Talk:2024 NHL entry draft

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:NHL Entry Draft which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 01:05, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

Order of remaining playoff teams

Here is this year's order of remaining playoff teams.

Conference finalists will be given the final four selections in this year's draft. As teams get eliminated from the playoffs please only add teams that have their selection spot determined.

The following is a list in reverse order of league finish for this year's playoff teams:

• Washington Capitals
• New York Islanders
• Vegas Golden Knights
• Tampa Bay Lightning
• Los Angeles Kings
• Nashville Predators
• Toronto Maple Leafs
• Edmonton Oilers
• Colorado Avalanche
• Boston Bruins
• Winnipeg Jets
• Carolina Hurricanes
• Vancouver Canucks
• Florida Panthers
• Dallas Stars
• New York Rangers

Ex: If the Capitals or Rangers were to be eliminated in the first two rounds they would pick 17th and 28th respectively. If the Capitals were to make the conference finals and the Islanders were eliminated in the opening two rounds then the Islanders would pick 17th. If the Rangers were to make the conference finals and the Stars lost in either of the first two rounds then Dallas would select 28th. Deadman137 (talk) 15:01, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

NHL draft lottery explained

A team that retains their selection spot by winning a lottery is still deemed to have won a draft lottery. Montreal in 2022 and San Jose in 2024 won the draft lottery and retained the first overall pick and that counts towards one of their two draft lottery wins, the same would have also applied to Arizona in 2022 and Columbus last year if they had won the second lottery and retained the second pick.

Chicago is now ineligible to win any of the draft lotteries in the next three years because of their lottery wins in 2023 and 2024 satisfying the two lottery wins in a five-year period clause. This does not mean that Chicago cannot select first or second overall with their own draft pick in 2025, 2026 or 2027 they just cannot do so via a draft lottery win. In any of those three years they can still pick first overall if they finish last in the league and one of the teams 12-16 in the odds table wins the first draft lottery. They can also retain the second pick if they finish last overall and any team other than the team with the 12th best odds wins the first lottery and a team 13-16 in the odds table wins the second draft lottery. The same applies for the second pick if Chicago finishes in 31st and the last place finishing team gets the first pick and one team from 13-16 wins the second lottery. Deadman137 (talk) 19:30, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

I have found a new document as a piece of evidence that stated: "No single team will be able to advance in the Draft order by reason of winning a Lottery Draw more than two (2) times in any five (5) year period." This means that if a team retains its selection spot by winning a lottery, it does not count as a "strike" against them, only moving up does. Khoa41860 (talk) 19:39, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

Hockeynews is not considered a reliable source. Deadman137 (talk) 04:27, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

Just to clarify, The Hockey News is considered to be reliable, but not for official announcements from the League. They would be speculating like others. For this type of explanation, it's better to come from the NHL. The implications of this rule can be discussed by The Hockey News. Conyo14 (talk) 18:50, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

The Blackhawk are eligible per the NHL to win another lottery within the next 3 drafts. Likewise the Sharks can still win 2 lotteries within the next 5 drafts.

See this article from The NY Times/Athletic. This sections needs editing immediately.

https://www.nytimes.com/athletic/5837362/2024/10/12/blackhawks-nhl-lottery-shesterkin-swayman/ 216.175.28.83 (talk) 02:16, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

Footnote cleanup

I cleaned articles by converting the notes to {{efn}} format. There are several orphaned footnotes that have no corresponding reference in the text; those were removed in my edit. See below.

Round one

1. The Edmonton Oilers' first-round pick will go to the Anaheim Ducks as the result of a trade on March 6, 2024, that sent Sam Carrick, Ty Taylor and a seventh-round pick in 2024 to Edmonton in exchange for a conditional fifth-round pick in 2025 and this pick.
2. The Florida Panthers' first-round pick will go to the Philadelphia Flyers as the result of a trade on March 19, 2022, that sent Claude Giroux, German Rubtsov, Connor Bunnaman and a fifth-round pick in 2024 to Florida in exchange for Owen Tippett, a third-round pick in 2023 and this pick (being conditional at the time of the trade). The condition – Philadelphia will acquire a first-round pick in 2024 if Florida’s first-round pick in 2024 is outside the top ten selections – was converted when the Panthers qualified for the 2024 Stanley Cup playoffs on March 28, 2024.

