Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ice Hockey/Archive23

Template change

I'm not sure if many people watch Template talk:NHLTeamSeason, but I've started a thread about a change to that template. Any thoughts are appreciated. - Rjd0060 (talk) 21:57, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Nationality on Nik Antropov

I'm having a problem on Nik Antropov's article. User:Lvivske is writing that Antropov is Russian, despite Antropov being born in the Kazakh SSR and representing Kazakhstan internationally. Am I in the wrong here?-Wafulz (talk) 04:24, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Hockey DB says he was born in Russia. TSN backs you up. I don't know what the rules are about competing for another country. You did do the right thing by talking about it instead of getting in a big fight though. Blackngold29 04:31, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

I've never heard of him being called Russian. Just a quick glance at the Legends of Hockey page, which covers international stats, shows him playing exclusively for Kazakhstan. The biography of him even states that he's Kazakh. Possibly a case of assuming that since he was born in the USSR, he's automatically Russian, even though he has to actually be from what is now Russia. As for a similar situation, Evegni Nabokov played for Kazakhstan when he was 17 or 18, then became Russian. Missed the 2002 Olympics because the IIHF was arguing he couldn't play for another international team. All sorted out now, with Nabokov not being Kazakh in the eyes of the IIHF. Kaiser matias (talk) 04:35, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

NHL.com agrees with TSN, and frankly, I'm happier with NHL.com and TSN's fact checking than with hockeydb's. Now he may be, and probably is, an ethnic Russian, but that doesn't much matter.  RGTraynor  05:35, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

From both wiki pages: "Kazakh: are a Turkic people", "Russians: Today largest ethnic Russian diasporas outside of Russia live in former Soviet states such as Kazakhstan (about 4.5 million)". Calling him a 'Kazakh' is misleading as he's just as Russian with Kazakhstani papers. If anything he's a 'Russian Kazakh'User:Lvivske (talk)

The point of contention isn't about whether Antropov is ethnically Russian or not. Granted, with a name like Antropov, I'd assume he would be. However, the part of the article being discussed is in reference to his nationality. If we went ahead and referred to players by ethnicity, then Joe Sakic would have to be listed as Croatian, Wayne Gretzky as Polish/Belarussian, Trevor Linden as Dutch, Eric Lindros as Swedish, etc. Rather, they are listed by their nationality, same as Antropov. However, if a source can be found that states Antropov is ethnically Russian, then by all means add it to the article. Kaiser matias (talk) 06:50, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Quite; if I saw a document describing me as an "Irish" anything, I'd balk, because whatever my ethnic background, I'm an American.  RGTraynor  08:38, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Still find it misleading to just say he's a 'Kazakh', perhaps 'Kazakhstani' if anything. Dictionary.com, "Kazakh - a member of a nomadic Muslim people living mainly in Kazakhstan"; "Kazakhstani - a native or inhabitant of Kazakhstan"User:Lvivske (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 18:34, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

I'd consider him a Soviet-born Kazkhistani. GoodDay (talk) 18:43, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

I would accept Kazakhstani.-Wafulz (talk) 18:55, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Seems that Hockeydb, TSN and NHL.com websites dont claim players to be of a certain nationality (they only list where they were born, aka originate). Eurohockey states both birthplace and nationality. Eliteprospects only has nationality. --Bamsefar75 (talk) 12:05, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Chris Osgood nickname

I am having a hard time convincing another editor that "Ozzy" (or "Ozzie") does not belong in the infobox for Chris Osgood. As we have discussed here before, the nickname part of the box should only be used for real nicknames (like "Wizard of Oz" in this case) and not for shortened versions of the real name. Could somebody back me up in this spot? -- bmitchelf•T•F 13:59, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

You know, for all the grief that field causes, I'd just as soon remove it altogether. Resolute 14:25, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree. It's a spawning ground for any nickname anyone has ever used in connection with players, no matter how obscure or unnotable.  RGTraynor  14:27, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

I would support removing it. -Djsasso (talk) 14:29, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, it would seem like we could include legit nicknames in one or two sentences in a couple places in an article. Could a bot go through all of the articles and remove the "|nickname" field from the box? -- bmitchelf•T•F 14:33, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

With a request, we could probably have a bot operator make that change easily. I have proposed removing the field at the template's talk page so that others that watch the template, but not this forum, have an opportunity to weigh in. If there is no objection in the next day or so, I'll go ahead and remove it tomorrow. Resolute 15:07, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

I can easily do it with AWB. I did it with another thing we previously removed from the infobox. -Djsasso (talk) 15:22, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

I see that the nickname field has been removed from the template but that the real nicknames have not been moved into the articles, as the nickname field has yet to be removed from articles using the infobox. This has caused a problem specifically in the Ray Emery article where references for nicknames were also used later in the article, since these are now non-existent. I have fixed it there, but you should be on the lookout for situations such as this if you have a chance to go through the articles with AWB as you mentioned. -- bmitchelf•T•F 16:18, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Sorry I am on vacation at the moment, so I am a bit slow on it. But I will see what I can do right now. It will be a lengthy process as we have a few thousand articles using the template. -Djsasso (talk) 21:27, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

This is too funny. I found four reliable sources for Chris Osgood's "Ozzie" nickname, with Three specifically saying his nickname is Ozzie, and you still whine about it. I'm still not sure how you can use the argument that "Ozzie" is a shortened version of his name, but I can see the cabal here has made up their minds. Asher196 (talk) 21:52, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Even if he is often called it, it doesn't make it a nickname it makes it a shortname which is something different. -Djsasso (talk) 22:02, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Looking at your contributions, I see this edit summary [1] where you tell another editor quite plainly to back off because consensus is against him. Is it genuinely the case that the degree to which you believe in consensus is based on whether you agree with it?  RGTraynor  22:07, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

I believe in consensus up to the point that there is consensus that black is white. I think the nickname arguments are a perfect example. I can cite sources, then I'm told that doesn't matter, regardless of what the sources say. The sources don't know what they are talking about, we Wikipedia editors know better. Asher196 (talk) 22:54, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Maybe the one on the infobox that this is concerning? Though a few of the supports are in this discussion as well. And if you go back through the archives it has come up before. -Djsasso (talk) 22:16, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

I had no idea this argument was taking place, since I usually don't go to project pages, as I think most editors don't. This removal will undoubtedly come as a surprise to many. In the span of five days you've made a decision that affected hundreds of articles, with very little discussion. Asher196 (talk) 22:54, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

If this decision will surprise many users, then have them come here and state their case. It's difficult to discuss something that alomost everybody agrees on. Blackngold29 00:03, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

I came in late but: Thank you, thank you djsasso, for taking the time to implement this. The field was originally meant for real undeniable nicknames (Messier is "The Captain", Gretzky is "the Great One"). Instead, it left the infoboxes plagued with puckbunny web forum crap. ccwaters (talk) 12:48, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Yeah the infobox was a nightmare, particularly for famous players like Crosby who get a new nickname every month. Also pretty much every captain was nickname "Captain _______" during his tenure. That being said, "Pickles" is still the best nickname.-Wafulz (talk) 12:56, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, my take is the same as CC's - people'd barge in demanding equal time for any nickname some bored sportswriter once flung at any player. Remember the Gordie "Power" Howe nonsense?  RGTraynor  13:22, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

No problem CC. Just a note though, with 3800 articles using the box it is going to take a bit to get them all fixed especially since I will be away for 2 weeks starting next Wednesday. So if you see one that has broken references before I get to it feel free to fix it. -Djsasso (talk) 14:52, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Can't we just remove the field from the infobox syntax? I think if we do that, all 3800 articles using the infobox will just ignore the field as invalid. Oh and the only way you can sway my opinion on this is if I get to give Crosby the nickname "Mike Richards's bitch". Sorry B&G29. ccwaters (talk) 23:30, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

