Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ice Hockey/Archive2

Ice hockey timeline

I have a WIP timeline for NHL clubs at User:kelvSYC/Timelines set up. If anyone wants to make suggestions on how to change it or how to include it in a relevant article, please talk to me on my talk page. kelvSYC 06:16, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Some of the words cannot be seen. Blue on dark green for example Earl Andrew 18:20, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, that's a problem I'm trying to get worked out with the developers if possible. You can't change the link color. It's always blue. – flamurai (t) 01:55, Mar 5, 2005 (UTC)

Oh! I thought it was an image! Mybad. Earl Andrew 04:59, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I've completed all of the team colors, and now I only have to add in a few footnotes and do some tweaking to finish it. Again, any feedback should be directed to my talk page. kelvSYC 22:10, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I've now completed the out-of-league histories and changed the timeline so it uses a few new features of EasyTimeline. There are still a few minor bugs to be addressed, though. If there is enough demand (and a place to put it), I can compile history timelines for the WHA and other leagues as well. kelvSYC 05:26, 1 May 2005 (UTC)

A similar timeline has been put up at User:kelvSYC/Timelines for the World Hockey Association. kelvSYC 23:10, 1 May 2005 (UTC)

Using the timelines

What do you think about using my timelines in the relevant articles? Do you think we should include them or put them in a separate page? kelvSYC 04:45, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

American Hockey League

Once the Edmonton/San Antonio/Cincinnati situations are cleared up and division alignments are announced (should be after the league meeting at the end of June), I'd like to bring a consistent look to the team pages in the American Hockey League. I started off with the Binghamton Senators. I left out some irrelevant(??) criteria from the team page suggestion, but I'm still seeing some reduncancies. Any suggestions? Once I get a format that's appropriate, I'll at least convert a division or more as I have time. Other volunteers are welcome. If it goes well, we can move on to other leagues... ccwaters 02:37, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Ok...I think I've come to a preferred format at Binghamton Senators. I like the record book idea that I saw at Springfield Falcons. I think it fits minor league teams better than a "players of note" listing. Any input otherwise?? ccwaters 01:38, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

Why thank you. The record book makes more sense in any event, considering that a "players of note" section (in an era where an impact player who plays more than three years for the same minor league team is dramatically uncommon) just doesn't make much sense for minor league clubs. Pre-expansion days these aren't. RGTraynor 04:55, August 3, 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, minor league rosters are too volatile for the players of note, etc. Its would be way to easy to abuse and list every eventual NHL star that passed through town for 5 games. I added flags to the listing at Binghamton Senators. I'm not sold it though.

Status: almost done but dreading the Hershey Bears and Rochester Americans. See User:Ccwaters/TaskList ccwaters 12:22, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

I'm down to 1, maybe 2 teams. Got a question for everyone: The Milwaukee Admirals started out as an amateur club without any set schedule. Later they joined the then semi pro USHL. I can't find a reference as to when they actually started getting paid. There is a reference to the team having payroll problems though. They eventually joined the purely pro IHL in 1977. Should I include all of this (and related stats) in the article. Should I start at the IHL era? If I include amatuer here, I'll do the same at Hershey Bears to be fair. And if anyone with better resources can supply the SV% record holder for the Bears (25 GP min) I would be very grateful. I hope to finish all this tonight. ccwaters 12:16, 8 September 2005 (UTC) REF: http://www.milwaukeehockey.com/history/historymenu.htm

The problem is continuity. Is there any legitimate sense that the Milwaukee Admirals franchise joined the IHL, or did the Pettits just buy an IHL franchise and give it the same name they'd been used to having? I think back to how the Springfield Falcons ownership group first tried to secure rights to the "Springfield Indians" name, but it still wouldn't have been the same franchise. (Then again the "Boston Celtics" franchise of the Bill Russell days and all those championships technically is the current Los Angeles Clippers. Sports is a funny business.) I'd give a single paragraph on the USHL team -- provided the Pettits owned that -- and nothing more. RGTraynor 13:50, September 8, 2005 (UTC)

From what I see, its the same franchise. Trust me, I've been looking. See my Hamilton Bulldogs work. I'm also eyeing the Fort Wayne Komets since the 50ies claim (wrong- there were a least 2 Komets franchises, 1 of which died as the Albany Choppers). ccwaters 14:27, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

Y'know something, CC? We really ought to hammer out a consensus criteria for minor league team continuity. Some of the elements to consider:

* A team keeping the same name in the same city, despite technical shifts of franchise (the Komets, for instance);

* A team keeping the same ownership and name throughout league changes (both the Milwaukee and Hampton Roads Admirals, the Komets again, the Rivermen, the K-Wings ...);

* A team widely perceived as having a unified identity despite affiliation/name change (Nova Scotia Voyageurs -> Oilers -> Halifax Citadels);

* A team name change, but with the team retaining the same affiliation and thus players (Springfield Indians vs Kings); and

* A franchise shift/ownership changes, but with the team retaining the same affiliation and thus players (1994 Springfield Indians -> 1995 Springfield Falcons).

Right now it's just too damn malleable for words. RGTraynor 14:41, September 8, 2005 (UTC)

Sure, I tried to be consistent in my contribs. My guidelines: if its a different legal entity (franchise), it gets a new article (Bulldogs, Rivermen). Typically franchises don't switch leagues, except in mergers (WCHL ->ECHL, IHL -> AHL) and fallouts from dying leagues (IHL -> UHL). Name changes generally get a new article (Binghamton's first AHL run). Typically, name changes indicate major changes (affiliations, etc) and thus a new "era"/history anyway. When this happens, I definitely make references to that fact in both articles. Exceptions: Providence Reds -> Rhode Island Reds, a minor insignificant name change for 1 season.

I'm trying to be factual and fair throughout. Other than adding a P into Binghamton :), the other pet peeves of mine are ignorant arguments that the market doesn't deserve another AHL run because they lost 3 AHL teams (Dusters,Whalers,Rangers) already. My methodologies are not glorifying my own interests at the expense of others. ccwaters 15:23, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

Status: I just need to add a few stats to Milwaukee Admirals (I get around to it soon). I added a "Local Media" listing at Binghamton Senators. The idea is that it would help people find news articles about the teams. Coverage varies around the league though. The Philly papers essentially ignored the Philadelphia Phantoms until they made it to the finals. So I'm not sure if I'll keep it. I also added an AHL Arenas template, primarily because somone added an very ugly arena listing at American Hockey League. I did it quickly and I admit it could probably be formatted differently. Go ahead if and edit it if you have issues with its current state. ccwaters 14:18, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

Personally, I'd skip the "Local Media" bit. I just noticed you added it because I only keep an eye on the Wolfpack page and I've been busy editing US Navy pages lately. To continue with your example, you're only listing the Inquirer for the Phantoms, but there's also the Philadelphia Daily News, the Gloucester (NJ) Courier-Post (where most of the players live)...AHL teams in more major areas are going to come across problems like these. Though I agree that people may find it helpful to find news articles, most people interested in smaller market AHL teams probably live in the area and already know about the local media.  RasputinAXP  talk * contribs 14:39, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

Mm, I disagree. Being able to review news archives is important information for research purposes, and much tougher when people aren't necessarily familiar with small market media. That the listings are going to be incomplete and imperfect doesn't mean there shouldn't be any at all. RGTraynor 16:41, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

Well, I live in Philly. The Inquirer and the Daily News are owned and operated by the same company, Knight Ridder. They share the same website ( philly.com ). So, I have no guilt leaving one out, coverage from both of them sucks anyway (mostly 3 paragraph AP game recaps hidden below the bra ads). If someone wants to add them, go ahead. I never touched a Courier Post and don't have any plans to change. Most markets are 1 or 2 newspaper towns (we can ignore the suburban rags like the NJ based Courier Post and the Del Co times), it shouldn't be too hard to maintain. I wish there was an alternative over at Hamilton Bulldogs though. Someone added a radio station over at Toronto Marlies- that's not exactly what I had in mind and I'm on the fence about removing it. ccwaters 23:47, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

If it's the radio station that carries the team's broadcasts, it's worth leaving up, especially since a lot of radio stations do Internet streams so you can follow the team worldwide. RGTraynor 00:18, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, it is. I thought theahl.com was a centralized source for game streams, but it looks like that's not as comprehensive as I remember http://www.theahl.com/AHL/cybercasts.html ccwaters 00:33, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

Heh. I live in south Jersey, near Philly. The Courier-Post tends to carry more coverage of the Phantoms than the Knight Ridder folks, though. As a Rangers fan, I can safely ignore the Phantoms unless I'm going to take advantage of a group rate or something. That being said, it's no big deal. It looked odd to me, but considering the current number of AHL teams, it's worthwhile.  RasputinAXP  talk * contribs 02:17, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

Language of articles

It has been agreed through previous discussion that American based teams use American spelling and Canadian based teams use Canadian spelling. The rest of the hockey articles follow Wikipedia:Manual of Style.