Round two

1. The Florida Panthers' second-round pick will go to Utah as a result of a trade on July 26, 2021, that sent a seventh-round pick in 2023 to Florida in exchange for Anton Stralman, Vladislav Kolyachonok and this pick.

Round three

1. The Edmonton Oilers' third-round pick will go to Utah as the result of a trade on July 7, 2022, that sent Colorado's first-round pick in 2022 to Edmonton in exchange for Zack Kassian, a first-round pick in 2022, a second-round pick in 2025 and this pick.

Round four

1. The Edmonton Oilers' fourth-round pick will go to the Tampa Bay Lightning as the result of a trade on May 21, 2024, that sent a seventh-round pick in 2024 and a second-round pick in 2025 to Nashville in exchange for Ryan McDonagh and this pick.

   Nashville previously acquired this pick as the result of a trade on February 28, 2023, that sent Mattias Ekholm and a sixth-round pick in 2024 to Edmonton in exchange for Tyson Barrie, Reid Schaefer, a first-round pick in 2023 and this pick.

Wracking ^talk! 03:13, 10 June 2024 (UTC) Wracking ^talk! 03:13, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

References

Footnote formatting

Bringing a message from my talk page here. Deadman137 said: I can appreciate the effort of the edits that you made, but what you did makes the article substantially worse to edit and it will create more problems than it's worth so it was removed.

Among other edits, I converted superscripted (¹) footnotes to {{efn}} footnotes. [1] I was reverted by Deadman137. [2] I disagree that using {{efn}} creates more problems than it's worth. As it stands, as a reader (the core demographic of Wikipedia), it's difficult to read the footnotes as they're intended to be listed and it's nearly impossible on a mobile device. Yes, it makes for a messier source code, but it's not that much more difficult to edit.

That being said, a better option than {{efn}} may be {{sfnlink}}, which should offer a workaround for the known error with using list-defined references. This would clean up the source code but still provide interactive footnotes. See example 3 on the template documentation page. Thoughts? Wracking ^talk! 17:35, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

I can't speak to ease of editing, but the efn footnotes used by Wracking are much more user friendly and easier to read, in my opinion. Saves a lot of scrolling on both desktop and mobile. I would support using them. Ravendrop 17:35, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

What you made with efn is nothing more than a giant speed bump that will create constant issues with way too many edit conflicts during the event. The table and transaction notes sections are separated into their own sections during the draft to make editing faster because information is constantly changing and that is what is needed during the event. The last thing that's needed is making the editing process any longer than it already is.

The potential use of sfnlink is also useless because it will only link to the highest selection and the purpose of this setup is to show how each pick transaction occurred while providing an easy link to each part of a transaction and this would create a barrier for readers.

While the article is in the development phase these are some of the worst ideas that I've seen. Now given that the current formatting is not broken and these changes only make minor cosmetic changes to look of the article while making the editing worse I will never support this. If you can bring forward an actual set of improvements, then as the person that usually does most of the work on these articles, I'll look at it and give it consideration, but this isn't it. Deadman137 (talk) 04:25, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

Please elaborate on this: The potential use of sfnlink is also useless because it will only link to the highest selection and the purpose of this setup is to show how each pick transaction occurred while providing an easy link to each part of a transaction and this would create a barrier for readers.

Wikipedia is not a repository for breaking news; we have no obligation to provide minute-by-minute updates. Still, I cannot imagine that any changes to the wikitext will make it so difficult that the updates still could not be made by the end of the day (at the very latest).

I understand that you contribute a great deal to these articles, but I also ask you to pay mind to WP:OWN. I especially object to your seeming unwillingness to find compromise on this issue. Wracking ^talk! 04:59, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

There isn't any compromise to be had as both suggestions are net negatives. Once two or more people start to edit the same section (this is a very common occurrence) they will be constantly tripping over each other and it wouldn't matter if it was done on the same day or any other day as the same problem would happen. Deadman137 (talk) 22:12, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

I've never seen the edit conflicts you describe; over 200,000 articles use {{efn}} for a reason. As discussion has found no one else agreeing with you, I will be moving forward with changes to the footnote structure. Wracking ^talk! 03:00, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

Of course you've never seen it because you've never worked on the article during the event. Deadman137 (talk) 03:14, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

For ease of reading, I strongly prefer interactive footnotes Wheatzilopochtli (talk) 20:05, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