That's already been done, the issue is that some of the articles have used the references in the nickname field later on in the article and in those cases a big read error message appears in the references field saying the reference doesn't exist cause it can't see it. It's not that big a deal for the most part, I was just saying it will be a bit before all articles are checked for that issue. Unfortunately its not as easy as I thought it would be to strip out the field because each nickname is different. But it will get done eventually. -Djsasso (talk) 23:32, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Hey CC, if you can source it, I'll try to remain NPOV. ;) Blackngold29 23:41, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

It is true, Asher, that this change does potentially impact a significant number of articles. I removed the field in the spirit of being WP:BOLD after some brief discussion. As you say, many people don't watch this project's talk page, and fewer still watch the template's talk page. So really, the best way to gauge support for such a change was to simply go ahead and do it. Thus far, it seems consensus strongly favours this change, for the reasons named above. Resolute 04:32, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Usually I advocate building a solid consensus before making a potentially controversial change, but Resolute is right. The only way a large number of editors will find out about a wide-reaching change like this is to go ahead and start making the change. From what I've seen, Djsasso is doing a great job of making the changes without losing information.

I'm undecided on the issue and would like to see some more debate. I think we should end the debate here and move it to the template's talk page.--SaskatchewanSenator (talk) 16:23, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Active Users

So its been almost two years since Croat Canuck last weeded out the participant list for the project. So I basically went through it again and shuffled some people around that have long since disappeared or said they were active and have since become semi-active or inactive etc. We went from 97 active editors down to 53 active editors, that being said as Croat mentioned last time he did this we are getting more and more heavy duty editors every year. Last time he culled the lot we only had 21 active editors so in two years we are more than double what we were. And of course if you feel you should be in a different group than you are go ahead and move yourself and if you haven't even joined up, what the heck are you waiting for. -Djsasso (talk) 22:07, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for not weeding me out. ;) Skudrafan1 (talk) 02:49, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

For future "weedings" I think a Roll Call would probably be the quickest and easiest solution. We no doubt have more involvment than some unions, but 53 still seems high to me. Maybe I have high standards, but with that many people having a new GA every week and one FA each month or two doesn't seem out of the question. Blackngold29 03:23, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

The thing is, we are going at a rate quite near that. We have had a FA passed in each of the last 8 months, sometimes 2. Add in a large number of FL's, GA's, and DYK?'s, we are probably one of the more active projects around. Kaiser matias (talk) 03:36, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

I think that we could easily boost our FLs. We have coaches, players (an insane task for some of the older teams), seasons and draft picks for each team; in addition to some for defunct teams. That's probably about 150 lists. Just a thought. Also, we only have 14 GAs out of 14000 articles within the project. FAs do seem good, how we have more FAs than GAs is beyond me; but a good thing! Blackngold29 03:50, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Depends on how you define active. We have more than a few registered editors, and many anons, who's participation is restricted to roster updates, posting scores, and other routine maintenance that help keep articles up to date. The heavy duty writing is performed by a much smaller group. Personally, I'm glad for the active members that do the routine work. They help free my time for the research projects that I much prefer.  :)

I've found it odd we have more FAs than GAs as well, but I suspect that is mainly the mindset of our editors. Why stop at GA when it doesn't take much more work to get to FA? Doubly so when we have such a good group of collaborators. A while ago, one person mentioned how disorganized the baseball project was. When you compare their GA/FA numbers to ours, it is easy to see that we do have a very good project here. Resolute 04:31, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

For some reason I've always felt that two GAs were as good as one FA, they ususally take roughly the same amount of time and more articles get improved (I'm certainly not against FAs, lol. Many articles deserve the concentration). I think that we could take the Collaboration that this project has achieved to a new level by picking an article from time to time and having as many people as possible work on it up to at least a GA. I've seen it work for many other projects. Blackngold29 04:56, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Indeed. We had a CotW at one point, but it wasn't properly maintained. I've several sources handy if you wanted to lead something such as that. There certainly is a long list of critical articles in need of improvement. Off the top of my head, National Hockey League to FA, ice hockey itself to GA+, Maurice Richard. Restoring Montreal Canadiens to featured status would be a good goal for their 100th anniversary season. Resolute 05:12, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Those are all good suggestions. Although, with Canadiens being a sports team it has a high ammount of edits, which are often unproductive even if they aren't intended to be so. I find it difficult for any sports team article to remain at a GA for a long time. I find people will concentrate on a shorter article for longer than a long article for whatever reason. All of your suggestions would probably be improved best if someone did them by themselves (like your NHL history articles, which are turning out amazing so far). Where if we got four people to concentrate on the List of current NHL captains and alternate captains mentioned above, it could probably be an FL within two weeks. Now articles are probably more important than lists, but I think any featured content is good. Blackngold29 05:27, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Well not everyones goal is to make FA's or GA's. Personally I for example avoid the process because I then to find its somewhat like masochism, while I like to see our articles get to that point I don't necessarily partake myself except for the odd correction here and there. And alot of other very active editors just do things like stat updates. For example, I am pretty sure I have the highest edit count of anyone in the project, but I have never pushed an article to FA. It's not up to us to decide how people contribute, I was just looking at at when they last updated and how often it was hockey using the approximate same guidelines that were used the last two times it happened. Roll calls don't work cause people don't necessarily watch this page or are away in the off season. -Djsasso (talk) 14:00, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Ahh, where would we be without the WikiGnomes? ;o) Resolute 14:42, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Haha yeah, I think part of my gnomishness comes from doing a large chunk of my editing from work so I only have a minute here or a minute there to fly through some things...its not enough time to write full out articles. -Djsasso (talk) 15:10, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Blackngold29 said editors "concentrate on a shorter article for longer than a long article for whatever reason"; I think this reason is that a short article is easy to read over and decide what needs to be added and improved upon. Unless a long article is of personal interest, it can become boring to have to pore over the text. And don't forget there are editors who aren't officially part of the project, but contribute a lot to hockey articles. − Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 15:27, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Sportskido8 left, too bad, he was a very good editor. --Krm500 (talk) 14:40, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

That's a shame. I was wondering why I hadn't seen any edits from him in a while. Resolute 14:42, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

• My own take on the issue is slightly different. I think there's far too much emphasis on bringing articles to FA/GA, and far too little emphasis on bringing articles from stub to not-stub. This ties in to some other comments here ... a lot of casual editors might feel like sinking 20 minutes of work into sprucing up an article on a favorite player, but not remotely be into laboriously typing in the formatting for twenty inline cites to satisfy the FA wonks. (Truth be told, for every Wikipedia regular who looks at the Wayne Gretzky article and says "Whoa, they got their cites in!" I bet there are five casual readers who see that article and says "Holy crap, this has ten times as many footnotes as a master's thesis does!!!" but that's a battle I'm not destined to win.) Should the focus of our efforts be on trophy hunting, really?  RGTraynor  17:03, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

That definately sums up my position. That is exactly how I feel about editing, I would rather get articles from stub to non-stub than to worry about silly stars. But to each their own. -Djsasso (talk) 17:05, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

• Hey guys, if you need any more editors to help you out let me know. I've been actively editing hockey articles since the start of last season. These days I've been doing a lot of work with Russian hockey.CalBears99 (talk) 03:41, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Go ahead and sign right up on the participants page! We can always use more. -Djsasso (talk) 14:44, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Main Page FA's

A recent discussion started on the talk page of Trevor Linden about putting the article onto the Main Page this coming hockey season, and that got me thinking. Perhaps we should see about getting one, or possibly even two articles on the Main Page over the course of the season.

