Talk:Anaheim Ducks

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Former featured article candidateAnaheim Ducks is a former featured article candidate. Please view the links under Article milestones below to see why the nomination failed. For older candidates, please check the archive.
Article milestones
April 16, 2011Featured article candidateNot promoted


The fact that the team is owned by Disney is mentioned in the article and in the categorization, therefore the see also section is not needed. Gentgeen 05:22, 13 Aug 2004 (UTC)

List of Anaheim Mighty Ducks players[edit]

I have just completed the List of Anaheim Mighty Ducks players. It is 100% accurate as of the end of the 2003-04 NHL season. When new players play for the Ducks, it would be a great help if they could be added to the list to keep it accurate. Thanks! Masterhatch

Somebody might want to rewrite the jersey section. It was very poorly written and hard to follow.

Hey guys, the roster needs updating, and I would, but I'm crap at it, somebody help the team out and get it done, you can use this —The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk) 21:30, August 21, 2007 (UTC)

In general we don't update the roster until after training camp because until then it is not official. --Djsasso 21:48, 21 August 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Not true; so long as the team's website says a certain player is on their roster, it is official and the Current roster section should reflect this. A player such as Shane Hnidy should not be added to the List of Anaheim Ducks players until he has actually played a game with the Ducks, however. --Sparkhurst 23:28, 25 August 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Actually that is true. We don't remove players until there is backed up proof they are no long with the team and don't add players till they are guaranteed with the team. ie on the team website. That way we avoid edit wars. However, in general most people prefer to wait till training camp is done to update it due to the fact that until the team issues a statement of its playing roster then it is not official as the team isn't selected till the end of training camp. All that adding it to their website means is that they now own the rights to that player via signing them or whatever.--Djsasso 23:34, 25 August 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
To quote Resolute from July 4
The biggest problem is that we are all basing what we want on our own POV, which is something Wikipedia frowns upon. Really, the official roster as released by the team should take precedence, imo, thus whatever the Sabres list, should be valid.
--Sparkhurst 00:52, 26 August 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Apparently you misread what I said, as I said you were correct in that we will follow the website since thats the only way we can back it up, however most people prefer to leave it as last seasons roster until the new season begins is what I was saying because inevitable people will start removing and readding UFAs etc over and over like Selanne in this case. --Djsasso 01:03, 26 August 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Are there any Duck fans who want to expand the List of Anaheim Ducks players? --Sparkhurst 23:31, 25 August 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

2005-06 Roster Scratch[edit]

move to article ccwaters 21:34, 5 October 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Leave to the Walt Disney company (former owners of M.Ducks),to name the franchise Mighty Ducks of Anaheim & not Anaheim Mighty Ducks. Imagine if you will Penguins of Pittsburgh or Blues of St.Louis or Canadiens of Montreal (Oops!!) the Canadiens are called that (At least in French) Les Canadiens de Montreal.

It could be worse - They can get renamed to the Los Angeles Mighty Ducks of Anaheim LordBleen 00:40, 23 October 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Now that would be funny. Masterhatch 04:45, 23 October 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oh No!! Lord Bleen & Masterhatch ,what are you trying to do? Give me nightmares? I'll start Quacking Up. 23 October 2005.

Ironic isn't it?, the Mighty Ducks of Anaheim are going to change their name. Beginning with the 2006-07 season, they'll be the Anaheim Ducks; do you suppose Bryan Murray read this page section (Talk: Mighty Ducks of Anaheim)? GoodDay 17:16, 8 March 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I think they should change their name to the Anaheim Pucks. Ducks is just ridiculous; I mean, they're not even mighty anymore. Then they can change that strange D on their jerseys to some sort of zooming puck. Britishenglish 04:11, 28 December 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Never change names, its stupid, but they should hav gotten rid of the mighty. Despite being a traditionalist, I think that the mighty needed to go because i dont like this sport so great to be thought of as affiliated to a kids movie.

