Talk:List of Tampa Bay Lightning seasons

Harrias' comments from FLC

Comments from Harrias ^talk

• In the second paragraph you list the total number of wins and losses, along with points: as the Lightning were founded in 1992, compared to the Original Six, who have been playing for nearly 100 years; this is a reasonably irrelevant list of statistics. More relevant would be a list comparing Tampa to the other sides during their years of existence, or percentages of wins. As a list of total wins and losses is, as far as I'm concerned, pointless.
  • I think it's actually value to compare it to teams like the original six. Whether we like to admit it or not, people tend to ignore the lifespan of a team, and instead look at the numbers come out of them. Either way though, I agree that other than the wins and losses, the others are a little superflous. I'll add more information about the Stanley Cup teams and trim some of the unnecessary stats in the lead. Nomader ^(Talk) 00:43, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
• Very little is made in the lead about Tampa actually winning the Stanley Cup in 03-04, maybe this could be made a little more prominent, given it is a major accolade in the clubs short history?
  • I'll get on it as soon as I have time to sit down and edit it. It'll probably be tomorrow. Nomader ^(Talk) 00:43, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
• How viable would it be to make the table sortable? I know for this sort of thing it can be difficult, and not particularly relevant given that they move divisions and conferences, so I'll leave it to you to comment on how worthwhile (or not) sortability would be.
  • I know what you mean. Sortable lists really are preferable in these cases, but with the way the list is set out, with the separate sections for the playoffs and some stats really not coming into existence until later, I'm afraid the sorting will be kind of screwed up... and I also really do like the aesthetics of it as well right now. I'll bring it up at WT:HOCKEY to see if we can retroactively come up with some sort of new format to apply to all of the featured season lists. Nomader ^(Talk) 00:43, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
• You probably don't need to link the NYT and the NYT Company on each use in references, only the first.
  • As I'm aware, it's just a matter of consistency-- either only wikilink on the first appearance, or all of them. I decided to do all of them in this case. One of TRM's earlier comments actually advised me to wikilink a later occurrence of "ESPN". Nomader ^(Talk) 00:43, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Good work overall. Harrias ^talk 23:11, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Oh! Apologies: I must have clicked edit just after the promotion and not noticed it! Well done :P Harrias ^talk 23:11, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Taken from FLC. Dabomb87 (talk) 00:02, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Haha you're quite alright, I actually saw your comments and was about to address them when I realized that it'd already been promoted. I'll just adress what you've said here on the talk page instead. Nomader ^(Talk) 00:43, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on List of Tampa Bay Lightning seasons. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090517111547/http://vault.sportsillustrated.cnn.com/vault/article/magazine/MAG1006188/index.htm to http://vault.sportsillustrated.cnn.com/vault/article/magazine/MAG1006188/index.htm

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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) 16:18, 19 May 2017 (UTC)