As it stands, the last article to make the Main Page was Stanley Cup back in May. We currently have 12 FA's that haven't made the Main Page yet, plus anything that gets nominated and passed over the next while, so there isn't a lack of choice.

Personally, I'm striving to get Trevor Linden up on the night the Canucks retire his jersey. It's an ambitious project, made even more complicated by the fact the team has yet to announce a date. But I believe that it would make a great subject for the day, a unique oppourtunity that will never again come. I also know that Resolute has been striving for some months now to get Calgary Flames for some time now, plus anything more that people have here.

For obvious reasons, it makes sense for us to wait until the hockey season starts again to begin going for Main Page nominations, so it gives us some time to discuss. I wouldn't mind hearing what other users here think about this. Kaiser matias (talk) 04:45, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

I've had this lying around for a while too.-Wafulz (talk) 14:57, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Jersey retirement night sounds like a great idea for the article to be on the main page. --Krm500 (talk) 16:47, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

I knew it wasn't a lack of articles we had with the ability to get featured. My only question is, I haven't attempted to get one onto the Main Page before, and am rather lost by the whole process. It also doesn't help that there is a lack of date stated yet. I'm afraid that the Canucks might do something like announce it the day before or day of, rendering this all moot. Kaiser matias (talk) 18:42, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Nah they will give ample notice because they will make a big deal out of it. The schedule itself was only recently released so they probably need time to plan out what they are going to do. You will likely know by the start of the season.-Djsasso (talk) 18:44, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Yeah if someone could explain the main page process to me I'd be grateful.-Wafulz (talk) 18:50, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Not sure of that myself, but for my part, I plan on trying to get Calgary Flames on for the either the season opener or Calgary's home opener. We'll see though. I wanna improve the lead, and add a bit about the ownership of the Hitmen and Flames Central first. Should do that soon. Also, I really want to get History of the National Hockey League (1917–1942) on the front page for December 19, which would be the 91st anniversary of the first NHL games played. Resolute 04:27, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

I really admire your work with the history articles Resolute, I'm just wondering; Will 1967 NHL Expansion be merged with History of the National Hockey League (1967–1992), seems kind of redundant having one history article for just one year. --Krm500 (talk) 02:39, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't think they'll be merged since one describes an event and the surrounding details and another covers 25 years.-Wafulz (talk) 02:43, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Yeah I don't think they would be merged either. There would probably just be a main article link to it I would think. -Djsasso (talk) 02:47, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Have you had any more thoughts about merging Original Six into the 42-67 article? Blackngold29 03:02, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Me? I would probably still leave it separate. Looking at the info it covers, I don't think that would really go in a history article. -Djsasso (talk) 03:05, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Oh, I guess I was thinking of Resolute, but I obviously value everyone's opinion. I was thinking that Original Six should just be redirected. I mean the 24 seasons (1942–1967) are exclusively about the O6. Although I didn't expect the "Expansion" section to be included until the next stage (67-92), or the 1967 NHL Expansion if it can be cleaned up. I think looking at the big picture I just want the history to be represented in a manor that can be easily accessable to anyone who wants it; so if there are volunteers to clean up Original Six and 1967 NHL Expansion then I have no problem with them remaining. But if they're just going to continue to be at the so-so quality they are currently, I would say get rid of them. Resolute is doing a great job so far, but I don't want to try to put pressure on him to do anything he doesn't want to do. Blackngold29 03:29, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) I think that the 1967 NHL Expansion article can stand on its own, and do plan on refocussing it at some point. For the history article, I wrote two paragraphs in the 42-67 article detailing the lead up to the expansion, and the background section of the 67-92 article will likewise be two paragraphs about the expansion draft and alignment. I think the topic can sustain more than those four paragraphs. Original Six I remain undecided on. I am now tending to lean towards keeping it. The history article documents the business of the league as a whole, while the Original Six article can be rewritten to focus in greater detail on how a six team league impacted things like rivalries, on the origins of the term, and perhaps go into greater detail on how the Norris family controlled nearly the entire league. Resolute 04:49, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

It came to mind that the O6 article could be like the Dynasty section in the 42-67 article, just giving each team a section and focusing on them; although that might verge on just repeating their own team history articles. Just thought I'd throw that out to chew on. Blackngold29 05:07, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Information on Vasily Viktorovich Tikhonov

Hi! I'm trying to write an article on Vasily Viktorovich Tikhonov, an assistant coach for the San Jose Sharks in the mid-90's and the son of former Soviet coach Viktor Vasilevich Tikhonov, for the German Wikipedia. But at the moment I'm stuck on his career in November 2001 when he was fired as head coach of the SCL Tigers, a hockey club from Switzerland. The problem is that I can't find any more informations on his coaching career from then on. All I know is that he was head coach or assistant coach for HC CSKA Moscow, when Nikolai Zherdev signed with the Columbus Blue Jackets. So does anyone have further information on his career from 2002 until now? Thanks, Thomas ^✉ 09:25, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

ESPN wrote an article about Vasily's son Viktor during the draft. The article mainly focuses on Viktor, but has some information about Vasily. Don't know if it provides anything you don't yet know, but it is something. Kaiser matias (talk) 16:14, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

This article was already on my list ;) --Thomas ^✉ 19:28, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Engraving the Inside of the Cup

I would post this on the Stanley Cup talk page, but I figured it was interesting enough and more people would see it here. Apparently Phil Bourque, who won the Cup with the Pens in 1991 and 1992 is the only player to have his name engraved on the inside of the Cup. After the Pens won it, and somebody decided to throw it into Mario's pool, it cracked and Bourque grabbed a screwdriver. Whole article here. I assume this is notable enough to go on the Cup article or atleast Chronology of Stanley Cup engravings. Thoughts? Blackngold29 05:41, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

I would probably put it on Traditions and anecdotes associated with the Stanley Cup under the misadventures. -Djsasso (talk) 15:07, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

2008-09 Game logs

I see that the new list of games are pretty much added to every team season pages, but I wonder why they use a significantly different format this time. I can't find a discussion of it anywhere else, so I came here. Last year's hockey season gamelog (here is Toronto's) has all the relevant info (including goalie decision, OT, record, AND Points), but the 08-09 season has a fancy border and different columns (ex. Toronto's 08-09 game log), and is missing some important ones. The Points column has to be on there, and the Location isn't necessary (unless overseas for the handful of games scheduled there. A footnote can take care of those). And info regarding if the game is home or away requires figuring out the location column. A sample baseball gamelog uses one column to take care of home/away and the opponent by using a simple "@" before the opponent's name for away games. That would save lots of column space. Also the score should always stay in the same order with the winning score first, followed by the score of the losing team. (Besides tennis) I've never heard of a team losing 3-6, as last year's gamelogs showed when the main team lost on the road or won at home. Keep the score as Winner-Loser and the row color dictates if the team (whose page it is) won or lost. Hockey requires OT and Points columns instead of pitching columns, and those need to be added too. I hope I'm not the only one who sees the flaws in these new gamelogs, but it should be addressed before the season starts. Thanks. --Mtjaws (talk) 18:17, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't know who came up with the Penguins' design (used it last season too), but I like it. Blackngold29 18:21, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Different people are using different formats on the articles that they maintain. I'm using one similar to the Penguins format this year (last year it was much different). I've made a couple modifications to it though - feel free to see 2008–09 Detroit Red Wings season. - Rjd0060 (talk) 18:57, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