Captains List[edit]

Since the Buffalo Sabres & Los Angeles Kings articles, have included Mogilny & Robitaille (respectively) in their Captains Lists (backed by Sabres & Kings web sites & media guides), I've looked up the Mighty Ducks web site. Teemu Selanne is listed as a Ducks Captain (during 1997-98 season, whil Kariya was injured/out of the Line-up). I'll make the proper edits to this article & the Karyia & Selanne articles. GoodDay 17:55, 2 December 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]


I'm not sure if this should even be on here because it's such a debatable topic. I remember this was discussed for the Leafs earlier, and it was decided that they won't have a rivalries list because of the arbitrariness of it all. An example of its arbitrariness: I entered the Flames as a rival of the Ducks because, as a Ducks fan, I remember that the games between these two teams are often marked by huge fights and scrums. But it was replaced by the Detroit Red Wings today, for which the rivalry is minimal at best (unless it's the year after the Ducks face them in the playoffs or something). Sure, they can be considered a rival, but really...? Just my two cents. --Buchanan-Hermit 19:54, 15 January 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I don't think the Red Wings are a rival. I have removed them-- AWBricker 22:27, 21 April 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Unless we can get a consistent rivalry such as UCLA/USC or Dodgers Giants, then lets not put down anybody. The Ducks rivals at thsi point cud be the leaves, flames, wild, red wings, sharks or kings at this point, but unless one or two teams are consistently in tough matchups with the ducks deep in the playoffs, then lets just delete this section for now.

Actually, as a Ducks fan, let me tell you, we hate the Sharks. I don't know a Ducks fan that doesn't. Especially after some of the trades. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 15:46, 28 April 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'm gonna move the rivalries to related links down at the bottom.Trakrecord (talk) 06:36, 24 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Name change[edit]


They're changing their name. I've deleted a part that stated otherwise. Google if you're not sure. CKSCIII 00:44, 11 April 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yea they are... isnt it to Anaheim Ducks? We should make this page a redirect to Anaheim Ducks, or whatever the new name is, when its final paat 00:26, 13 April 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Haha...they're not so mighty anymore. CKSCIII 00:43, 17 April 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

They might be mighty after they eliminate the Edmonton Oilers from the playoffs. I think they might. Ain't over 'til it's over! Drdr1989 21:05, 26 May 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Nope, definately not mighty. Let's go Oil, bring the Cup back to Canada where it belongs.--BoyoJonesJr 14:59, 28 May 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

== Teemu Selanne == Watched Flames vs Ducks (April 17), and noticed that Selanne didn't have an 'A' on his jersey. Is he no longer an alternate captain? GoodDay 15:11, 18 April 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Missing Kjellberg.[edit]

sorry guys, the list of players is inaccurate... Patrick Kjellberg needs to be added to that list.

Name change[edit]

Took care of the delete of the old redirect and moved Mighty Ducks of Anaheim there.  RasputinAXP  c 11:10, 22 June 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Obviously everything should redirect here, BUT: Please keep historical references to the Mighty Ducks of Anaheim intact. IE: Paul Kariya never played for the a team known the Anaheim Ducks. As much as I'd like to erase that name from history, its not our right.
On the same note: These should all be corrected [1]. Most of them should be changed to MDofA. ccwaters 11:26, 22 June 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I have noticed that someone is simply changing current players to the category of Anaheim Ducks. Please, if they played for the original franchise, such as Teemu Selänne, add the new category, but don't remove the old one for now, at least until the debate is settled. Briememory 17:19, 22 June 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Team captains[edit]

I've re-listed the captains, listing them by season, instead of by players. See Talk: Buffalo Sabres#Team captains (consensus) & give your opinon. GoodDay 20:26, 10 December 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The majority opinon was to list 'by player'. I've since listed them as such. GoodDay 20:48, 16 March 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

A compliment, really[edit]

I'd like to say well done to whoever wrote most of this article. My favourite sentence is this:

"The Ducks then beat the heavily favored Calgary Flames in seven games and Colorado in a sweep on a run through the playoffs, only being stopped in the West finals by the Edmonton Oilers, who'd swept the Ducks in the regular season."

It's an Oil fan's dream. Pointing out that Edmonton beat the team that beat Calgary. Sigh. Britishenglish 04:15, 28 December 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Players Birth Places[edit]

See WPTT, for discussion of this topic. GoodDay 19:47, 1 March 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Honored Members[edit]

This section has been revamped, in accordance with the consensus reached at Wikipedia: WikiProject Ice Hockey/Team pages format. Though not all Team pages have been revamped 'yet', in time they will be. Reverting back to the old style, only stalls the 'revamping' process. Please be patient. GoodDay 20:18, 26 April 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Protecting Article?[edit]

This article (lately) is being continously vandalised by either numerous anon-editors Or the same anon editor using different identities (the disruptive edits are generally the same). Perhaps 'semi-protection' is required (either that, or blocks).GoodDay 17:11, 1 May 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Seems there's an anon fetish with adding 'Charlie Conway' to the team captains section & 'Gordon Bombay' to the coaches section. GoodDay 17:27, 1 May 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

New Colors[edit]

Someone claimed without any evidence that the new colors are supposed to be a tribute to the Marine Corps. I found this highly doubtful and have taken it out. If someone has any evidence to the contrary, it would be appreciated.

