Talk:Ontario Reign (ECHL)

The printable version is no longer supported and may have rendering errors. Please update your browser bookmarks and please use the default browser print function instead.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Ontario Reign (ECHL) article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Ice Hockey

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Ice Hockey, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of ice hockey on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Ice HockeyWikipedia:WikiProject Ice HockeyTemplate:WikiProject Ice HockeyIce Hockey articles

California: Los Angeles / Southern California Low‑importance

	California portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject California, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of California on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CaliforniaWikipedia:WikiProject CaliforniaTemplate:WikiProject CaliforniaCalifornia articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	Greater Los Angeles portal This article is supported by Los Angeles area task force (assessed as Low-importance).
	This article is supported by Southern California task force (assessed as Low-importance).
	This article lacks sufficient references and adequate inline citations.

WikiProject Los Angeles banner

Although the Ontario Reign are not located in Los Angeles County, I have added the WikiProject Los Angeles banner to this page because they will be a minor league affiliate of the Los Angeles Kings. -- Gmatsuda (talk) 08:20, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

External links

I've noticed (and twice reverted) the addition of a link to a Kings-related fan site to the external links section. Please note that Wikipedia has policies regarding what kinds of web sites can be included in the External links section and in most cases, WikiProjects also have agreed upon standards for articles under their purview. In this case, fan sites do not meet the criteria. See the guidelines for external links and WikiProject Ice hockey for more information. Thanks. -- Gmatsuda (talk) 03:35, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ender's Game

Do I see a nod to Ender's Game in the logo: Dragon army colors were "grey orange grey". ccwaters (talk) 23:08, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Texas Wildcatters

Should the Texas Wildcatters page be merged into this one? Since they are the same franchise I would say yes. However, the Montreal Expos/Washington Nationals debate gives credence to leaving them as separate. I didn't open an official merger discussion since I wasn't sure if it warranted one yet. Shootmaster 44 (talk) 04:20, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, the pages should not be merged because they are two different franchises with separate histories although they share the same franchise rights. This has been covered on other ECHL team articles most recently the Toledo Walleye. If you look at other articles for other defunct and/or relocated franchises in the ECHL, you will see that they each have there own independent article. So, pretty much I think we should leave it be. Rik (talk) 11:50, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And Talk:Iowa Stars ccwaters (talk) 14:09, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Current Roster

As it is standard across the Kings' minor league affiliates, I feel that the players' contract status and whether they are on the Protected List should be left alone. Shootmaster 44 (talk) 03:50, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As it is standard over most if not all of the hockey team articles that feature a current roster, contract status and protected player status are not used because they cause too much clutter and make the wikitables that are used look pretty bad. That is why I edited the roster the way I did, to make it look more fluid and uniform to all the other team articles. I hope you can understand where I am coming from. No hard feelings. Rik (talk) 04:35, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No worries. I only had the protected status on there simply as a designation. The contract status is something that ECHL teams need more than anything, since there will be players on AHL deals, Kings deals and Reign deals all on the same roster. Its easier that way to distinguish from a quick glance who belongs to who.

Not to mention that even though some teams are affiliated with one NHL team, other NHL teams may send players down to said team, that has happened a lot with the Las Vegas Wranglers you'll see players that have their deals either through the Flames, the QC Flames, or the Wranglers and then others with contracts with other AHL teams or other NHL teams. I've been trying to add that to the Wranglers article but I have not been able to find which teams owns which player's contract until they get called up. Rik (talk) 20:13, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For an idea of what I mean check out the Reading Royals page. I have been updating that roster since last season. This time of year its easiest to find out who is who's. Just keep checking the transactions on the NHL's page, the AHL's page and Las Vegas' website. As well, pay attention to the Vegas papers as they can sometimes give you a inside scoop. Shootmaster 44 (talk) 05:32, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 31 July 2015

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: moved, partially. There's a consensus for the first move, i.e. Ontario Reign → Ontario Reign (ECHL), but no consensus on the second move, i.e. whether or not the new AHL team is the primary topic. So I'm moving the ECHL team and in the meantime will create a dab page at Ontario Reign. Anyone is free to start a new discussion that focuses solely on whether the AHL side is the primary topic. Jenks24 (talk) 11:47, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ontario Reign → Ontario Reign (ECHL)
Ontario Reign (AHL) → Ontario Reign

– Now that the Ontario Reign is the name of an AHL franchise (a league which is FAR better-known and getting more publicity), I think it's time we moved the article names. If the new San Diego Gulls can get the main title page, why can't the Reign? Tom Danson (talk) 15:19, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support move to ECHL, Oppose move from AHL to no redirect - Similar to my argument on Talk:Bakersfield Condors, I feel Ontario Reign should link to a disambiguation page until all links have been redirected. After my experience with redirecting Hamilton Bulldogs (AHL) (some 400 pages) because someone was already writing OHL pages directing to Hamilton Bulldogs, I can tell you it is not a enjoyable task to undertake. Yosemiter (talk) 18:26, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support first move only 76.120.162.73 (talk) 16:58, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Per nom. GoPurple 'n Gold₂₄ 02:27, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom. Follows standard practice naming for team articles as users are most likely to search for current AHL team. Dolovis (talk) 21:26, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.