I think the idea was to try and standardize the formats across all seasons, the reasoning for the newer version I believe is so that the tables can be collapsed. The majority of pages used that version last year as well. The Toronto article is actually an exception. We do colour the line as to who won or lost by the way. It's just no games have been played yet so no lines have been coloured. We don't put points on the table because you don't need a running total of points. That is in another section on the page. The idea behind switching the score around to 3-6 for example is it makes it easier to see at a quick glance who got what score. If you keep bouncing it back and force it makes it alot more confusing. You call it keeping it in the same order but its actually making it bounce back and forth. The idea here is that the score is always on the same side as the person who got it. -Djsasso (talk) 14:57, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

I picked Toronto at random, so I didn't know it was one of the few exceptions. I know there are no colors yet, but when they are added, it does tell me which team scored what. For example, a columnized "Red @Detroit 6-3" means "the team lost 6-3 at Detroit." "Green Boston 2-1" means "the team won at home over Boston 2-1." The color combined with the score gives the info. I know a consensus is important here so I won't go changing every team's gamelog. I just like the consistent order of the baseball gamelogs. As for the running Points column, that is definitely not elsewhere on the page. Yes, the division/conf standings has the current Pts total, but seeing how many points a team has as the season progresses is important. Hockey standings are decided by Pts, so I feel it belongs in the gamelog. --Mtjaws (talk) 16:48, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

What about people who are colour blind and/or using screen readers? How can they tell the difference between "@Detroit 6-3" and "Boston 2-1" being a loss and win, respectively? —C.Fred (talk) 17:08, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Color blind people could look at the team's running record column. If the wins increase from the last game, it's a win. It takes a little more effort I guess, but we shouldn't have to change anything. Blackngold29 22:12, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

If we do change to this format, I would suggest that the subject team's score always be listed first. i.e.: a win is @Detroit 6-3 and a loss is @Detroit 3-6. Resolute 18:30, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

I am partial to the way the baseball game logs are done, which is similar to what is being proposed here. Just list the opponent, not the team whose season article it is, and do score (winner first), winning and losing goaltenders (with records), team record and points, and put (OT) or (SO) in small type in the score column. Put a legend at the top for each color for people who aren't familiar; for color blindness, the best thing I could say is that the result would be inferred from the difference in record from the last game. -- bmitchelf•T•F 20:32, 5 August 2008 (UTC) My template suggestion (using the Rangers as the team name):

Legend
Rangers Win	Rangers Loss	Rangers Overtime Loss

The Manual of Style, however, specifies that colour coding alone should not be used. I'd rather get it right the first time, which is why I prefer that the team in focus always has their score listed first. The other way to do it, I suppose, is to list the result as part of the score: "L 6-5", "W 4-3", "OTW 3-2", etc, though even then, I prefer the format of "L 5-6". Resolute 05:04, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm fine with that (L 5-6), but I prefer the result to be in a separate column. --Krm500 (talk) 10:33, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Infobox

Hi all, I'm wondering if Ice Hockey teams have an infobox?

I ask this because there is a "Facts" section in Knoxville Cherokees that really should be in one. Could someone help me out? Or better yet, could they sort out that article? - Tbsdy lives (talk) 13:04, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

{{Pro hockey team}} would be the appropriate template. I'll add it to the article. Resolute 14:01, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! - Tbsdy lives (talk) 08:17, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Antero Niittymaki or Antero Niittymäki

These two articles are exactly the same and maybe one should be deleted. The only different is the ã in the name Niittymaki. It looks like everything on the Antero Niittymaki page is copy and paste from everything on the Antero Niittymäki considering he uses Niittymäki. Jobes23(talk), 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Antero Niittymaki is just a redirect to the Antero Niittymäki article, you can see a small text in parenthesis saying Redirected from Antero Niittymaki when you use the spelling without the diacrtic, and the title of the page is Antero Niittymäki even though you typed Antero Niittymaki. You can read more about it at Wikipedia:Redirect. Welcome to the project btw! --Krm500 (talk) 21:44, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Guess which version I prefer, ha ha. GoodDay (talk) 21:46, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Don't start with me! ;) --Krm500 (talk) 22:26, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Philadelphia Flyers Task Force

Hello,

I was wondering if there was enough people willing to help with a Philadelphia Flyers Task Force. I have everything set up I just need to know if their is enough people willing to work with me to help make the articles better Jobes23(talk), 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Would I be able to add a Task Force for the Flyers? or should I wait for other people to be interested. I checked a lot of the articles for the Flyers and most of them are either stubs.

--Jobes (talk) 01:27, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

As a practical matter, I don't think it makes a difference. If you wish to form a task force in the hopes of attracting others to your project, you are more than welcome. It certainly is not necessary to expand details on Philly's history in hockey, and either way, we're always willing to support other hockey editors at the main project here. Resolute 03:59, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

I will edit our template to include your task force when I get a chance. I am on crappy hotel wireless internet at the moment and it took 10 minutes just to load this talk page so it might be a few days. -Djsasso (talk) 14:01, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Ok so I managed to add it to the template like the other task forces, however I don't have an image for it yet. So if anyone wants to create a "PHI" image like the ones we have for the devils or canucks task forces it can be added as well. -Djsasso (talk) 14:09, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Marsh Ryman

Hello,

I thought I'd come here for a bit of help, since I'm having trouble categorizing the Marsh Ryman article I just created. I don't usually do much in hockey articles (this article was created because it's a redlink of a basketball article I'm trying to get to GA status), so I'm not sure where to find categories for US national team coaches or hockey referees which would be applicable, so I just thought I'd pop in and ask. matt91486 (talk) 22:12, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

There is no such category, but I've added him to other relevant categories based on the information given in the article. − Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 11:16, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, national team coaches categories might be a good one to create for the future then? Thanks for the help with the other categories though! matt91486 (talk) 15:38, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

There is Category:Head coaches of Team Norway, but I think that's it. I've just tagged it for discussion, if anyone is interested. Future categories should follow a different naming convention: Category:Norway national men's ice hockey coaches. − Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 16:24, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Simple Question

I am fairly new to editing on wikipedia and I have a simple question and would like your input on this. The first section of an article. The body before any topic is given would it be better to give a background summary of past events or would it be better to give a summary of the article and then go into greater detail as the article went on? I am just wondering what my fellow wikipedians prefer.

Jobes (talk) 02:21, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

The second one. Check out WP:LEAD. Blackngold29 02:41, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

As Blackngold says. A fully developed lead section will serve as a "mini-article" in its own right. It should summarize the body of the article. Take a look over some featured articles for examples of this. Regards, Resolute 04:02, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Guys that was a big help. Jobes (talk) 04:14, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Bob Kelly & Bob Kelly

While taking a gander at 1967 NHL Amateur Draft I noticed the 16th selection is listed as J.-Bob Kelly (b. 1946). "J.-Bob" struck me as a particularly bizarre name, so I did some digging. As far as I can tell his name has never been "J.-Bob", rather he went simply by "Bob". I figured, okay I'll move this to "Bob Kelly". Problem is there is another Bob Kelly (b. 1950). I looked them both up in my copy of Total Hockey, and indeed there are two men who both went by "Bob Kelly". As far as I can tell the only source which names the elder Bob Kelly "J.-Bob" is hockeydb.com, therefore it strikes me as a clerical error on their part. I don't know where to move these two articles. By birth year, i.e. "Bob Kelly (ice hockey b. 1946)" and "Bob Kelly (ice hockey b. 1950)"? By nickname, "Bob 'Battleship' Kelly" (b. 1946) and "Bob 'Houndog' Kelly" (b. 1950)? By full name, "Robert ? Kelly" and "Robert James Kelly"? Your help is very much appreciated. -93JC (talk) 01:40, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

What has happened in this case before is to go by birth date, like you wrote. Kaiser matias (talk) 01:45, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

I see that now, after taking a look at John Stewart (ice hockey b. 1950) & John Stewart (ice hockey b. 1954). Thanks. 93JC (talk) 04:21, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Intra-League Draft & Reverse Draft

Hey guys I was looking at transactions for the 1968–69 Philadelphia Flyers season season and I am revising it but could you guys help me out and please enlighten me on what the Intra-League Draft and the Reverse Draft were.Jobes23 (talk) 21:23, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

The Intra-League Draft was the precursor to the Waiver Draft. It was created in the 1950s as a way to assist weaker teams and bring parity to the league. Teams would protect a certain number of players from being drafted, and those lest unprotected were eligible to be drafted. Very deep teams would thus leave many players unprotected, in theory allowing the weaker teams to strengthen their rosters. I don't know the exact rules and workings, as they changed many times and I have never seen the full, codified rules.