(Note: comment above was unsigned.) I thought I read somewhere that it was actually supposed to be a tribute to the U.S. Army, I'll see if I can find that article. Jadefalcon 23:50, 24 May 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Oh, nevermind. I didn't read it, it was a comment made by (I think) Mike Emrick during a Vs. broadcast of a Ducks/Red Wings game. Jadefalcon 23:57, 24 May 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Sens Ducks[edit]

is gonna be a great series.

just what hockey needs imho...

He is only the fifth goaltender in NHL history to have won the trophy while playing for the team that lost. Giggy was the fifth player second goaltender to with Conn Smyth on a losing team (Ron Hextall was other)

SniperSarge 15:10, 23 May 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

GO DUCKS!!!!!!!!!!!! --Howard the Duck 15:16, 27 May 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This is all very interesting guys, but do either of you have anything to add or subtract from the article? Remember, this isn't a blog. GoodDay 18:28, 27 May 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Roger Crozier and Glenn Hall feel dissed. --Doogie2K (talk) 22:05, 8 June 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

'Pre-mature' Cup edits[edit]

The game is as good as over, 5-2 with 4 minutes left against a team that looks defeated.

Oh, 6-2 as I speak.

And I'm a Sens fan. So why not just let the edits stand?

Because its not fact until the buzzer ends, stranger things have happened. Croat Canuck Go Leafs Go 02:32, 7 June 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
No they haven't. 5-2, a few minutes, and a fallen apart team means it's over. Period.

Its over. If they some how manage to come back we can change it.

Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, you keep it until the game ends which it just did. Croat Canuck Go Leafs Go 02:36, 7 June 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Back when both teams were cup contenders and one even won LW8790 (talk) 13:40, 20 April 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

One cup[edit]


Again, saying "one Stanley Cup" would constitute confusion over whether or not they are the current champion. "Reigning Stanley Cup Champions" should be used TheWikiVigilante 12:09, 8 June 2007 (UTC) Reply[reply]

I think the language of the top should be changed. They should be known as the "reigning Stanley Cup Champions", seeing as though confusion would reign if they said that they "won" it instead of making light of the fact that they are the current champion. yours, your friendly neighborhood Wikilante TheWikiVigilante 16:52, 7 June 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It is clearly stated that their one cup came in 2007. There is no confusion. Resolute 13:45, 8 June 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I agree. There is no point writing that they are the "reigning" champions...all that means is you will have to remove it next year. Ccrashh 14:53, 18 June 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

That is not until April 2008, and you may have some people who will be confused... and people are already going to edit this thing anyway. I say just go with the "reigning" part and let nature take its course. TheWikiVigilante 15:40, 18 June 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

2nd paragraph[edit]

The info in that paragraph belongs in the 'history' section. Just because the Ducks 'recently' won the Stanley Cup, there's no reason to overload the opening paragraphs to the article. GoodDay 16:22, 8 June 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Since I was the one who first started that, and since the Ducks 'recently' won the Stanley Cup and are currently listed on "In the News" on the main page, my response is basically my summary for that particular edit, this page, this page, and Item 2a of this page. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 00:39, 9 June 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The lead section of an article, per Wikipedia Manual of Style, should as much as possible be a concise version of the rest of the article. A good lead gives the bare basics of the subject, enough so that the reader does not have to read the rest to get the gist. This paragraph fits this purpose perfectly, so it should stay. Arcimpulse 03:14, 9 June 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Minorly cleaned up "History"[edit]

I'm no Ducks fan, so I couldn't make it fully cohesive, and it still suffers from a bit of recentism (as do most sports team articles, really), but I hope I was able to fix up the History section a little bit by adding subsections and tightening up some of the paragraphs. Some more details of this season will eventually have to be pared, but I left 'em for now. --Doogie2K (talk) 22:08, 8 June 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Revert war on player names[edit]

