18:03, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
No, you are misapplying WP:FUC. A fair use image has to pass each and *every* single item in the list, not just one question. There are many cases where we can't use the superior image. --Rob 18:07, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
  • sigh* I'm looking at other images that can be sourced, verified and released as free, or other options. The biggest frustration to me is that I cannot find a free picture of Gretzky in his Oilers uniform from that era. As I said, I'm exploring other options, including possibly getting one from the Heritage Classic game he was in a few years ago. I'll take care of removing the rest of the fair use photos since apparently "no free equivalent is available or could be created that would adequately give the same information." The problem seems to be more that Bruce Bennett's photos have been removed from his site when he sold them to Getty Images, and as such we have no further sourcing for the images, though they existed at one time.  RasputinAXP  c 20:00, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
They are at the Getty link I provided. Just use those URLs as the source. ccwaters 20:10, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
Oh nevermind. I couldn't find the exact Oilers era image. There's a bunch that are very similar from the same photographer, but they got watermarks. ccwaters 20:24, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
I fixed up the free image we have using some photoshoppery.  RasputinAXP  c 03:47, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
Nice work. Jkelly 04:01, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
Thanks. I've also readded the other fair use images with attribution to Bennett via a sourced link to Getty Images, and picked up a The Hockey News cover for the WHA era.  RasputinAXP  c 04:24, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

It is irresponsible to lead the Wayne Gretzky article with a picture of him as a New York Ranger. Gretzky won 4 Stanley Cups with, and is the face of the NHL's last dynasty - the Edmonton Oilers. As is, the article appears distorted, and I hope someone will find an appropriate image of Gretzky as an Oiler or at the very least a Los Angeles King. Jaskaramdeep 00:10, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

"Irresponsible?" "Distorted?" In what fashion? He did play for the Rangers, after all. Now I agree it would better reflect his career to be portrayed in an Edmonton or Los Angeles jersey, but it's scarcely inappropriate as is. RGTraynor 00:24, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
You're saying that as if I didn't try to find a free or more appropriate fair-use image.  RasputinAXP  c 00:51, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
And Hank Aaron did play for the Brewers, yet he is introduced in a Braves jersey. Michael Jordon did play for the Wizards, yet he is introduced as a Bull. The picture is irresponsible in that Gretzky made no major contribution to this team, yet he is showcased in a large picture on the top of the page in their jersey, implying the contrary. He built his career as an Oiler, and made major strides in bringing popularity to hockey in the US as a King. To introduce him visually as neither is irresponsible.
The picture distorts the article by introducing him in a minor role. You can only make one first impression, and uninformed readers looking up Gretzky will surely get the wrong one through this picture. A dwindling career, last-gasp effort to reunite with his former Oiler teammate for a cup, 3-year stint with the Rangers is not what comes across with a large pic of him in a Rags jersey right up top.
And I never said the pic was inappropriate. I said we should try to find an appropriate pic of him as an Oiler/King (ie: one that is worthy of a title image on a featured page. Not snapped with a polaroid from the stands)
And Rasputin, if that's what it came across as, I'm sorry. I didn't mean to imply that it was due to lack of effort. If copyright restrictions are keeping the Rangers pic up, then that's fine. Personally though, I would rather have no pic at all than leave the current one up.
Also, it just figures that it's a Calgarian (Michael Deuche), who is the cause of removing the original picture. Freaking rednecks. Jaskaramdeep 04:04, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
Realizing I had a valid fair-use image of him holding the cup, I've swapped that image to the top. The original picture didn't distort the article at all...I'd just relax a little, especially with the redneck bit.  RasputinAXP  c 13:13, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Superstars?

If I remember correctly, he was considered to be such a paradigm of the hockey player in the early 90's that he was featured along with Michael Jordan and Bo Jackson in a cartoon called, I believe, Superstars. Perhaps worth a mention somwhere in here?

I vaguely remember this, I think Joe Montana was involved, not Bo. ccwaters 12:55, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
It was ProStars and its already mentioned in the article. Yeah, it was Bo, not Montana. ccwaters 13:00, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
So it is. Didn't see it cause I was searching for "superstars"!

[edit] What's the Oscar Wilde opening line for?

What is the meaning of this opening line?: "Oscar Wilde says: Uncyclopedia is not Wikipedia is not Uncyclopedia is not Wikipedia is not Uncyclopedia is not Wikipedia" ~ User:Drummondjacob 13 Jul 06 15:29 GMT

It's gone ~ User:Drummondjacob 13 Jul 06 15:31 GMT

[edit] Resolution issues

Think of the 800x600 people—having the TOC and a huge image in the lead leaves little room for the actual text. --Spangineeres (háblame) 14:34, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 49 records?

"By the time he finished playing in Edmonton, he held or shared 49 NHL records, which in itself was a record."

So then that would make 50 records, right? Then you could add that he was the first person to reach 50 NHL records, which would itself be another record. So he'd be the first to reach 51, which is another record... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.52.253.213 (talkcontribs).