The Reverse Draft (which may have been referred to as the Inter-League Draft) was, if I remember correctly, intended in much the same manner as the Waiver Draft to help minor league (AHL, CHL, WHL, IHL, etc.) teams strengthen their rosters. The idea was that teams with shallow rosters could bolster them with minor league players who where the property of NHL teams. I don't know the exact workings.

Hopefully someone else knows more. 93JC (talk) 22:26, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the help. It helped clarify a few things for me.Jobes23 (talk) 01:04, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Template:NHLSeasonTOC

Doesn't a completed "Player stats" section (every single player listed) make a "Roster" section redundant? --Flyer47 (talk) 11:38, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Roster is used during the season and Player stats when the season is over. --Krm500 (talk) 12:47, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Except that many of them were subst'ed on the 2007-08 articles. I just never bothered to remove those. Though they are redundant, imo. Resolute 16:30, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Redundant indeed. Maybe we could make the TOC display the sections based on their presence in the article. In pseudocode:

if section "Roster" is present in article

include section "Roster" in TOC

if section "Player stats" is present in article

include section "Player stats" in TOC

However, the two sections are not supposed to co-exist. The only time the two should be in the article at the same time is the brief period between adding the stats and removing the roster—assuming it is done in that order—which is about one minute per year. This functionality would be vaguely similar (but not the same) as how the "Recap" field in {{Template:NHLPlayoffs}} replaces the "TV" field if they are both present. User:Sukh17 is the primary editor of that template, so he might be able to help. — Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 19:32, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Template:Ice hockey error?

I've just noticed that the pull-down option on the Ice hockey template (WikiProject template for talk pages) is missing? I looks like possibly the addition of the Flyers task force might have done this, as it is missing from the "related task forces" coding part of the template? Can an admin go in there and try to fix it? Thanks. – Nurmsook! ^talk... 20:43, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Seems a pipe character ("|") has been removed at the end of the if clause where the taskforces are listed for the existense check (see the history diff). Maybe this is the reason for malfunction. --Bamsefar75 (talk) 23:52, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Seems template was repaired by a Happy‑melon, see its talk page. --Bamsefar75 (talk) 22:08, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Evolution of the Toronto Maple Leafs

I have built a series template for 'Evolution of the Toronto Maple Leafs' from 'Evolution of the NHL' template. I have installed it on the articles for the teams leading up to the Leafs. We don't have an article on the St. Patrick's specifically, which I think we should, but I don't know if that issue was settled awhile ago. I'd like people's thoughts about the template, its use and adding a St. Patrick's article. The St. Patrick's did evolve themselves from an amateur team, the information about which we could incorporate into that article. Alaney2k (talk) 16:06, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

The template Alaney2k is talking about is Template:Evolution of the Toronto Maple Leafs. — Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 16:17, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

I think if an article on the Arenas is warranted, who were in existence for one year, the St. Patricks warrant one as well, who were around from 1919 to 1927. — Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 16:20, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

The St. Patricks and the Maple Leafs are the same team however. They simply changed their name. The Arenas are a special case, as they were intended to be a bridge team until the other owners forced Livingstone to sell the Blueshirts. The Arenas themselves ceased operations late in the 1918-19 season, then were replaced with the St. Patricks in 1919-20.

Personally, I have some issues with this template. First off, the Blueshirts were never members of the NHL. Second, Toronto Pro HC and the Blushirts have no direct relationship to the Maple Leafs, so I think it is factually incorrect to state that the Maple Leafs "evolved" from them. This leaves just the Arenas and the Maple Leafs article, and there is no need for a template. Resolute 16:58, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

The SIHR considers the 1917-18 team to be the Blueshirts (NHL). That would be how they were named back then. Alaney2k (talk) 17:27, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Oh, and if the template is kept, the logo has to go. That is an invalid use of a fair use logo per WP:NFCC. Resolute 17:00, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

It is irrelevant if a team was part of the NHL or not. If they were related to the franchise, they should be included. This template's scope is the franchise, not the current league of the franchise. Anyway, because of your other comments, maybe renaming this template to "Toronto hockey history" or "History of hockey in Toronto" is in order? — Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 17:06, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

A few points. The Blueshirts relationship is clearly connected with the Maple Leafs. The players were taken from Livingstone's Blueshirts in 1917, but the player's rights placed into the Torontos of 1917-18. There never was a legal team entity for that year, the Arena Corp were to pay off Livingstone. That I don't think was ever settled, although the Arena Corp and St. Pat's were ordered to pay off Livingstone eventually. This is in the Deceptions and Doublecross book by Morey Holzman, which is well researched. There are links from 1906, with Ridpath, who later managed the Blueshirts, to the players moved to the Arenas, to the St. Pat's and the eventual sale to Smythe's group. The process led to the Maple Leafs. For now, I'll remove the Leafs logo. We can figure out another? Alaney2k (talk) 17:14, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

As far as an image goes, this might make a decent replacement: Image:Air Canada Center.jpg. Resolute 17:23, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

It does contain a logo. I wonder if I could use that photo as the basis for a hand-made 'likeness' Alaney2k (talk) 17:27, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Maybe. Someone at one of the image noticeboards would be able to answer that better. I *think* the ACC picture is fair game because of Canadian Freedom of Panorama laws. It's hosted on Commons, at any rate. Resolute 17:36, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Maybe an historic image could be used instead? Anyway, what about including Toronto Marlboros (the Leafs' former farm team) and Toronto Marlies (current AHL affiliate) in the template? — Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 19:02, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Something before 1950 could be used, it's public domain in Canada. The Marlboros started out as an independent club, and I think the Leafs bought or were partners. They were amateur. The current Marlies are pro. There is a current Marlboros organization too. That could be messy to sort out. Alaney2k (talk) 22:16, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

The template is just a list of teams. You could add a horizontal line to separate them, then put "Affiliated teams" or something. — Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 13:44, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

I think that is a good idea. I don't know enough about what teams to put there, though. Most of the minor league teams (I can remember Tulsa Oilers?) might not be notable enough to have articles.Alaney2k (talk) 15:28, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Notability essay