For the use of diacritics and non-English characters in article titles and articles, see here.

Team Hall of Famer listings

One thing that's bugged me about the Hall of Famer listings for many of the teams is that they often include every HHOFer who's played as much as a single game in the team's uniform. Using Boston as an example, Jacques Plante played nine games for the Bruins, Sylvio Mantha five, a number of players like Bun Cook or Guy Lapointe who played a season or less at the very end of their careers, or players like Bernie Parent who played briefly for them at the beginning of theirs. Does anyone agree with me that team HOF listings should be limited to players having significant impacts with the teams for which they're listed? God knows no one genuinely thinks of Parent or Lapointe as "Bruins" Hall of Famers. RGTraynor 21:05, August 25, 2005 (UTC)

Totally. Maybe there should be threshold of 60-70 games (a good chunk of a season). It happens in the minors too: Did you know Bob Gainey played for the Nova Scotia Voyageurs? Guess how many games? Answer here: http://hockeydb.com/ihdb/stats/pdisplay.php3?pid%5B%5D=1819 (I'll put the Voyageurs on my TODO list). ccwaters 22:12, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

I wouldn't even make it merely a season's worth. Bernie Parent even played half the games for Boston his rookie year, but the proof of that year was that he was unprotected in the 1967 draft. I'd look for 3-4 years, and years that would significantly contribute to a Hall of Fame election. A Nels Stewart, a Brad Park, a Jean Ratelle I'd count as a Bruin; a Parent or a Lapointe, no. RGTraynor 01:24, August 26, 2005 (UTC)

I totally agree that there needs to be limits on who can be listed as a Hall of Famer for each team. Three to four years sounds fair. But limiting it to three or four years would mean some teams wouldn't have any on the list. A possible suggestion is this: set a maximum number for the hall of famers, for example 10. What i mean is, for teams, such as the Canucks, they can list every hall of famer that has ever suited up to a maximum of ten. In the event that more than ten hall of famers have suited up for Vancouver, then the ten players who have played longest for the Canucks remain on the list while the "one gamers" get removed. This would work well for post orginal six teams. For original six teams (or other teams that happen to have a lot), set a limit of three (or four) years of playing. When post original six teams have more than 10 players who have all played more than three (or four) seasons, then they too can excede 10. Any thoughts? suggestions? Masterhatch 26 August 2005

If some teams didn't have any HHOFers on the list, because no one was eligible, why would that be a bad thing? We're reporting facts, after all, not plumping up lists just so local fans can feel happy. (And as it is, I just checked; every NHL expansion team until the Sharks has at least one Hall of Famer legitimately associated with the club, so no one's going without.) RGTraynor 16:00, August 26, 2005 (UTC)

I will support you 100% if you want to shorten the HHOFers list to players only legitimately associated with the club. Masterhatch 27 August 2005

When players are inducted to the HHOF, aren't they (for the most part) inducted as a member of a certain team? For example, Bobby Orr is inducted as a Bruin, even though he played for a while in Chicago. Might be something to look into. . . cfish039 17 February 2006

Nope. I can think of a number of HHOFers, for that matter, for whom assigning a team would be difficult if not impossible. RGTraynor 01:32, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Screaming Eagles, Blazers, Blazers, Cowboys

Before I make any drastic changes, would anyone object with the merging of the Miami Screaming Eagles, Philadelphia Blazers, Vancouver Blazers, and Calgary Cowboys of the WHA? Basically, they are the same team, but just bounced around a lot. Currently, there seems to be a standard of separating teams that have a distinct history in a city that they played for (such as Hartford Whalers/Carolina Hurricanes and Quebec Nordiques/Colorado Avalanche), but with teams with a less distinct history (such as Cleveland Barons/Oakland Seals/California Golden Seals and New York Americans/Brooklyn Americans and Ottawa Senators/St. Louis Eagles) they are grouped together. The Eagles never played. The P. Blazers only played one season. The V. Blazers played two. The Cowboys played two. To me, at least, merging would make sense. Dito for Cleveland Crusaders/Minnesota Fighting Saints and Los Angeles Sharks/Michigan Stags/Baltimore Blades and New York Raiders/New York Golden Blades/New Jersey Knights/San Diego Mariners and Ottawa Nationals/Toronto Toros/Birmingham Bulls. Any thoughts? Masterhatch 4 September 2005

Mm, it's a compelling argument; go for it. The one place I disagree is with Cleveland/Minnesota -- you need to keep the original Saints separate, at least. RGTraynor 17:42, September 4, 2005 (UTC)

I would prefer to see them as separate articles. How would you choose where the article should sit? What do you do about regionally based categories (e.g. Category:defunct Philadelphia sports teams & Category:Calgary sports)? At what point do you say that a team has a distinct enough history in multiple cities that it should be multiple articles? What harm do they do as separate articles? -- JamesTeterenko 06:16, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

Well, choosing this one was actually difficult. But I felt that since the team first played in Philadelphia and had the best record there, that is where the article should be based. I felt merging these teams was the best choice simply because you had the team in 4 different cities (including Miami) in 5 years. As it was, all 4 pages were stubs (with the Calgary one the best of the four) and if all four pages were expanded beyond stubs, you would have a lot of redundant information describing the history of how each team got there. For the Philly article, a brief history of the Eagles would be needed and a brief history of the following two teams would also be needed. Same with the Vancouver Blazers. A brief history of how the team got to vancouver plus where it ended up. Again, same with Calgary. Before you know it, you are repeating yourself (just like I am now) on 4 articles without much in between. As for which teams get merged and which ones don't, I think that is a case by case situation. That is why six days ago I posted my intentions on this page to get some feed back. RGTraynor gave feed back and if I ever decided to expand Cleveland or Minnesota, I will definately take his opinion into consideration. As it is, I am not finished with the Blazers page. Within the next day or two, I will be putting up a pretty table showing their season by season record. Masterhatch 06:44, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

How would you choose where the article should sit? Wherever the team played the longest. What do you do about regionally based categories? Include them all, of course. At what point do you say that a team has a distinct enough history in multiple cities that it should be multiple articles? It's plainly dividing down a line of "three years = not enough" (and the Toros/Bulls were the only split as long as three years). What harm do they do as separate articles? No "harm" per se, but the Wiki standard is for a main article to which redirects are made. RGTraynor 09:10, September 10, 2005 (UTC)

I really would prefer to see these as separate articles. I think that the overlap would be minimal. The history section would only have to be a few sentences. The two of you even disagree on where the article should sit. Given RGTraynor's answer, it should be either named Vancouver Blazers or Calgary Cowboys, since they were in both cities for two years. Using the best record is tricky, with similar logic you could argue it should be Calgary Cowboys because that is the only team that ever had a winning season. And from what I can tell, the only time they won a playoff series was in Calgary. I feel that the Cowboys do have a distinct history in Calgary. Masterhatch notes that the Cowboys page was the most developed. If you look at the history, you will see that it got this way with the three major contributors (including myself) being from Calgary or the area. I think that this is reasonable evidence that the Cowboys do have somewhat of a lasting impact to Calgary. I personally do not associate them with the Philadelphia Blazers. -- JamesTeterenko 05:44, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