Deadman137, as you reverted me on the basis of no clear consensus yet, how long do you think we need to wait to say consensus has been reached here? Wracking ^talk! 03:26, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

Notified WT:HOCKEY Wracking ^talk! 18:03, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

Support subscripts While Wikipedia has no obligation to be up-to-date, I do agree the footnotes being proposed/unilaterally enacted make the editing of the live event much worse.–uncleben85 (talk) 00:35, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

How about a compromise. Until the event is over (because there is an obvious intent to edit this as the draft happens) we use the subscript format for ease of editing. After the draft is over, could we switch to the proposed format by Wracking? That way in the future, readers will have a better experience. Llammakey (talk) 12:05, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

Actually we couldn't used the proposed formatting as WP:MOS does not allow footnotes to be in a table. Footnotes have to be in their own subsection or at the bottom of the table using them, which the current formatting already does. Deadman137 (talk) 23:49, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

I think you're misreading MOS. I don't see anything wrong with the proposed formatting after the draft is over. Wheatzilopochtli (talk) 00:46, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

"Footnotes for citations are treated the same way in tables as they are in prose. Explanatory footnotes may appear in the end matter of an article as they do with prose, or they may be displayed directly after the table they are used in, often using a group. They should not appear inside the table itself." Deadman137 (talk) 00:54, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

The proposed format follows this guideline. Wheatzilopochtli (talk) 01:01, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

Look at the actual edit [3] the footnotes are in the tables and are not compliant. This conversation is clearly over despite what some editors refuse to accept. Deadman137 (talk) 01:30, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

You are misunderstanding the MOS. If the proposal violates MOS, so does the current article. "Footnotes" does not refer to the superscripted numbers nor the superscripted hyperlinks. It refers to the text in the notes section below the table. Wheatzilopochtli (talk) 02:00, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

These articles have been assessed at MOS before and they are compliant in the current format. Deadman137 (talk) 02:27, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

That doesn't mean they wouldn't still be compliant in the proposed formatting Wheatzilopochtli (talk) 02:34, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

Current format is compliant, proposal is not as the footnotes are in the tables. Your arguments are ridiculous and not constructive. Deadman137 (talk) 03:13, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

I am not arguing at all. I am confident that you are misinterpreting the MOS. Why would hyperlinked footnotes and non-hyperlinked footnotes be treated differently? Why would "footnotes" mean one but not the other? Wheatzilopochtli (talk) 03:15, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

This is a definite misinterpretation of the MOS, Deadman137. Formatting footnotes using templates like {{efn}} is absolutely allowed to be used in tables, though {{notelist}} inside the table (which I did not do) is likely discouraged. See, for example, that many featured articles and featured lists with extensive footnotes use interactive footnotes in their tables (e.g. 1, 2, 3).

As for these articles have been assessed at MOS, the closest relevant conversation I found wasWikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Tables#Explanatory notes for tables, where in 2020 DMacks asked a few questions about best practices on notes/explanations in tables, and Izno responded that they generally preferred that table notes appeared in {{notelist}} at the bottom of the page.

Would you be opposed to this discussion being listed at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style#Style discussions elsewhere? Wracking ^talk! 20:02, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

Wait, do you mean this 2014 conversation started by Everyone Dies In the End? This conversation did not identify that these are not list entries, but effectively footnotes, and only one user (Edokter) replied after the actual articles were linked. This definitely does not constitute an "assessment" of the articles. If neither of these discussions are the ones you're referring to, would you be able to find it? Wracking ^talk! 20:27, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

Indeed, you have misinterpreted the expectations here; it is absolutely a common pattern for footnote markers to be in a table, to say nothing of reference markers.

In this specific case, I would absolutely suggest using {{efn}}. It keeps the note content close to the content that needs a note and prevents any accidental duplication of referenced numbers, as is possible with the current static note system being used.

That said, I think another viable option is to move the notes into the table proper as another column given the number of notes. Izno (talk) 01:29, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

FWIW, this compromise makes sense to me, if other editors really do consider {{efn}} a major obstacle to editing. Wracking ^talk! 20:03, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

Mac Swanson listed as German on the NHL.com website

From all sources I've found, it looks like Swanson was born in Alaska and played for USA. However the NHL website lists him as being from Germany. Could it just be an error on their end? Is he a German, or American citizen? https://www.nhl.com/draft/tracker/2024/7 Anthonyd3ca (talk) 00:39, 30 June 2024 (UTC)