After having contested a prod for Ian Cole I got a request on my talk page that the 'first round draft pick' criterion of our notability standards for ice hockey players should be proposed for inclusion at WP:ATHLETE. I was going to do this my self, but after a quick glance at Wikipedia talk:Notability (people) I figured it was best running it by here since the proposal will likely be heavily objected. Does anyone here have experience with the notability issue? --Krm500 (talk) 02:41, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Honestly, I can't see this really passing into WP:ATHLETE very easily. There is already some opposition to that guideline as it is, and the AfD precedents are contradictory. Hockey first rounders have survived AfD, while baseball first rounders have failed. Obviously different situations, but for most lay people, a first rounder is a first rounder. In the spirit of NPOV, I can't disagree with that. Personally, I'd say just leave things as they are. The person who prodded the article will either AfD it or they won't. We'll see how the community at large views the notability of first rounders. Resolute 03:56, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Beyond that, I'm heavily pessimistic that WP:ATHLETE's changing any time soon. People have tried for years to tighten it up, a premise with broad consensus, but where few agree on the details. This issue being one; in hockey, a first rounder will likely make the NHL, where that first rounder's odds of making the NBA are slightly worse, in baseball a fair bit worse yet, but where virtually every first rounder in football at least sees some NFL time. Minor league play's also a very contentious issue: even in baseball, where 95% of the players see some minor league time, if not years of it, the baseball Wikiproject has a large faction who doesn't believe that any minor leaguers should be notable, ever. By contrast, take soccer, where a mere third division team could have played in the national premiership two years before or two years from now, depending on its luck with relegation, or hockey, where a career minor league in the Original Six days could have easily been an All-Star today.  RGTraynor  11:29, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Just curious. Can you name an example career minor leaguer from those days who would be an All-Star today? Sure, every team is supposed to be represented, but other than that, I can't think of one myself. Alaney2k (talk) 22:14, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

I can't think of his name but there is one guy who scored the equivalent of Gordie Howe numbers back in the day but because of the depth of the O6 teams he never had more than a sip of coffee in the NHL. RG probably knows better since his area of interest is heavily in the minors. -Djsasso (talk) 23:35, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

I believe you are talking about Guyle Fielder. Only played a few games in the NHL, but was a scoring machine in the Western Hockey League. Len Thornson was perhaps another player who could have been an all-star had there been more teams in his day. I'm sure there quite a few others. Patken4 (talk) 01:11, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

The Western Hockey League was definitely approaching major league quality by the 60s. I can see that some scorers would not make the NHL, which had more tough guys back then. Alaney2k (talk) 14:03, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Heh, I'd certainly cite Fielder; then again, I created his article. Other probable All-Stars out of the 1950s-60s minors? Willie Marshall, Fred Glover, Harry Pidhirny, Dick Gamble, Art Jones, Bill Sweeney ... Far fetched? Not at all. How many Johnny Bowers, Ed Giacomins or Bill Whites were there, guys who'd been buried in the Original Six minors for as much as a decade until they got the chance to show what they could so, and turned into instant NHL all-stars? Remember that it was a different environment, and that many minor league teams owned their players outright: what was the percentage of the Cleveland Barons to let Johnny Bower play in the NHL, or the Providence Reds to let Ed Giacomin, or the Springfield Indians to let a Bill White? What was the percentage of a (say) Boston Bruins team to *buy* or trade for those players, given that they were playing to 95% of capacity competing with the perennial World Champion Boston Celtics? Those Original Six rosters were static as hell ... up until that period, only one NHL player had ever played 20+ seasons, and up until the explosion of career lengths in recent years, only three NHL players played 20+ seasons whose careers didn't start between 1948 and 1964.  RGTraynor  20:16, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Quebec Skating Rink

Does anyone have any information on the Quebec Skating Rink, the one time home of the Quebec Bulldogs? Some sources, like Total Hockey II, seem to indicate that the club played at the Quebec Skating Rink from 1891 through their NHL years. But others, like this site, say they played at another venue, even if it has a similar name (at least I think Patinoir translates to ice rink). This program from a game in 1915 indicates the venue is called "Quebec Arena". Are these all similarly named venues, kind of like there were multiple Madison Square Garden's? If so, I think there enough sources to write a decent article on the venue. Thanks for any assistance you can give me. Patken4 (talk) 01:44, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't have any knowledge about it, I'm only aware of the Colisée which is a fine hockey arena. But I would like to advertise about a Wikiproject I found which I know you are a member of Patken, and I think many of other hockey editors will be interested in — WP Event Venues/Sports task force. --Krm500 (talk) 21:19, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

There is some written information and photos on the rinks, in French, too. To my understanding, there were two Skating Rinks, an Arena, then two Colisees, including today's building. That's my limited knowledge. It sort of fits the idea that crowd sizes were getting bigger, so they kept rebuilding. I think there was also at least one fire, too. Alaney2k (talk) 13:59, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

If anyone has the exact location of the rink(s) I could see if I have any good images from the area. --Krm500 (talk) 01:50, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Requesting split of Windsor Spitfires article

I just stumbled across an article in the Simcoe Reformer that says the original Spitfires became the Hamilton Tiger Cubs in 1953. This makes them now the Erie Otters. I would like it if we could split the Windsor Spitfires articles so there is a new article called Windsor Spitfires (1946-1953). Any thoughts? DMighton (talk) 20:18, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

No reason why not.  RGTraynor  20:26, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Color squares in Topinfoboxes

I don't wanna seem like a grump, but those recently added color squares on some team articles (like Chicago), are awful. GoodDay (talk) 20:33, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

I think they're good except for the spacing. The boxes are there on the other three major leagues' teams. Jc121383 (talk) 21:58, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

It's refreshing for me to know I'm not the only one who disapproves. I think for the most part they look awful and usually make it more difficult to read. I don't understand the rationale behind it. I understand it looks "pretty", but to the detriment of readability? It's stupid, and I'd rather we just stuck with a standard colour. 93JC (talk) 00:29, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean by "detriment of readability" because all the text looks fine to me. As an aside, I edited the spacing on the Blackhawks page so it's more like the ones on MLB, NBA, and NFL team pages. Jc121383 (talk) 03:36, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

It's been a while since I've perused all of the team pages, but at one point many of them were particularly hard to read. I seem to remember the Colorado Avalanche article had maroon backgrounds with dark blue text, which was next to impossible to decipher. They've probably all changed since then. Still, I think it's pointless (and, not trying to sound rude, stupid). 93JC (talk) 00:52, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

What, those squares in the Team Colors bit? I don't understand the rationale either. There is no particular reason why we need to conform to what the MLB, NBA and NFL team pages do; for one thing, that could just as readily bring back those fuzzy and subjective Not To Be Forgotten sections, and for another, what makes MLB/NBA/NFL any more valid than the Elitserien, the Canadian Football League, the English Premiership or the many other top end professional leagues in the world?  RGTraynor  20:30, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

While on the subject; In my opinion all ice hockey teams should use the same infobox, and all ice hockey leagues should use the same infobox. It will make it easier for readers if we use a standardized template, instead of several very different templates as it is today. --Krm500 (talk) 01:32, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, if not the same infobox itself (too many parameters), the same style would be ideal. Have fun implementing that though. ;o) Resolute 18:32, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Have you seen Template:Infobox Settlement? Parameters can't be an issue ;) --Krm500 (talk) 02:27, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Adding diacritics from links on all roster template pages

Bort08 went through all the roster template pages and added diacritics for players apparently without any such agreement here to do so. I've reverted all of these edits on that basis. -- Gmatsuda (talk) 09:26, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

List of team draft picks

As a side project, I'm working List of Calgary Flames draft picks up to FL status, and have again modified the stats to be a little more complete. I've noticed we have a couple different formats for the lists currently, and figured I'd see what everyone likes as a standard for these tables. Handling goaltenders within the same chart is a bit of a nuisance. Thoughts?