You made some good points. Honestly, being from the Vancouver area, I don't think of "my" Blazers being from Philidelphia, but when I sit at my computer and type on Wiki, I do my best to remove myself from my personal beliefs and opinions. Personally, I would like to see the V. Blazers separate, but in reality, it doesn't seem to make sense. Four cities in five seasons. Honestly, taking personal favourites out of the thought process, can we say that this team had a truly lasting impression on any of the 4 cities in 5 years? compare this to the Quebec Nordiques and the Avalanche. Or the Jets and the Coyotes. Does this WHA franchise really compare? Also, if you separate the four teams, you would go back to having four stubs. Now, I don't mind stubs if they have a great potential for growth (check out some of the stubs I have created with the NHL seasons), but if a stub seems destined to be a stub forever, then that erks me. In my opinion, there isn't enough history in each of the four locations for this franchise to go beyond expanded stubs. Now, why did I chose Philly to locate the article? I did that because that is where the team first played. If they had played one season in Philly and 4 in Vancouver, then I would have put the article with Van. But since it was impossible to chose between Vancouver and Calgary, I went with the location of the team when it played its first game and season. Masterhatch 14:24, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

While I don't think a team that few people came to see in any city can be said to have had a lasting impact in any of the three, I've a suggestion. Why not call the article "Blazers/Cowboys" and handle it all through redirects? That makes it city neutral. RGTraynor 06:02, September 12, 2005 (UTC)

Interesting idea, but wouldn't that set a horrible precedence? Masterhatch 03:52, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

It might set a precedent, but scarcely a horrible one. This can't be the only team in sports history with franchise shifts too fragmented for the team to be strongly associated with any one city, and too close together to merit separate articles. RGTraynor 07:21, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

In my mind, the cleanest solution is to have them as seperate articles. As there appears to little support for that outside of my little head, I think that the most appropriate name would indicate that it is an article for the franchise. A name along the lines of "Blazers/Cowboys WHA franchise" would probably make the most sense to me. -- JamesTeterenko 20:19, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

Well, in a situation like this, as is obvious from the fact that we are discussing this, using one city to represent all four just doesn't make sense. If we change it to either RGTraynor's or JamesTeterenko's solution, it will be the only hockey team I know of that uses this naming system. I support a name change and I will confuse matters even more by throwing in a third possible name: Blazers/Cowboys WHA. Anyways, I think we are on the right track to coming up with a solution. Masterhatch 03:05, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

League abbreviations and links

Yes, I've been guilty of this in the past, but can we refrain from linking to league acronyms and use the full names instead? I cleaned up some prominent [[AHL]] links and changed them to AHL (Sorry, I haven't checked how to display inline wiki syntax. Anyone that knows how has my permission to edit those properly). Actually, can we establish a convention of using the full name at the first mention, and then maybe supplying the acronym for additional mentions? This might be especially helpful with Canadian Hockey League vs. Central Hockey League. Just to be thorough: the ECHL is officially just the "ECHL" after the merger with the West Coast Hockey League So the Stockton Thunder will be members of the ECHL, but the Hampton Roads Admirals were members of the East Coast Hockey League, which was abbreviated ECHL. Nothing is ever simple, is it. ccwaters 23:26, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

List of NHL players

Every NHL team has a list of players. It is a great help if everyone helped to pitch in and keep this list up to date, uncluding adding rookies here List of every NHL player.

It seems to me the master list was taken from hockeydb.com and I have noticed that those players names were added without accents where applicable, ie. Jan Hrdina. I have created a redirect to that page, without the accents, to the properly accented link.SD6-Agent 00:18, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

This is a topic that I have avoided discussing because it will cause a huge disagreement but I will put my two cents in anyway. This is the English language section of Wikipedia, so therefore we don't need the diacritics. Honestly, I feel that everywhere on the English hockey pages the names should be written without the diacritics except on the main player article itself, but not as the main article name. The main article name should be written without them. So, the "Jan Hrdina" article should be Jan Hrdina, not Jan Hřdina. The article should start like this: Jan Hrdina (Jan Hřdina) was born blah blah blah. Could you imagine if Richard Park's article was called Richard 박? "박" is not an English way of writing and neither is "ř". But this is a very touchy subject so I am not going to argue my beliefs; just make them known. I am not going to "fix" all the diacritics, but on the other hand I am not going to add them either when I make player lists. I will ignore them when I see them, but if I have to type that players name, I won't use them. Masterhatch 01:27, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

I think the solution is to write the original article with the proper diacritics (throughout the entire article) then create a redirect to the page without the diacritics. I believ there is a difference between how Hrdina's name is written with the diacritics and how you wrote Park's name with the native language, which is not the same as adding diacritics.SD6-Agent 03:16, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

National team article names

I just created a category for national ice hockey teams, but I noticed something that looked a little funny to me.

National team articles are currently rendered in the following format:

• "(Demonym) national (men's/women's) (ice) hockey team"

Examples: Canadian national men's hockey team, Russian national ice hockey team, Czech national ice hockey team, American national men's hockey team

My quibbles:

• In football (soccer), the standard article name for national teams is:
  • "(Country) national football team", with "soccer" used for the USA and Canada

Some examples of the differing format:

• Canada:
  • Hockey: Canadian national men's hockey team, Canadian national women's hockey team
  • Football: Canada men's national soccer team, Canada women's national soccer team
• USA:
  • Hockey: American national men's hockey team, American national women's hockey team
  • Football: United States men's national soccer team, United States women's national soccer team
• Czech Republic:
  • Hockey: Czech national ice hockey team
  • Football: Czech Republic national football team
• Russia:
  • Hockey: Russian national ice hockey team
  • Football: Russia national football team

I've noticed that cricket uses the hockey format (i.e., English cricket team instead of "England cricket team").

Suggestions:

• Change the names of national team articles to the football-style format (country name instead of demonym; existing names would become redirects).
• Change "American" to "United States" in names of USA national team articles.
• In the Canada and USA team articles, change the order of the descriptors to match that used for the soccer teams (i.e. "men's/women's national" instead of "women's/men's national")

If you've already agreed on your format, I'm not going to push hard for a change. I do want to see if there's any merit to my ideas, however. — Dale Arnett 03:55, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

Well the football team page names are very akward. And, the reason why some have "men's" and some dont, is based on how big the woman's game is in that country. Same goes for whether hockey or ice hockey is used. -- Earl Andrew - talk 04:15, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

Player Statistics Format

For player statistics, would it not be better to bold the years and stats of when the player played in the NHL? That is how it is listed in the NHL Official Guide & Record Book, as well as other statistical references, and it makes it so much easier to compare a player's NHL seasons statistically, without having stints to the minors and juniors interfering. For example see the article of Steve Eminger. Also, how do I have been having a hard time figuring out how to place the stub template under the statistics, because every time I do that on the edit page it always appears above the statistics. If somebody could help me solve that problem that would be great. Croat Canuck 00:22, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

The NHL Media Guide would of course highlight players' NHL careers; it is, after all, a NHL publication. Wikipedia isn't, and there are many players (and many fans, for that matter) for which non-NHL play time isn't an afterthought. RGTraynor 01:15, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

Well I can agree with that, but we do provide NHL career totals, as opposed to other league totals, and since we do that in bold, why not do the individual seasons in bold too? Maybe we should provide the totals for every league the player has played in instead of just the National Hockey League. Croat Canuck 02:15, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

Show me an example of where you are having problems with the player stub categories and maybe I can help. I am not too sure I catch your drift, though, as I have never had problems with those. As for bolding, I don't care either way. Totals from other leagues? Well, to do that would be a lot of work because many sites only list the NHL totals and you would have to haul out your calculator for many players. But honestly, I don't feel the other leagues need to be totalled, except of course if the league was a major professional league, such as the World Hockey Association. I would rather see only the major professional leagues totalled. Masterhatch 02:37, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

TSN gives stats totals for all leagues. -- Earl Andrew - talk 03:03, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

Yes, it does, but its player lists aren't complete. Older, especially less notable players, aren't even on their database. tsn has Wayne Gretzky on its database, but not Thomas Gradin, for example. Masterhatch 03:21, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