Please, do not put diacritics for the players' names on this article. It makes it difficult for those using English keyboards (this is the English section of Wikipedia, after all) to use the search function. If I wanted to search for Teeme Selanne, I would not be able to find it if the article had his name with diacritics. Don't get me wrong, I know it is the technically correct spelling, but that belongs on the player's own article, not here.Arcimpulse 04:17, 11 June 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Seconded. Diacritics are not typically used in English, and the English spelling is Teemu Selanne. They do not belong in this article on this Wikipedia. Resolute 04:38, 11 June 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
As per common agreement of WP:Hockey diacritics are not to be used to team pages and only are used on player pages. --Djsasso 05:09, 11 June 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Removed a diacritic (it was missed). I missed this recent edit battle (it occurred, just after I removed this page from my watchlist). Anyways, congradulation on keeping the 'agreement' intacked. GoodDay 17:44, 19 June 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Stanley Cup Section[edit]

I don't really think this section is detailed enough, at least not for winning the championship of a professional sports league. Look at the Carolina Hurricanes cup-winning post-season, and how their biggest games are well explained and passion is put into the article. Another thing I do not like is that the paragraph after this section is a derogatory one that is biased imo. Yes, the Ducks played aggressive hockey this past post-season, but I do not think that it merits a section that demeans their accomplishments. It was not really all that controversial either. I think this section should be removed. The Pronger suspensions are fairly important, so they can be added into the Cup-winning section, like what series they happened in etc. Love each other, or perish. ~Auden 05:13, 9 August 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Teemu Selanne[edit]

Until he's re-signed, he doesn't belong on the 'current roster'. He's been an UFA since July 1, 2007. GoodDay 00:22, 6 September 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

In general we leave players on until after training camp unless their official website removes them. Selanne is still on their website roster last I checked. But its that that huge a deal to me. --Djsasso 01:16, 6 September 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
But, we don't use the 'team official websites' as a fully reliable source. Remember the 'diacritics on placename dispute'? GoodDay 20:53, 6 September 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
We don't when it comes to diacritics because they have shown to use improper spelling a number of times when it came to diacritics, but since the roster on their webpages is coming straight from the source it is the only source we can go by as official. That being said its why some of us prefer to just leave it as last seasons roster, but there will always be people trying to change it in the summer which causes good old edit wars. --Djsasso 21:00, 6 September 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Re-add Selanne if you want. Sorry about the diacritics example; but I had to show you that the 'team websites' don't always get it right (therefore, not fully reliable). GoodDay 21:17, 6 September 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Nah it doesn't matter that much to me. I just wanted to point out why he keeps getting re-added by other people. --Djsasso 21:48, 6 September 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

To DAB or not to DAB[edit]

Is the DAB at the top necessary? You're not going to search for "Anaheim Ducks" while looking for the movie. The whole point of a DAB is so that when you land on a page via the search you can find all appropriate articles you may have been looking for. The DAB is only necessary on the page for The Mighty Ducks, not this page, not Mighty Ducks (TV series), and not The Mighty Ducks films. Mac OS X 19:22, 23 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

A little dab'll do ya. I'd say keep the Dab. GoodDay 19:38, 5 November 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I would have to agree with GoodDay and think it should be on all of the above. --Djsasso 22:45, 5 November 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:MightyDucksOfAnaheim.png[edit]

Image:MightyDucksOfAnaheim.png is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 07:18, 6 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I have put those rationales in place. Alaney2k (talk) 21:08, 6 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Scott Niedermayer[edit]

Ain't he suspended until somebody is traded, due to the NHL's salary cap? Somebody clarify please. GoodDay (talk) 20:24, 13 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Unless it happened today yes that is the case. --Djsasso (talk) 20:30, 13 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Soo, Niedermayer status is still suspended. GoodDay (talk) 20:33, 13 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Here's the gameday roster from 12/12. He didn't play and not wasn't listed as a scratch, therefore as of 12/12 he's not on the roster. ccwaters (talk) 20:54, 13 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I heard Brian Burke say in the initial announcement that they have 21 days to activate him. That he is in the equivalent of 'training camp' right now. (And we don't bother with training camp rosters, right?) I am sure we'll get a big announcement of him coming off the suspended list. If the other managers hold out long enough, someone could get released instead of traded. E.g. O'Donnell. Somebody who is under contract for next season, because the Ducks are supposedly ok for this season, even with Niedermayer in the lineup. Alaney2k (talk) 21:00, 13 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You can't just release a player to freeup cap space. The only way the Ducks can get out of this mess is by trading off a player or having someone pick up a player from them off waivers like the did with Ilya. --Djsasso (talk) 21:07, 13 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I agree. The main point being that they would not make a trade in that case. In the case of Niedermayer, I don't believe that he is still suspended like he was before, now he is in this training camp 'limbo'. I think you -could- consider him to be part of the roster, but have to put an asterisk next to his name. Players don't get paid for training camp, so I guess he still doesn't count against the cap. Considering the waiver process, I would guess that the Ducks have less than 21 days to figure out something. It takes 24 hours potentially for waivers. And another 24 for re-entry. Alaney2k (talk) 21:35, 13 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