Incidentally, I've noticed that since we began writing these draft articles, hockeydb has completely reorganized its team draft layout... look familiar? [2] heh. Resolute 19:00, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

I really like your version, and would support this as the standard, especially if it reaches FL status as it would be the first draft pick article to do so I believe. And its kinda interesting to see that a source we use is starting to mimick us in a way. -Djsasso (talk)

Indeed. Though hockeydb had the full stats while we only had games and points/wins. I didn't even realize they had switched to that foromat until after I already fleshed out the stats. lol. Resolute 19:51, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

You could save at least 15kb if you use Template:NHLDraftTOC and combine all the draft tables into one. --Flyer47 (talk) 20:36, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

I believe we have the tables seperate in the past for readability. However the TOC is a good idea. Though looking at what you have done with the Flyers I do like that as well. So either is good. However, the flames article is only 56k which is within ideal size range so 15k probably isn't that big of a deal. -Djsasso (talk) 21:13, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

I have to say, as a personal taste, I prefer to have each draft year separated. However, I did notice you had this format set up on the Canadiens article, and it looks like you have done several that way. As the Flames article was the first draft article, my designs are obviously unique. ;o) I might convert to the format you have, including the TOC, but I also think that having the player's full career stats is more useful than just GP/Pts, and that colour coding each square is distracting as hell. YMMV. Resolute 22:02, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Off topic, oh noes!

You'd be surprised where our work ends up being featured... [3]. Resolute 22:02, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Ahaha, how did you find that! --Krm500 (talk) 22:37, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

"Pat?" Is "Roy" too hard to say? :D ConkblockCity (talk) 22:50, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Looks like all of their cats are given the first or nicknames of players. I loved the brothers Pocket and Rocket, myself. Krm - I was looking for used book stores to see if they had any other good books for my history articles, and came across that website. I met Gump today, heh. Resolute 01:33, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Haha I shop at their Calgary locations all the time and met some of the cats too I suppose, One of them always sleeps on one of the book cases and looks like he's dead. Decent stores. If you are looking for a store with a huge selection of books in Calgary. Fair is Fare in Inglewood probably has the biggest selection, but I haven't been there in a year or so, so I don't know what their selection of hockey book is like right now. But its definately the biggest used store in town. -Djsasso (talk) 13:59, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Haven't been to the Inglewood location, but I found a good year-by-year history of hockey at the MacLeod Trail store. Resolute 16:07, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

RfC at Mike Comrie

No, I'm not one of the members of the project, but I'm just dropping a short note to give folks in this project a heads-up that there's a RfC on the Mike Comrie article about the neutrality of some edits that have been made. Input from project members would be very much appreciated. Tabercil (talk) 11:23, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Young free agents to new teams

Is there a reason why we list the players who go from one team to another, even if they haven't played in the NHL yet? I was looking over the Pen's transactions for the upcoming season and noticed that players like Ryan Lannon and Kurtis McLean are included, even though they never played a game for the Penguins. Yes, they were in the organization, but should we really be spending time listing these guys when they barely qualify for their own article? I can't even find sources that they were signed, though ESPN lists McLean as an Islander. If it is consensus of the project to list these players I'll do whatever I can to help, but I think we could put our efforts into more worthwhile contributions. Blackngold29 16:58, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Have you checked the websites of the teams themselves? That's usually where everything's announced, no matter how minor. At least it is for the Pens. ConkblockCity (talk) 17:06, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Neither one has anything about leaving, only a couple articles about games in Wilkes-Berre. Blackngold29 17:15, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

I meant, like, the *Islanders* site, for announcement of the signing. But there's also Johnny Bomb's blog, even if newspaper blogs aren't good enough; you might find some links. ConkblockCity (talk) 17:23, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Islanders site didn't have anything either, but I found them all on ESPN. Blackngold29 17:34, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Technically it was still penguins transaction right since they were trading the rights even if the players haven't signed yet. For the sake of completionism it should probably be there. But I tend to avoid transactions in total just because they are so hard to keep up with. -Djsasso (talk) 17:11, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

I personally just focus on transactions that affect the major league roster. A player in the organization but not with the parent team isn't all that relevant, imo. Others feel differently, and that is fair. I find this much less annoying than the non-achievements that were often listed under the milestones sections last year. Silly things like "moved into 4th all time on team scoring list", "100th PIM" and the like. Resolute 01:42, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, there were some odd "milestones" added to last years pages, even recently. Perhaps we should set some perameters of what should be included? I would think with everyone's season stats being included on each page, only individual things are notable, but shouldn't they go on that player's own article? Maybe we could just eliminate "milestones" altogether. Blackngold29 01:51, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, as a personal rule, I list G, A and PTS that are multiples of 100, games that are multiples of 500, team and league records. Resolute 01:56, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Officially, NHL Milestone Awards are given for 400 goals, 600 assists, 1000 points, 1000 games played, 500 games played (goalie), 25 shutouts, and 750 games coached. [4][5] They are apparently awarded in other instances as well (Beliveau, Hull, Richard). --Flyer47 (talk) 05:38, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Those sound like good plateaus to me, but should we include them on the season pages? As they will undoubtably span multiple seasons? And add them to the player's individual article. Blackngold29 05:50, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

The single milestone point won't span multiple seasons. A player can score 399 points over multiple years, but they can only score their 400th point during one season. — Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 06:17, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Concerns about ignoring of naming conventions raised at WT:NCP#Sports "revolt"

See Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (people)#Sports "revolt". Numerous WP:SPORTS child-projects are pretending that the Wikipedia:Naming conventions (people) guidelines don't exist. Needs to be resolved one way or the other. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 23:10, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Bureaucratic discussions tend to quickly devolve from reasonable discourse to monkeys flinging poo at each other, so I'll only say this: pick one and I'll follow it but either way I ain't "fixing" it. 93JC (talk) 05:08, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Hockey team infoboxes

Many of the infoboxes in Category:Ice hockey infobox templates can be merged into a single infobox. The information relevant to teams from one league will be nearly identical to information relevant to teams in another league (date founded, coach, captain, owner, arena, etc), and any parameters unique to a league can be explained in the documentation. Having so many infoboxes for nearly identical leagues is excessively redundant. I think these are the ones that should be merged:

• Template:EIHL Teams
• Template:Elitserien Team
• Template:Hockey team
• Template:Infobox College Ice Hockey Team
• Template:Infobox KHL team
• Template:Infobox rink hockey club (not sure about this)
• Template:IIHFnation
• Template:MMJHL Team
• Template:NHL Team
• Template:Pro hockey team
• Template:SJHL team
• Template:TBHSL Team

The template I would choose as the default is Template:Hockey team, since this encompasses all hockey teams. — Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 02:33, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

I've brought it up before but haven't got much support. I think it's vital that every infobox for hockey teams look the same so readers know where to find the information in an infobox. We don't have player infoboxes for each league, why should we have for teams? --Krm500 (talk) 09:18, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Yep. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 23:25, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

If you are willing to perform the merge, then by all means, go ahead. I would exclude {{IIHFnation}} from that list, however. That appears to be a different concept altogether. Resolute 02:08, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Oh. Yeah. I didn't look closely at some of them, just saw the location and structure was similar to the others, and added it. Good call. — Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 02:19, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree, but wouldn't know how to do it. If you or anyone will volunteer I think it would be a good step to take. Blackngold29 02:24, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

I crossed out the rink hockey template, too. Rink hockey is a different sport, played on roller skates. — Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 02:53, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

One thing to consider. Take a look at Ottawa Senators (original), Montreal Wanderers, even Montreal Canadiens. Those cases span leagues and so championships, conferences, divisions, etc. have changed. We are using Stanley Cup championships option of the template, but those teams also won league championships outside of the NHL. I guess the main point to making one 'super-template' work is consider for teams which have moved leagues and the various championship changes. It's is not a big number, but a rewrite is the time to take a look. Alaney2k (talk) 14:45, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

I think what would happen, if this were to happen is that we just change the fields a bit. Make a Stanley Cup championship field, and then fields for each championship in the world. Which is why I always figured it was better to just have seperate templates but make them look the same. Because the number of fields could get too unwieldly. -Djsasso (talk) 14:49, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