Format choice

What do I use? I have been using the txt format available from IHDB and wrapping it in

tags (see the Garry Galley page I've worked on]] this seems very easy to me and allows me to add stats fast. On other pages though I see HTML tables being used. Are these tables ripped from a source page somewhere or is someone actually going to go in and change the table layout each year! Seems to me if we want casual people being able to add to Wiki that we might want to stick to the way I've been doing it. Please let me know your opinion and if you are ripping tables from source code somewhere, what is that source! KsprayDad 13:40, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Quebec Junior Hockey League

Anybody have any information on the defunct "Quebec Junior Hockey League", specifically information related to the Quebec Citadelles. I got someone over at Quebec Citadelles (article for defunct AHL team), that insists that it was a minor pro league. I'm looking for references otherwise ccwaters 14:36, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

Linking and stuff

I've been recently been going through current NHLer's who don't have articles yet and creating short tidbit articles on each one. However I have noticed that when a hockey player shares the same name as another wiki-worthy article, that there are different things put in the brackets for the article title. For example I just created the page on Mike Weaver (hockey), but I also found links to it on other articles that were Mike Weaver (hockey player), and in different cases I have also seen (ice hockey) used in the brackets. What I'm asking is, which one is the correct format to use? I've been using the (hockey) one because it is the shortest and probably most used. Also after I create the players page from above, I also go find other articles that may have the links wrong. I know already to go to the individual team history player lists, the entry draft articles, and the actual team articles. Are there any other pages that are important for me to check for wrong linkage? Croat Canuck 03:20, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

you have to go to the link on the left hand side that says "What links here". click on that and that will give you a list of everything that links to that page. I always check that before I make any new hockey player article. It is most useful. When you are changing links, do you also change links here List of every NHL player? That is supposed to be the master list and all players should be created starting from that list. As for (hockey) or (hockey player) or (ice hockey), well, I agree that we should choose one and use it universally, but I think that is an impossible dream to implement. I myself am guilty of creating different endings for hockey players. There was a discussion before I arrived on the Wiki scene that said we should use (ice hockey), but I think that was meant for hockey articles, not hockey players. I don't know of any hockey player specific agreement on the ending. I think (ice hockey) is probably the best because of other forms of hockey, such as field hockey. Masterhatch 04:22, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

Images

Does anybody know what's officially usable as far as images of hockey players go? I believe hockey cards are all fair use, but I'm not sure.--Scimitar ^parley 18:31, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

Headshots from team sites are fair use-promo. Scanned hockey cards aren't, I believe.  RasputinAXP  talk * contribs 19:40, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

Thanks, that's a help.--Scimitar ^parley 20:24, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

Major Junior Category Pages

Just a note to all users doing ice hockey bios. I just completed the alumni pages for all the teams past and present who have produced NHLers in the QMJHL, WHL, and OHL. I have all the QMJHL teams in, and the WHL and OHL do not include teams that only played in their old days (WCJHL and OMJHL respectively). So when doing player bios be sure to include these it gives me a lot less to do. See the Category Format page for specifics. Croat Canuck 20:14, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

Ice hockey player stub

Just to let you know that the ice hockey player stub is up for deletion Wikipedia:Stub types for deletion, so I suggest you voice your opinion as to whether you want it changed or not, seeing as how it directly affects how this Wikiproject goes. Croat Canuck 02:51, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

As I'm reading this, it isn't that they're just pitching hockey, it's that they're folding it into a more general "ice hockey bio" stub, conforming with those of other spots. Is this an issue? RGTraynor 05:31, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

I see that as well. I agree that things need to come into line with other Wiki guidelines, and if the SfD crew thinks it's better off that way, more power to them. I think we're fine with folding it into the Icehockey-stub.  RasputinAXP  T C 16:09, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

On the main page it still says icehockey-player-stub. Is icehockeybio-stub the accepted template?

--Hazelorb

Templates

So someone created a template, {{NHL Team Infobox}}, out of the team infobox tables, thats great except one problem. The problem being that of the alt logo. Their are six teams, (NHL), that either do not have an alt logo, are missing the alt logo, or (as in the case of Philadelphia) have an alt logo that is basically ssimilar to the standard logo. Basically with those teams you have a funny looking off center logo, with a white space next to it where a alt logo should go, it just looks strange, to me. This can be fixed, and i have no problem with fixing it, it would keep the look the same or the best i can, but in teams that don't have an alt logo, it would move the standard logo to the center. I was also thinking that other minor changes could be made so that this could be less an NHL only box to an all league box, being that the boxes for the minor league teams are similar to the ones used on the NHL pages. I figure i just get the idea of the project before going ahead, if no one objects then I'll push forward in the next couple of days or so. This part of the message will be cross posted to the template discussion.

I also was thinking of creating a template for the rosters, keeping the same format. I'll tinker around with some ideas, and get back to the project when i have something more concrete. Ideas are welcome though. --Boothy443 | trácht ar 08:10, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

I would certainly greatly like it if the teams' traditional logos received prominence in this box. The alternate logos -- which, IMHO, aren't too terribly much more significant than team mascots -- shouldn't be as large (or in some cases larger) than the main logos. RGTraynor 10:17, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Current Squads

While i like the idea of having a template for the team info boxes, i strongly disagree with using a template for the current squads. If anyone is going to create a template for the current squads, it must be presented here first so other wikipedians can discuss it. On several other occasions, templates have been attempted to be pushed through for the current squads and everytime they ahve been shot down. Masterhatch 20:18, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

My two cents -- I am not enthusiastic about listing current squads for any team. There are too many changes to be made during the season, and a link to the teams web site (which has the current squad on it) would be sufficent. Flibirigit 06:17, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Logos

Also, which alternate logo should be used? It's still not quite consistent. For example, Edmonton Oilers shows the third jersey "drill-bit" logo as the alternate, not the "oil-rigger" found on Edmonton's home/away shoulder patches. Yet, Dallas Stars has the "state map" alt logo, not the "longhorn" third jersey logo. Also, San Jose Sharks shows the "fin" logo as the alt logo, even though it no longer appears on any of their jerseys (it's still on their pants and at the back of their helmets.) So, seeing as the importance of the alternate logo varies from team to team, I think we should only include it for teams that use it on the front of one of their jerseys (for instance Ottawa, Washington, Atlanta home jersey logos, Edmonton, Calgary, Los Angeles et al. third jersey logos.) Any thoughts? 24.139.30.75 21:27, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

NHL Stats Concerning Shootouts

This is something that does need to be looked into. Currently the NHL website has two different stats showing up. A team's Goals For are different on the stats page than the standings page. In all honesty, I beleive that Goals For and Goals Against should reflect that held within the stats page as the Shootout's additional goal is only to show the game winner nothing else. --Maraulth 18:16, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Sources:

http://www.nhl.com/nhlstats/stats

http://www.nhl.com/standings/20052006/conference_standings.html

International Play Statistics

Does anybody know of a website that provides World Junior stats and/or World Championship stats? I have a book that provides this in the player registers, but it only is up until the 1999-2000 season. So if anyone could let me know so I can complete bio articles under the listed format, that would be greatly appreciated.Croat Canuck 17:47, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Never mind, I answered my own question. Croat Canuck 22:39, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Boxscores

Take a look at the proposed standard boxscore for All-Star (or other major one-off games) at 41st National Hockey League All-Star Game (that's the one in 1990). What do you think? kelvSYC 20:03, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

I like the boxscore table. One thing i dont like about the Allstar game years is that it seems all the years are different. What I mean is that there is no format used to keep all the allstar pages the same. Same goes for all the draft years. Most of the seasons used to be differnt too, but I spent many (far too many) hours making all the season pages the same. I haven't quite finished yet, though. If you will notice that all the seasons from the first season to the beginning of the '90s are all the same format. I haven't finished the '90s yet. The same needs to be done with the draft years and the all star games. Masterhatch 20:33, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

To be fair, though, only 4 (and Rendez-Vous '87) have been made, although the necessary redirect pages are still absent (plus, I have a lot of articles on Canadian football to make). I'm starting with the notable ones first. It's also to be noted that I don't have what the penalties were for in my source, nor do I have a source for anything dating past the 50th all-star game. It's also taking me longer as I only temporarily have my sources and it has many details on the events in and around the game itself, some of which is worth mentioning. kelvSYC 21:46, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