I assume you're being coy, but just in case... He held 49 official records. 'Most Records' is not an official record, and neither is fastest to X records. Gretzky could have an unreal number of records if one were to count things like fastest to fifty goals, fastest to 800 goals, 801 goals, 802 goals, 803 goals, 1000 points, 1001 points...2856 points, 2857 points. MJR 23:35, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 378 goals in how many games?

The MacLean's article says "In 1971, Gretzky led his Brantford peewee team to 68 straight victories on the back of his whopping 378 goals (the league's next-best scorer had 40)."

The Wayne Gretzky Official Homepage says "Four years later, a 10-year-old Gretzky finished the 1971-72 season with 378 goals and 120 assists in 85 games in the Brantford atom league."

The CBC says "At age 11, Gretzky was already breaking records, scoring 378 goals and 116 assists in a 78-game season playing for the Brantford's Nadrofsky Steelers."

In one, he's 10 and playing peewee. In the other, he's with his own age group. Also, the number of games is different in each stat, and the next-best-scorer info is also interesting. --TheMightyQuill 13:38, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Record Breaking Goal?

Shouldn't there be a mention of Gretzky's record breaking goal on March 23, 1994? I know it's found on his Records article, but I feel it should be found on his biographical article as well to do him justice. The event is an extremely important one in Gretzky's life. Probably more so than his 894th goal. Anyhow, it is just a thought. — Dorvaq (talk) 14:39, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Lou Kaplan Trophy

I think that Wayne Gretzky's winning of the Lou Kaplan Trophy for the WHA rookie of the year should be mentioned under the awards section of this article. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.148.24.78 (talk • contribs).

Please feel free to add anything you think is worthy. Flibirigit 04:30, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
S/he couldn't - the article was protected for the last 4 weeks (but not tagged as such). —Wknight94 (talk) 14:36, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wrong Statistics

This is my first time doing this but some of Wayne's statistics have been vandalized, please check them over. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.81.177.181 (talk • contribs).

Things look fine. Could you be more specific? Flibirigit 05:05, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ethnicity

Does anyone have a verifiable source regarding Gretzky's family heritage and ethnicity? In the last week he has been Polish, Belarussian, and Ukranian. Thanks. Flibirigit 06:41, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

The problem is that the borders in that region changed so often over the years that you can have competing claims within a family. My great-grandfather's family members were Lithuanian, Russian or Polish, depending on where the borders rested, in their own case. RGTraynor 19:12, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
If there is no consensus as to the ethnicity, it should be removed and simply state, immigrated from the town of Mogilev. Flibirigit 23:21, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
Mm, makes sense to me. RGTraynor 10:08, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
Or you can say, he's Eastern European. Lukas19 23:39, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
That would be rather vague and not contribute much to the article. Flibirigit 04:08, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Nationality

Gretzky has dual citizenship, so I amended his nationality to Canadian-American. Bobgat 09:48, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

I moved the American citizenship note to his "off the ice" section, since it is not a main part of his identity, and not critical to the introduction. Flibirigit 14:55, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
Wayne Gretzky did not go through the extensive immigration process to become an American without it being a main part of his identity. I am putting it back. Other immigrants have their birth country and country of citizenship hyphenated. Gretzky's will follow suit. Bobgat 17:53, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
Your assertions of what constitutes a "main part" of Gretzky's identity aside, such things are determined here by consensus. "Citizenship" does not necessarily equal "nationality," any more than I would cease to be a New Englander should I move to Oregon and register to vote there. Feel free to take it to the Wikiproject talk page if you'd like to reopen the issue on how we define nationality. RGTraynor 18:03, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
Tell that to the Steve Nash people, who assert he is Canadian because that is the country of his citizenship. Reverted. Bobgat 19:30, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
I don't believe there is any consensus to insert "American" as Gretzky's "nationality." Flibirigit 18:20, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
Consensus doesn't make something true or untrue. The plural of opinion is not fact. Gretzky obviously felt that becoming an American was important enough to him that he went through the rigorous process of becoming an American. You, as a Canadian, may not like it, but it was his choice. He has dual citizenship, and thus he is a Canadian-American. Bobgat 19:40, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
I don't think that any rational citizen considers Gretzky Canadian-American. Anyone you will ever talk to will view him as Canadian which, considering where he was born and spent the majority of his existence, and the countless times he played for the National Team (including being GM of the Olympic team in 2002 and 2006), is obvious to everyone. ' —The preceding unsigned comment was added by JaysCyYoung (talkcontribs) 22:16, 11 December 2006 (UTC).
In the perspective of writing a biographical article about Wayne Gretzky, he is clearly identified as a Canadian. The introduction of his biography is not the proper place for inserting "Canadian-American." Flibirigit 00:15, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
Agreed. Gretzky is Canadian with American citizenship. The assertation that his gaining US citizenship is an obvious sign of this being a "main part of his identity" is a POV statement, and violates one of Wikipedia's core policies, thus it is invalid in this debate. I, for one, have never heard Gretzky describe himself as being American. Resolute 01:13, 12 December 2006 (UTC)