If Nidermayer is no longer suspended? Does anybody have a source of Brian Burke declaring so? GoodDay (talk) 21:46, 13 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It could be de-facto, no? I don't believe a suspended player can practice with the team, can they? Alaney2k (talk) 22:03, 13 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Scott is listed on the roster page at [2] and at espn: [3]. Alaney2k (talk) 22:06, 13 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
He is still suspended as they can't unsuspend him until they clear the cap room. The reason they have cap room for the players they have is that he is suspended. Until they make a fix he is still suspended. He is not suspended by the league so its up to the team if he practices with them or not, its a team suspension not a league suspension. -Djsasso (talk) 00:04, 14 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I think is neither suspended nor on the roster. From what I have heard, he is physically ready to go play, but Burke needs to clear up $900k in salary for the next season. It's more like he's a UFA who everybody knows will sign with the Ducks. Thricecube (talk) 06:59, 14 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I agree. It's next season that is the issue. It's "tagging". I'd say he is 'ineligible to play', or 'inactivated', not 'suspended' anymore. And the league does not pay salary for training camp, so that's how they can have him practice. Alaney2k (talk) 19:55, 14 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I've placed (Inactive) next to his name, until he's activated? GoodDay (talk) 21:09, 14 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This story from the official Ducks site may shed some light onto this. He's no longer suspended and has been "placed him on the active roster." -→Buchanan-Hermit™/?! 05:08, 16 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Saw it, just made the change. See guys, I told ya he was still suspended while in training. But would anybody listen to me? Nahhhh (just joking). GoodDay (talk) 19:43, 16 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Teemu Selanne[edit]

Jumpin' Junipter, once again someone re-added diacritics onto Teemu Selanne and once again I had to remove them from the article. GoodDay (talk) 23:24, 2 February 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I found the anon editor who innocently did it. GoodDay (talk) 23:31, 2 February 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'd like to nominate this page to be a featured article.[edit]

I just don't know exactly what to do.

I got the {{fac}} thing....

EDIT: This is Fretzy99. Thought I add that on in case Bucky sees this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fretzy99 (talkcontribs) 03:42, 10 February 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You can nominate it, but I'll warn you that it would fail an FA nomination at this point as this article does still need a lot of work. Among the things I have noticed thus far:
  1. Citations needed, and lots of them. See WP:CITE. Believe me, reviewers are going to be anal about this.
  2. The jersey images do not have source information. This needs to be corrected.
  3. The article suffers from a lot of recentism, with the 2006-07 Stanley Cup season section being almost as long as the 1993-2004 section. I'd recommend expanding on the early history, and moving some of the more mundane details from 2006-07 to 2006-07 Anaheim Ducks season.
  4. Too many subsections. i.e.: too much focus on the jersies. A single section detailing the history in brief would be better, imo.
  5. I would recommend moving some of the list sections to their own child article - i.e.: Captains, coaches, first round draft picks, etc. See how New Jersey Devils is and how much of that was moved to New Jersey Devils notable players and award winners. Those list sections that remain should be converted to prose, if possible.
  6. I question the value of the rivalries section. It reads like a lot of original research, If the section remains, I might suggest focusing on one key rivalry, probably that with the LA Kings.
This article needs a lot of work still, but it has a good start. I've just gone through this with Calgary Flames, so know how much work it will take... took me almost a year to get it to that level, though I wasn't very focussed on the end until the last few weeks before the nomination. Look over the formats of the New Jersey Devils, Flames and Nottingham Panthers articles, our three current team FA's, as well as the Featured article criteria for ideas.
My first recommendation would be to add as many citations as you can, for any statement that might be challenged (the Flames article alone has nearly 90), and copyedit the text. From there, the best next step would be a Peer review for wider opinions. It may take some time, but if you are dedicated to bringing this to FA level, it will be worth it. Feel free to ask for advice on my talk page, or at WT:HOCKEY as well. Regards, Resolute 04:12, 10 February 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