I wasn't suggesting that you do all the pages. that is a huge project. I simply noticed that you had an interest in the allstar games and if you want, you can help create a project page for the all star games like there is for the seasons and drafts (Wikipedia:WikiProject Ice Hockey/NHL all-star game format). All that needs to be done is to create a page to work from so that anyone who wants to create an allstar article can follow a standard. Masterhatch 02:15, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

I'll also need help in possibly replacing the country links with flags, as is the case in a lot of sports articles in the "North America vs World" format games (see 48th National Hockey League All-Star Game). kelvSYC 22:47, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Shots

I changed some of the format on the terminology section of the Ice hockey page to be more clear. I also created the wrist shot article. Tomorrow, I'll probably do the snap shot article and see what else is out there. JHMM13 (T | C) 08:07, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

World Juniors

So, I just created a stub for Kyle Chipchura because a) I used to play minor hockey with him, b) he was just named captain of the Canadian World Jr Team. I was hoping you all could help me "wikify" it (I'm still learning), and I wanted to know if there are any other World Jr. related articles I could contribute to. Thanks. Kevlar67 00:39, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Team Finishes/Year-by-Year Standings

It has occurred to me that, since the divisions and conferences changed names in 1993-94, the NHL has had a conference-based playoff format. In that spirit, should all finishes on the team pages, and year-by-year standings on the season pages, not reflect that? I ask mainly because, as I was spiffying up one of the tables in the Oilers' article, that in some years, third place let them into the playoffs, while during one in particular, third in the division was insufficient. This could be confusing to some who aren't aware of/don't immediately think of the format switch, or are just new to hockey. The same could probably be said for the early "split schedules" (1917-22?)--is there some way to simply denote 1st in the first half, 3rd in the second half? (1st/3rd, or maybe 1st in First; 3rd in Second, maybe even with a footnote?) Doogie2K 05:22, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

I doubt it would be confusing to many people, since most sports have variations of conference-based playoff formats, while still retaining anachronistic divisions. Even the NHL hasn't run on a pure conference seeding -- the division champions get priority seeding, after all. Heck, what would be more confusing to the modern fan was the old playoff format followed by the league for many years where the 1st place team played the 3rd place team, while 2nd played 4th, or the seasons where the conference champions played in the first round for the right to meet the winner of series between the remaining four teams in the playoffs. Perhaps a simple note with each pertinent season along the lines of:

NB: Starting with this season, the NHL adopted a conference-based playoff format whereby the division champions were seeded 1st through 3rd in the playoffs, and the remaining seeds were determined by point totals.

Or some such. RGTraynor 12:11, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Wow. That last one is confusing as hell. Yeah, that solution would probably work a little better. Doogie2K 05:43, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

European Leagues in Player Stats

originally dicussed at Talk:Joni Pitkänen, seeking input...(added some wiki links for reference)

I reverted FNL back to SM-liiga. FNL is not an official abbreviation of the Finnish SM-liiga; it is an American invention. Therefore, in my opinion, SM-liiga is the correct notation for stat tables. For example, hockeydb.com uses FNL, but also mis-states the names of Finnish teams, and uses such shorthand as "Swiss" for the Swiss league and SEL for the Swedish Elitserien, neither of which are actual names as far as I know.

Elrith 17:06, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Are there any acceptable abbrevations for the European leagues? nhlpa.com lists "KARP, FINLAN". tsn.ca list "Fin". ccwaters 18:55, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm not really aware of any. Finnish websites and other sources don't use abbreviations, they list the name of the league. Of course, you could always list the first occurrence fully and then go to abbreviating it as "SM-l." and "Elit." and so on. I think the full names fit into the stat tables well enough, personally. The problem with things like "Fin" and "Swiss" is that you can't tell which Finnish or Swiss league it is. Finland has three and the divisions, and the Swiss have at least two. Elrith 19:05, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Well, as ignorant North Americans, "Nationalliga A" means nothing. Add a "Swiss" to it, and now we know you what you are referencing. Same with SM-liiga, "oh that's the league in Finland". (Ok I'm personally not that ignorant) :) These clarifications are spread throughout hockey media in North America. I'd curious to find out if these are acceptable translations or bastardizations to avoid. If they are bastardizations, have the respective leagues made any efforts to stop them?

I think this discussion should move over to some project talk page? I think we'll get more input there. Do you agree? ccwaters 19:48, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

That's the reason I link SM-liiga and Elitserien to their Wikipedia pages, which explains what it means. As far as I can tell, FNL and SEL are simply inventions that have come into use from a disregard for the actual names of the leagues in question. Another form you'll find in North American media is "Finnish Elite League" for SM-liiga. Such a thing has never existed, and to my knowledge no-one has ever translated SM-liiga as "Elite League". I think the simplest thing to do is to stick to the actual names of the leagues and link to their pages so people who don't know what they mean can find out what they mean. I also try to include explanations in the "Playing career" section, by writing e.g. Kärpät in the Finnish SM-liiga. I think this is a satisfactory way of doing it? You're obviously free to take this up in the Wikiproject:Ice Hockey talk pages or some similar page. Elrith 22:27, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

In editing/formatting the player page for Lauri Tukonen, I tried to be as specific as possible with the league names. A good source that lists accurate and specific league names with player stats for European players is http://www.eurohockey.net/players (searchable database). Saradanger 07:30, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Olympic Roster templates

Someone created a USA hockey roster template and added it to the bottom of the players' articles. I followed suit and created a few other countries. 1) Feel free to tweak the appearances (I'm think a gray background would be better against some of the flags). 2) I'm not sure of the coaches 3) So I add the other countries with only a few notable players? ccwaters 20:03, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

I just noticed some errors in {{Swedenicehockey2006}}: neither Marcus Näslund, Mattias Norström nor Kim Johnsson are a part of the team, they all had to decline because of injuries. Instead Tomas Holmström, Niclas Hävelid, Ronnie Sundin and Daniel Tjärnqvist have been called in. I have no idea how to correct this, so I hope someone who knows will do it. Thanks. --x-Flare-x 21:42, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

You can edit it here or type "template:Swedenicehockey2006" in the search box.-- JamesTeterenko 21:47, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Fixed. ccwaters 21:50, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for teaching me something new JamesTeterenko, I'm still pretty much a newbie at Wikipedia, so I try to pick up new things as I go along. And thank you for correcting it ccwaters. --x-Flare-x 13:00, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

TfD nomination of Template:Swedenicehockey2006

Template:Swedenicehockey2006 has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. FYI: I nominated all the others as well, They served us well but thier purpose has passed. ccwaters 16:26, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Articles for the Wikipedia 1.0 project

Hi, I'm a member of the Wikipedia:Version_1.0_Editorial_Team, which is looking to identify quality articles in Wikipedia for future publication on CD or paper. We recently began assessing using these criteria, and we are looking for A-class, B-class, and Good articles, with no POV or copyright problems. Can you recommend any suitable articles? Please post your suggestions here. Thanks a lot! Gflores ^Talk 17:40, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

I'd certainly look at National Hockey League as B-class at least; it's got a few lists but that's relatively unavoidable. Also at least B-class are Wayne Gretzky, Mario Lemieux, and Stanley Cup. RasputinAXP _{talk contribs} 20:11, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, I'd consider Wayne Gretzky as A-Class. Keep the suggestions coming! :) Gflores ^Talk 22:27, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm actually vetting Wayne Gretzky as a Featured Article at Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Wayne_Gretzky right now. If you have any suggestions on how to improve it, please let me know. That said, anyone else on the project, if you could lend a hand, that'd be great. RasputinAXP _{talk contribs} 14:19, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Timelines (again)

I've put up the National Hockey League timeline I've been working on at Timeline of the National Hockey League. Hope everyone is interested. Please feel free to modify it for aesthetics.