If you could tell me how to make child article I would be delighted to help. Trakrecord (talk) 01:50, 23 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

For some of the sections I listed above, you could look at what exists in the Devils article, and move that content to a similar one for the Ducks. i.e.: Anaheim Ducks notable players and award winners. Mention in your edit summary that you are moving the content from this article. A link to the new article could be added to the {{Anaheim Ducks}} template so that it can be reached from other related articles. I could do this for you once the article is created if you are unsure how to do that.
After that, citations and editing the prose would be the highest priority for this article, I would argue. Good luck, Resolute 01:56, 23 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Do that cause I'm looking at the Devils page and I can't find that second box.Trakrecord (talk) 02:25, 23 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks I'm working on reorganizing the main page I will put it up on my talk. Trakrecord (talk) 02:15, 23 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Done. You will now see a link called "Award winners" on the Anaheim Ducks template linking to that article. Also, I might suggest working on the article on a personal subpage rather than your talk page. Something like User:Trakrecord/Sandbox, since talk pages are generally for discussion between users. Alternatively, feel free to make changes, provided they are supported by reliable sources to the main article itself. That will help prevent you and other editors from duplicating efforts. Resolute 03:13, 23 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Can you make one for Notable Players and I have updated the two draft years.Trakrecord (talk) 04:44, 23 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Trakrecord before you make further edits to this article spend some time at WP:HOCKEY. Writing like a PR person for the Ducks is also not very productive. And please don't delete material until you bring it up here. Thanks. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 05:59, 25 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]


The history content is written like a press release and I would like to change that. It is lengthy to the extent that the history page should have it's own page e.g. Montreal Canadiens. I will summarize what is already there and move the history to a history of the franchise page. Trakrecord 23:25, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Ownership and Control[edit]

Looking around I found this on Henry Samueli

On June 23, 2008, Samueli pleaded guilty for lying to SEC for $2.2 billion of backdating. Under the plea bargain, Samueli agreed to a sentence of five years probation, a $250,000 criminal fine, and a $12 million payment to the US Treasury. His sentencing is scheduled for August 18.[6] [7] He was suspended indefinitely as the Anaheim Ducks' team owner by the National Hockey League.

Anyone have more info and should this be mentioned on this page.--Mrebus (talk) 22:49, 11 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Stanley Cup Fact[edit]

In this article it mentions that the Ducks were the first California team and first west coast team to win since the 1925 Vancouver team. Does this mean no one remembers or counts the 1993 win by the Los Angeles Kings. Just sayin'. (talk) 18:06, 23 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Well since the Kings didn't win in 1993....I am sure no one does remember it. -DJSasso (talk) 18:09, 23 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Logo Discrepancies[edit]

Unknown to many the intersecting sticks and triangular background are actually a modified upside down version of the greek letters delta and upsilon placed over one another. This symbol is the same design worn by the members of Delta Upsilon which is the greek organization that Michael Eisner (the chief executive officer of The Walt Disney Company from 1984 until 2005) belonged to. Delta Upsilons unofficial mascot was the ducks and thus the components and ideas of the Ducks old logo can be traced back to Eisners time in college

This post keeps being removed via speedy deletion however all components are valid and hold weight and should be posted in the logo section on the main page.At the time of the ducks creation the chief executive officer of the Walt Disney company was Michael Eisner. Michael Eisner who is an alumni of Delta Upsilon Fraternity, served as the CEO of the Walt Disney Company from 1984 to 2005. In 1992 Disney released the Mighty Ducks movie, and in 1993 founded an NHL team of the same name and logo. The unofficial mascot of Delta Upsilon fraternity is the Duck, so when Eisner and the Dinsey company needed ideas for a new children's film and hockey team mascot/logo he looked back to his roots as a Delta Upsilon for the idea. It can be clearly seen the logos background is an upside version of the the Organizations membership badge and its forefront is undeniably a duck. The following link is delta upsilons international website and shows the membship badge. The following link is directly from Disney prooving Eisners lead in the cooporation.