I also have a WHA timeline ready, and I'd be willing to create a timeline for any other sports league following the pattern I have above.

kelvSYC 21:22, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

The Actual WikiProject

Alright, we are getting our tails jimmy-whipped by vandals and shabby editing on the player bio articles. The Radek Bonk article went a month with unchecked vandalism before it got reverted. There are many poorly written and poorly organized player bio articles that need attention. Most of the player bio articles are on my watchlist, but I can't catch all the things that pass through. So in general, I'm proposing maybe having a better organization of our WikiProject so that our efforts can be more streamlined and efficient. It seems this WikiProject is gaining one or two users per week, but it also seems that very few of them stick around to do much or even stick around on Wikipedia in total. So at the very least I would wish to have our members to be organized into "active", "semi-active" and "non-active" so that members at least know who is still around in discussion. Like chances are, that only 3 or 4 users will respond to this comment. Any thoughts on this?

Another idea is to have 3 or 4 of the more prominent users to be passed as sort of heads of the WikiProject. There is no gain in power for them, but these users would be take more of an active role in guiding along newer users who have questions about hockey articles and such. As well, they would also have the advantage of being known as trusted users for any discussion that may come up. Another pro is that with these 3 or 4 helping out the newer users, this would result in less shabby writing jobs and more standardized editing. These users would have to be experienced in editing hockey articles and be in good standing with other users. If we wanted to get more specific, each of these could be in charge of maintenance of a certain section of WikiProject Ice Hockey and enlisting help for maintenance in that section (example, User #1 is in charge of player bio articles, User #2 is in charge of Major League Team Articles, User #3 is in charge of statistical and season articles etc.)... Again, I would like to hear other users thoughts on this, or any other ideas to improve WikiProject Ice Hockey. Croat Canuck 04:57, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree that we should group the members according to activity, perhaps, by time last (most recent) edits, or total contributions. It would also be helpful to list users who specialize in a certain area. ie. myself, I concentrate on OHL - Ontario Hockey League related articles. Flibirigit 06:12, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Mmm, trouble is, without authority, a "head" would have nothing more than moral suasion on his side. Even in cases where there isn't out and out vandalism, we still have serious issues where users just plain disagree and decline to give in. How many actual admins are current, active participants? RGTraynor 23:14, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

I myself am an admin, I know Earl Andrew is an admin, but his main focus isn't hockey articles, other than that I'm not entirely sure. Of course disagreements would be solved by mediation in the future if they aren't solved by themselves. I was thinking more along the lines of the "head" would be more of a "wise man" and knowing that WikiProject members approved of his/her appointment, there is a little more respect for that user because WikiProject Ice Hockey agrees with him/her enough to appoint him/her to that position. I agree with you too, Flibirigit, specialization is great so that users can work together to get things done, and that's what I'm hoping for. You specialize in OHL (Go Rangers!), I specialize in hockey bio articles, and other users specialize in other things, we aren't all the same. That's why I think we should exploit our differences to help improve hockey articles as a whole. Croat Canuck 03:01, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Now that I'm done pushing Wayne Gretzky to FA status, I'm all for getting the Project moving forward. We could do a lot of good by fixing up lesser articles. Let me know, I'm more than willing to pitch in. RasputinAXP _{talk contribs} 19:30, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

I for one am semi-active in the hockey articles, and am working a bit on the Ice hockey at the 2006 Winter Olympics page. -- Earl Andrew - talk 03:58, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Well, just a little start, not the complete solution, but I haven't got any resistance for re-organizing how the WikiProject members are listed. I'm gonna organize the list of members into active, semi-active, and non-active. Active is self-explanatory, Semi-active is they are not on it often but contribute here and there, and non-active. Non-active are those who have not been on for more than a month, and/or appear to have left Wikipedia in total. Feel free to re-organize yourself if you feel you aren't in the right category. Please continue the discussion (If there is any more discussion to be had). Croat Canuck 02:26, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

I have no problem if you re-organise the list. As for my level of participation, for the next week, i will be contributing almost nothing. After that, I will go back to normal levels of contributing. Masterhatch 07:45, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Sounds like a great plan. I for one try to contribute to more than one article, but I'm sort of biased with updating the Sens page too much, hehe. I'm sure you can classify me as Semi-Active as a result.--Maraulth 02:05, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Well the re-organizing of the list is done into the three categories mentioned above. However that is more or less just a patch job for the situation. I personally would prefer if at least all the active users put a little blurb beside their name as to where their specialties like in hockey articles. I myself will do that, I suggest others follow suit as well. Also personally I do think we should appoint those "heads" or "wise men" of the WikiProject, because we are getting new users all the time and many of them don't know all the procedures and things to watch for in hockey articles. This way if they have a question, they know who is the best person to talk to. That's just my opinion. I don't know how we should do it, nomination and discussion perhaps, but I do think we need more discussion on this topic. Croat Canuck 03:00, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Mario Lemieux

This article is in terrible shape, with a cleanup tag stuck to it, as it is horribly written and formatted. In light of the quality of new FA Wayne Gretzky, perhaps you guys could fix this one up too? Thanks. Harro5 02:17, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

The article doesn't have a cleanup tag, and hasn't for a couple weeks. I cleaned up the worst elements of it before, and did the best I could to better prop up the article back then. I do agree it isn't perfect, but its much better than it was before. Croat Canuck 02:52, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Just to add on your comment Croat Canuck. I gave it and quick read through(for the nth time) after reading the former post. I think that your clean up work has been very good. It is a decent bio. One cannot find too many faults with it as it stands. It has all the detail that a Hall Of Famer bio deserves(without too much 'soap opera') Take Care! Mr Pyles 03:02, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I hadn't realised. I've had it on my watchlist since I added the cleanup tag, but must have missed your great cleanup job. Now all that is missing is image captions! Well done. Harro5 03:56, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

That's quite alright and thank you, I thought something may have been a little fishy when you mentioned the cleanup-tag. Croat Canuck 04:19, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Hi, I am somewhat new to seriously updating articles, but I came across the term "quinella" in the article goal (ice hockey), as a name for Lemieux's five goals, scored five different ways. I am not familiar with this term and have not come across it anywhere else except its application in gambling or articles that are an exact quote of the one here. My first question is: Does anyone hear this term used widely? And secondly, I posted essentially the same comment in the talk page of the article. Am I going about the proper way of getting this question answered? I am not sure if anyone would know to view the discussion tab on that article, as it was the only comment posted there. Sometimes there is a box posted above the article indicating that there is some discussion going on about the article. Should I have posted something to that effect? Anyhow, thanks and I appreciate any help. Sorry if I am messing it all up! Seanwill 02:45, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

I've heard it used before; it's related to trifecta (from horse racing). It has nothing to do with five goals despite its linguistic roots. http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=quinella "A system of betting in which the bettor, in order to win, must pick the first two finishers of a race, but not necessarily in the correct sequence." I'll take a look, I figured I'd be pushing on Mario Lemieux next.  RasputinAXP  c 13:35, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

well, I'm in over my head

Maybe one or all of you can help fish me out. I've been helping with an effort to get every team-sport sportsperson into country and team categories. And for the most part, the NHL people seem well categorized in that way. In US basketball and football, the "minor league" is the NCAA, and so everyone gets a college category too. But for hockey, with the exception of the Ivy Leaguers and Bostonians and the like, college is often replaced by the AHL. So what I'd love to see is the AHL get the team-category treatment that the NHL and specifically the well-categorized Ontario Hockey League has. And here's where I'm in over my head. I have no obvious way to figure out who's played where in category:AHL players. Maybe somebody with better hockey knowledge would like to help with this effort? (One thing, though: I'd love to see the "alumni" categories just become "players" categories, since those would allow for current AHL players to show up there.) Anyway, ping me if you think you can help in this endeavor.--Mike Selinker 23:36, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

The only way I know of the find out it to query each name individually on Hockey database.com. This would take forver, which is why I haven't pursued it. Flibirigit 00:51, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree in this strategy. We should have team subcategories for league categories and all category names should be named "players" instead of "alumni". In terms of implementing this, it is relatively easy to do manually. There are currently only 23 players in the AHL players category. This isn't too bad to look up in hockeydb.com. However, we should make sure to put a link to the hockeydb.com in each player articles "External links" section. As an example, I just updated Nolan Baumgartner with this edit. The complicated part is that the categories don't exist yet. So, I had to create Category:Manitoba Moose players, Category:Norfolk Admirals players and Category:Portland Pirates players. But even that isn't too bad. What do you think? -- JamesTeterenko 02:25, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