Infact wikipedias page on Michael Eisner mentions his membership to Delta Upsilon and his commitment to the Disney company — Preceding unsigned comment added by Amercer6 (talkcontribs) 05:35, 8 December 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

All of that is called original research and cannot be used in an article. If you have sources specifically stating that this was where the logo/name came from published by reliable sources it can certainly be added back in. But currently it wouldn't be valid. -DJSasso (talk) 13:23, 9 December 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Ducks vs. Kings[edit]

This section seems very random. Its written very unprofessionally, and has no real basis.

Couver1 (talk) 17:23, 16 December 2010 (UTC) Couver1Reply[reply]

User Box[edit]

I don't know if their is one already, but i created my own.

ANAThis user is a Ducks fan.

. If you like use the code {{User:C.m1994/Ducks Fan}}<BR><BR><BR> — Preceding unsigned comment added by User:C.m1994 (talkcontribs)

There is see User:UBX/NHL-Ducks. You can also see all the other teams at Wikipedia:Userboxes/Sports/US_and_Canadian#National_Hockey_League. -DJSasso (talk) 14:39, 14 March 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Franchise scoring leaders[edit]

Ryan Getzlaf breaks Paul Kariya franchise records I figure I make a comment here so we don't forget to change it when the season is done.

Joker4lifead (talk) 00:54, 13 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 31 May 2015[edit]

For the last 5 seasons part, it should say that Ducks scored 236 goals and gave up 226 goals in the 2014-15 season. The current totals are incorrect. Neph96 (talk) 11:50, 31 May 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Done Edgars2007 (talk/contribs) 21:30, 31 May 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 3 June 2015[edit]

Can somebody please update the franchise playoff scoring leaders and franchise all time records? That needs to be updated. (talk) 06:02, 3 June 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Do you have a source with the updated totals available? If so, I can make that change for you. Resolute 19:07, 3 June 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Note: This article is no longer Semi-Protected, so you can now edit the article yourself, but please ensure that any additions are properly sourced, to reliable sources and you maintain a neutral point of view - Arjayay (talk) 16:56, 10 June 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Anaheim Ducks. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

☒N An editor has determined that the edit contains an error somewhere. Please follow the instructions below and mark the |checked= to true

  • 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 IITalk to my owner:Online 23:42, 28 August 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]


The Ducks released a third jersey about a few months ago. It probably will have to be added as an "ALT" jersey.

Here's the jersey (the very below orange one):

Some more information:

Thanks. The Pancakeof Heaven! 13:19, 18 July 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Anaheim Ducks. 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, 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: 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) 08:02, 12 October 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 8 May 2017[edit]

Zega720 (talk) 16:59, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
i request an edit as i see some important info is missingReply[reply]
Not done: this is not the right page to request additional user rights. You may reopen this request with the specific changes to be made and someone will add them for you, or if you have an account, you can wait until you are autoconfirmed and edit the page yourself. — IVORK Discuss 21:51, 8 May 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]


ducks are better than the kings

Colors on infoboxes[edit]

The logo might have a lot of gold, but the Ducks have been using orange as its primary color for a few years now, including on their jerseys, website, merchandise, etc. Shouldn't the infoboxes on this article also do the same? When you think about it, the infoboxes should be black and orange, not black and gold. (talk) 07:04, 17 October 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

According to the 2019–20 Ducks' media guide, its official colours are "Black and Gold with Orange and Silver Accents." The wording of that would imply that black and gold are the primary colours, and orange and black being accent/secondary colours. Leventio (talk) 07:40, 17 October 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Colours in team infoboxes are based on the various teams media guides. We go by their indication of what their colours are. -DJSasso (talk) 10:55, 17 October 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Updated Uniforms Section - Adidas Reverse Retro Jersey[edit]

After being teased for a week prior, Adidas released their collection of Reverse Retro jerseys on November 16, 2020 for all 31 NHL teams. These jerseys are set to be worn sometime in 2021 when play resumes. Nick.b23 (talk) 14:08, 18 November 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Bob Murray Placed on Leave[edit]

Bob Murray has been placed on leave, pending the results of an investigation. Jeff Soloman is interim GM. I'd think that should be reflected in the infobox - what say you guys?

--Inspector Semenych (talk) 15:49, 10 November 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

First-Round Draft Picks[edit]

Just added this section because I noticed that some other team's articles have this included. Thought it'd be helpful. Newstarwars07 (talk) 01:20, 1 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]