As for the junior categories, thank you for complementing their organization, that took me a lot of work to create all those categories and going through each player article that existed at the time and adding the proper categories and such. I think we should keep the junior categories as alumni, because a) you don't have a list with players on the end of it for every player, and b) Players pass through junior teams so quickly and usually become notable after they've played in junior. Having said that perhaps there is also a better way for separating the two kinds of categories (AHL and NHL) so that people know the difference between the two. I don't know if perhaps having maybe Category:Montreal Canadiens players for the NHL teams, and then have Category:Toronto Marlies (AHL) players for AHL teams... There have been so many AHL teams, and don't forget the other big minor league the now-defunct International Hockey League, that perhaps it would be best to have the league in brackets inside the category. I know that thing had to be done for the Colorado Rockies so as not to conflict with the baseball team Category:Colorado Rockies (NHL) players. That's my opinion, anyways... Croat Canuck 02:40, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

I do not believe that the fact that most players do not become notable until after junior is a good reason to keep the articles as "alumni". It is not as if all categories are notable in themselves (see Category:living people for an extreme example). There are some players that are notable enough for an article well before they are done in the juniors. As an example, look at Jordan Staal. Even Jared Staal has an article already and isn't eligible for the OHL until next season. Dion Phaneuf and Sidney Crosby both had articles before they were done in junior, and these are just a couple that I am familiar with. I am sure there are many more. Do you propose that we have a "Current Peterborough Petes players" category for such cases? I am not sure what you mean by your point "a" that the teams don't have a list of players on the end. If you are talking about not having a list of players within Wikipedia, it is because no one has yet seen the need to create such pages. Even the NHL player lists by team were not very accurate until just before this season started. As an example, see this edit of the Flames list by Masterhatch in September. Now in terms of why I think it would be important to having the names changed to "players" is a matter of consistency. For categories of players in every other hockey league, "players" is in the name. I believe that this is also fairly consistent with most other sports.

As for the league being in the category title, I would only do this if it is required for disambiguation purposes. I just tried to find a policy on this, and I didn't see one. However, I don't think I have seen too many article or category names with parentheses unless it was required for disambiguation purposes. Note that the league will not always be enough to disambiguate the team. For example Cleveland Barons and Cleveland Barons (1937-1972) both played in the AHL. -- JamesTeterenko 20:47, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

May I suggest holding off on any work with AHL categories? They're all set to be renamed in a few days: Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion/Log/2006_February_19 ccwaters 21:31, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Sure, we can wait till then. The reason I want "alumni" to become "players" is twofold: First, there's Sidney Crosby to consider. If I want to write about him while he's still in the AHL, I can't put him under alumni. Second, there's the users of Wikipedia to consider. If I'm creating an article with an AHL player, I'm not going to think of the word alumni, I'm going to think of the word player. On the subject of disambiguating, we've had this problem with several NFL teams. Sometimes the right thing to do is use the year; see Category:Baltimore Colts (1940s) players. Sometimes the right thing to do is distinguish them by league; see category:Buffalo Bills (AAFC) players. And sometimes you have to distinguish it by sport; see Category:St. Louis Cardinals (football) players. Whatever is necessary to break through the expectation that the reader would have without the parenthetical.--Mike Selinker 01:17, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

The AHL categories are now all American Hockey League categories, so I think we can categorize everyone by "(team) player". Everybody should also have a country category (e.g., category:Swedish ice hockey players). When someone's so categorized, he should be removed from category:American Hockey League players.--Mike Selinker 21:04, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

One other thing: When you make a players category, you should make a corresponding team category. The team category should be the one that links to the "Sports in (city)" category.--Mike Selinker 08:09, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Euro Hockey Tour

Why is there so little infomation on this? No history and basically no stats. Should there be info on Swedish_national_men's_ice_hockey_team, Finnish_national_men's_ice_hockey_team, Russian_national_men's_ice_hockey_team and Czech_national_ice_hockey_team about there placements? 83.166.19.29 17:46, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Personally I don't know much about other than the copy at Euro Hockey Tour is blatant plagarism of [1]. You are welcome to expand it. ccwaters 17:58, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Spelling of "Defenceman"

I am proposing that the article Defenceman (ice hockey) be moved to Defenseman (ice hockey) and all instances of the word "Defenceman" when used for ice hockey be changed to "Defenseman". Reasons are outlined at the talk page at Talk:Defenceman (ice hockey) and the proposal has been posted to Wikipedia:Requested_moves --Jeff 15:21, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Proposal was opposed and withdrawn. See Talk:Defenceman (ice hockey) for archived discussion. --Jeff 23:04, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Please note that User:Jeffness has said that he will change all spelling of defenceman to defenseman in NHL related articles, because it is the *North American spelling* (see talk:defenceman (ice hockey). Since most NHL players have come from Canada, this is seriously prejudicial. 132.205.45.148 19:25, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes: he proposed it, it was overwhelming opposed, and he is honoring that. The fire is out. No need to stoke it. No need to call in the reserves. REFERENCE: the comments directly above your comment. ccwaters 20:19, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

No, the issue of the page move has been resolved. The issue of the spelling in articles is not. Jeff stated he'd change the spelling in NHL related articles to defenseman. 132.205.46.157 02:15, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

The entire issue is indeed not closed, he has started a crusade. -- JamesTeterenko 03:40, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Oh...ok. Do what you need to do then. Personally I really don't care: I have to check wich spelling that I'm supposed to use as an American. My only input into this: I'm all about letting the context of the article to decide the spelling. At National Hockey League, I would use the spelling that the NHL uses in official publications. That's without looking. ccwaters 13:35, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Player Template

wikiproject NFL has created a nice template to include on player-bios. I'm going to try and modify it so that it could be used for hockey. Is this a good idea? I'll go ahead and create it and then let you guys tell me what you think --T-rex 04:35, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Where can I see this template, how it would look, and how it would be applied to hockey? Afterall most NHL players also played in junior, semi-pro, or in Europe, so they have a different development history than football's high shcool -> college -> pro. Kevlar67 07:07, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

You could just throw everything into the teams catagory so that development wouldn't be that important. I'm trying to make it more general hockey then just a specific NHL box. The origional NFL box is here, and the hockey one I am working on is here, although it isn't close to being done yet. --T-rex 18:36, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

The teams listing could get a lot more cluttered especially with journeymen. Add in minor league assignments/recalls frequently early in a player's career and its a mess. The whole idea is redundant assuming there's a career statistics table just below it in the article. ccwaters 18:56, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Well, I'm going to go ahead and create it anyways, and let you guys decide if it ever gets used. --T-rex 04:02, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

I dunno, looking at T-rex's draft template, it looks pretty good to me. RGTraynor 20:50, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

defunct AHL team articles

So we've now got all sorts of AHL player and coach categories, but some of those feed into team categories with no team articles. Would anyone want to write stubs for these teams: Buffalo Bisons (AHL), Carolina Monarchs, Cornwall Aces, Erie Blades, New Haven Nighthawks, New Haven Ramblers, and Philadelphia Firebirds?--Mike Selinker 18:08, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

If you would like me to, I could make up an infobox for the defunct teams, like I did for the OHL & QMJHL. It would be kinda huge though, there's lotsa old teams out there. Flibirigit 22:23, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Well, it's not like these articles are very long, so it seems like a good idea to me. If it was too big, it could be broken up geographically or by era or whatever.--Mike Selinker 23:01, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Created {{Defunct AHL}} infobox. Flibirigit 02:32, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Looks good to me. Let's slap it all over these articles. (One note: Do the Cleveland Barons and Hamilton Bulldogs need some sort of disambiguator?)--Mike Selinker 06:03, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

I would write a disambiguation page only if there is enough substance to the articles to warrant that. For example, if you can only think of a few sentences for each incarnation of the Hamilton Bulldogs, its easier to put them on the same page. For something like Cleveland Barons I would suggest one page for the WHA/NHL Barons, and another page for the incarnations of the AHL Barons.Flibirigit 07:29, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

See Cleveland Barons, Cleveland Barons (1937-1972), and Cleveland Barons (NHL), Hamilton Bulldogs and Hamilton Bulldogs (1996-2002). Keep them. The teams are separate entities. ccwaters 12:58, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I was unclear. All I meant was, in the infobox should it say "Cleveland Barons (1937-1972)" instead of just "Cleveland Barons"? I'd say yes. But I think the articles should stay exactly as they are.--Mike Selinker 21:18, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

How should we categorize teams that have gone through different names? I just created Category:New Brunswick Hawks players, but it is a different incarnation of the Moncton Hawks. -- JamesTeterenko 11:25, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

I would make that decision based on the number of players in the category. If there are not many players for one incarnation of a franchise name, combine them with the whole history of the franchise. Specifically for franchises that move or rename often.Flibirigit 11:44, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Hmm.. that is an interesting thought. Unfortunately, most of the AHL categories are fairly sparse right now. So, existing article count might not be the greatest indicator. This franchise existed for 16 years, so presumably there are quite a few notable players that either have or should have an article. -- JamesTeterenko 16:53, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Eric Lindros

Wow, check out the edits at Eric Lindros. Am I over reacting there? ccwaters 11:56, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Nope, I've got your back on that. Man. French-anglophone canadian politics irritates me.  RasputinAXP  c 15:30, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree. I have added to my watchlist and will jump in if required. -- JamesTeterenko 18:19, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Similarly. RGTraynor 17:11, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Waivers

I think we need an article on this topic, at least as applies to the NHL. What do you all think? I myself don't know much about the waivers system, so someone else will have to start it.

Use of Last Names Only

Hi, I've just joined Wiki and am doing a few edits here and there in the hockey space (player bios). The question I have is the use of last name only in the article. Such as "Gilmour did this..."... I find the use of the last name only more of a fan thing and not very encyclopedic...can someone let me know where this is address and if there is a standard? Thanks. KsprayDad 13:02, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Actually, this conforms to the Manual of Style. See here for further info. -- JamesTeterenko 17:57, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll stop being anal about it! KsprayDad 20:31, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Icing request

Could someone who understands the sport explain the rationale behind Icing (ice hockey)? The page doesn't mention why it's a penalty, I assume it's like offsides in soccer or something....thanks! -- stillnotelf has a talk page 03:45, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

I put in a paragraph about it. I remember reading about one particular game in the early years which really got the momentum going, but I didn't put that in cause I don't remember much about it besides it might have involved the Philadelphia Flyers. --Legalizeit 12:21, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks! -- stillnotelf has a talk page 18:20, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

I added the most common reason a player would ice the puck, so a fatigued team could get new players off the ice-included in the reference, as it wasn't stated anywhere else, that the NHL adopted a rule change prior to this current season which prohibits the offending team from changing any players for the ensuing face off, further deterring teams from icing. I am currently looking for a stat to see if the rule change has been effective ( comparing to prior seasons).

As for the above comment regarding "getting the momentum going", I dont believe any play involving the Flyers would build momentum for instituting icing, as it has been a rule since I believe the late 1930's, a full 30 years before the Flyers became a team. A play, however, involving offsides was very influental in Flyers history: In the last game of the 1980 Stanley Cup finals against the New York Islanders, the Islanders 4th goal was scored on a play that was shown on replay to be clearly offsides. Flyer fans feel this cost them a chance at a championship, because the Islanders went on to win the game, and the Cup, in overtime of the same game. Flyer fans remain sour about the call, and continue to this day, 26 years later, to simply scream "It was offsides!!" to anyone who will listen during any Flyer-Islander contest, in reference to that game. I'm guessing this is what you remember reading.Rkw1111 08:58, 19 March 2006 (UTC)rkw1111Rkw1111 08:58, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

The article in Icing also distinguishes between the "touch up" icing and "automatic icing"- would this be a proper place to mention the rationale behind international hockey and others eliminating the touch up rule to try to avoid injury? It was instituted because many times, as the article suggests, there is a high speed race for the puck, with the player many times in a vulnerable position a few feet away from the boards, facing away from the oncharging opponent. One such example, Dennis Vaske of the New York Islanders, had his career ended after such a collision, causing a severe concussion.Rkw1111 09:15, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Proverbial Icing Request

Hah, I'm funny. Can we all keep an eye on Hanes3777 (talk · contribs), who's decided he needs to vandalize Wayne Gretzky and go around slapping his POV on every hockey article he feels like? A lot of us ran into him with the Lindros BS above, and he's clearly not going to change his ways.  RasputinAXP  c 12:57, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Do we need an article for every team?

I know nothing about Ice Hockey, but do all of the teams on Ontario Provincial Junior A Hockey League need their own article? What can be said about them that's encyclopedic and notable enough for wikipedia? The only content in all the ones I've looked at appears to be the team name, the fact they play in the league and their logo. That's nothing that can't be covered in the main article. exolon 22:51, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia offers an optimistic view for every stub created that someone will be able to expand on its content, and to help direct readers to other pages. In the best spirit of hockey we are dedicated to expanding the contributions of WikiProject Ice Hockey. Flibirigit 23:29, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

I think that DMighton did a great job of creating a number of stub articles. I absolutely think they should stay. If you want to see a similar calibre league where the team articles have more content, check out Alberta Junior Hockey League. These are also very recent creations. It usually takes a while to grow an article, so please give it some time. A stub is a great way to start. -- JamesTeterenko 23:53, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Ummm, hi. I was gonna come on hear and ask for someone to help me build templates for the different CJAHL Leagues, I don't know how to do it, and I'd appreciate it if someone would show me. Exolon, it was I who created those stubs, and they will be built up... either by me or others. I feel they are important and I feel that there presence will draw fans of those teams and/or league into expanding the articles. Some of these teams have amazing histories, some spanning a century (see Durham Huskies). I plan, time pending, that I will stub teams in a most of the Ontario leagues and CJAHL Leagues. I am currently pursuing help on some of these more obscure leagues and as well anyone who has a knowledge the Quebec Junior AAA and AA leagues... and or any other classification of Quebec league there is (assuming there is any more) -- I need help. I'm working as hard as I can on a series of CDN Jr. A, B, C, and Development leagues and any help on history, trophies, or champions would be much appreciated. For a list of leagues I am actively working on and monitoring... feel free to view my page. DMighton 06:26, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Hap Emms

I recently wrote a short biography for Hap Emms. Would somebody familiar with hockey related biographies please add categories to this article and make necessary format changes. More contributions to the contest is appreciated. Thanks. Flibirigit 03:04, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

I'd mention his tenure as GM of the Bruins, considering that Bobby Orr was signed on his watch. I'd do it myself, but I'm at work and don't have access to the dates. RGTraynor 15:29, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

A million little edits

Am I alone in thinking that it's annoying and unnecessary to have sporadic updates to players' year-by-year stats as the season progresses? I'm of the opinion that the stats for a season should not be added until that season is complete, much like has been done with the List of NHL players with 1000 points article. Aottley 21:16, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

What I think is that if sumone wants to update, then let him do it. paat 21:20, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

I certainly find it annoying to have every little team and player page updated every bloody game, and it clogs up my watchlist, but I can't imagine what we could do about it. There are busybodies who absolutely have to have their team's 2005-2006 statline updated every day, and they're going to do it whether it bothers the rest of us or not. RGTraynor 21:58, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Yea i guess. Every game is too much. paat 22:46, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

I've also found it quite frustrating when people update the season stats, but not the career totals. In fact I usually leave an angry edit summary when reverting it (if its an IP). I've had to revert that List of NHL players with 1000 points article dozens of time because IPs feel the need that it needs to be updated, and it screws up the whole process. There has got to be a way to solve this problem though, because Wikipedia's purpose isn't to provide up-to-date hockey statistics, if you want that go to HockeyDB. Croat Canuck 00:20, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Not unless selective copy protection blocks can be placed on particular sections, and copy blocking is a distasteful thing at best which should be reserved for persistent vandalism. RGTraynor 15:52, 28 March 2006 (UTC)