I wouldn't want that. No, some sort of championship field that is flexible. Ottawa and Canadiens were both NHA champions without winning the Cup the same year. Maybe just a smaller number of templates, or improve the ice hockey team one would be enough. I know in the Infobox template itself, you can name the fields by number, so it is completely open-ended so the capability is out there, but I don't know how to use it. Maybe just an 'Other Championships' field would do. Alaney2k (talk) 15:30, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Simple solution is optional parameters: championship_title1, 2, 3, etc; championship_years1, 2, 3, etc. --Krm500 (talk) 15:47, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Yeah I forgot you could set it up that way....I forgot you could change the title based on a different field. That's simple enough. -Djsasso (talk) 15:50, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Template: Ice hockey

For Template:Ice hockey, I suggest adding a needs-photo and corresponding category of 'players without photos'. This would help in the gathering of photos of players. We could link that page to the Ice hockey project page. I have noted this suggestion on the talk page for the template at Template_talk:Ice_hockey#Needs-photo. Alaney2k (talk) 14:12, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

I can probably figure out adding that today. -Djsasso (talk) 14:15, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

 Done add "needs-photo=yes" to any articles that need them in the ice hockey template. -Djsasso (talk) 14:24, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

I think you forgot to update the text that appears when the parameter is used. --Bamsefar75 (talk) 14:27, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Doh! -Djsasso (talk) 14:29, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for doing this so fast. It is definitely quiet around here this time of year. Alaney2k (talk) 14:39, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Yup, that's the truth. -Djsasso (talk) 14:40, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Season hasn't started yet, we are all doing preparations to be at our best for when the season starts. BTW, anyone coming to Sweden for the opener? --Krm500 (talk) 16:42, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Send me a plane ticket and I am there! -Djsasso (talk) 17:20, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Haha, I'd go as far as buying you a few brewskies if you come here ;) --Krm500 (talk) 02:13, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Notable players on X team

Since we had such an issue with this in the past and I think we solved it quite well by only listing hall of famers and award winners etc. I thought I might point you all towards a proposal that someone from the sports project has drawn up and is asking for opinions on. Wikipedia:NOTED PLAYER -Djsasso (talk) 17:30, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

YoungStars Game

I know we add All Star teams to the awards sections in player articles. Why don't we add YoungStars games? Would anyone be opposed to my doing this? --Smashville^BONK! 17:32, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

No, I think I've seen it too. --Krm500 (talk) 18:30, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Main Page FA

Does anyone else think we should remove the lead from the list of featured articles that appeared on the main page? It really doesn't serve any purpose and I would prefer the list without the lead. --Krm500 (talk) 22:56, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

How about a collapsible portion for each article? So the whole FA section collapses, and each individual article can be collapsed. — Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 07:39, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

I just don't see what the lead adds to the list, it was implemented when our screenshots of the main page with the FA were deleted. The only difference from clicking on the article and reading it is that you see which articles were featured on the main page before our hockey articles. --Krm500 (talk) 23:17, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Personally, I like the ability to see what was on the main page itself. That said, given date linking has been depricated, we can de-link the dates, and instead link the main page date field to each article's main page blurb. Resolute 02:24, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Players who died in WW1 and WW2

I was browsing the List_of_ice_hockey_players_who_died_young article... and it only lists a single NHA player to have died in WW1 and two NHL players in WW2... is this accurate? I thought many players enlisted in there two wars and I figured that by the odds that more would have died... anyone? DMighton (talk) 04:43, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

It's not a fully accurate list, and never really can be. -Djsasso (talk) 05:26, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Is there a resource that talks about the NHL's War-dead? DMighton (talk) 08:07, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Probably, but I wouldn't know where. -Djsasso (talk) 14:32, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Isn't military service itself to be considered an interruption of the sports career, and passing in a war being primary considered a thing that happens to a soldier, not an athlete? There were no Olympics during these wars, right? --Bamsefar75 (talk) 17:51, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

But technically atleast in Canada, you just take leave from your career to go to a war. They cannot let you go or fire you, so in a way there career is still active. They are just on a break. I would say like a vacation, but well its obviously not like that. However, I do see your point and might then add that all those junior players on the list should probably also be removed as they hadn't really started their careers either because they hadn't turned pro yet. -Djsasso (talk) 18:02, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Important junior players don't bother me (Renaud, Fendley), little known Junior players and minor players do not belong. Either way though... I know that there were enough players in WW2 that they were able to form their own hockey teams within the services. In fact, the RCAF defeated the Navy for the OHA Senior A championship in 1943. Which, if I remember hearing correctly received a lot of negative press at the time and the teams were forced to disband. In Ontario from 1942-1945 all Senior B, Intermediate B & C, and Junior C & D championship play was suspended to affirm the commitment of Ontario's effort in the war. DMighton (talk) 18:19, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Baseball also had the same number of dead as hockey did for the two wars. Granted, baseball consists of mostly US players and the US didn't enter WWI until 1917, but the numbers for WWII are the same. There is one more ice hockey player who died during WWI, but George Richardson wasn't a professional. In addition, Hobey Baker died just after the war. From this list, I see there are quite a few Aussie Rules football players dying in WWI. I don't know how accurate the list is, but it is somewhat interesting. Patken4 (talk) 21:07, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

About FA on the Main Page

As has been discussed before, I personal goal of mine was to have Trevor Linden appear on the Main Page the day the Canucks retire his jersey. However, the issue was there was no date set yet for this event. Now that the Canucks have announced that December 17 will be the night his jersey is retired, I am asking how one goes about getting an article on to the Main Page. I know some of you here have done this, so any advice on the topic would be great. Kaiser matias (talk) 16:45, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

I believe you go to this page Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests -Djsasso (talk) 17:07, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I've been reading up on it. Basically, when Raul is taking requests for the period that you want the article to appear, you can nominate it to appear on that date, assuming that date hasn't already been scheduled. He allows only five requests at any one time, and uses a point system to determine which requests should stay. People then support or oppose a nomination, and if supported, he'll schedule it in. Resolute 18:54, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Calgary Flames TFA

Speaking of which, I've noticed in my watchlist that Calgary Flames will appear tomorrow as the TFA. I was planning to request it for Early October to match the start of the season, but this works too.  :) That said, I expect a lot of vandalism from Canuck and Oiler fans especially. Should be an interesting day on the main page. heh Resolute 18:54, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

I noticed that when I looked at the request link yesterday, congratulations on yet another fine article on the main page! --Krm500 (talk) 09:51, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! I was going to aim to have the first NHL history article featured on December 19, in anniversary of the first NHL games played, but I think I'll leave that one for later. Linden definitely deserves the spotlight, especially for a one time event. Resolute 16:00, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

What we should have aimed for was getting Montreal Canadiens back to FA status so it could have been up for their December 4th 100th anniversary. -Djsasso (talk) 16:04, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Still possible, right? A good summary of the history, the rest of the article is already set. --Krm500 (talk) 16:27, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

I've got the books for inline citations on the old history. Resolute 16:30, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, maybe I will take a look at seeing what needs to be cleaned up this weekend. I have a bunch of old Canadiens books as well. Was an uber fan growing up, however since moving to calgary a decade ago I have become split, since we don't see many canadiens games on TV here anymore. -Djsasso (talk) 16:32, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Though if you want to get technical, the 100th anniversary of their founding is December 4, 2009. We still have over a year for that. This is their 100th season though. Resolute 16:35, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Ahh see I thought the way it worked was Dec 4th 2008 was their 100th anniversary, but their 100th season wouldn't be till next year because of the lock out. -Djsasso (talk) 16:38, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Including the lockout, this is their 100th season. Just the magic of 1909-10 through to 2008-09 equalling 100 seasons. But the anniversary of their founding is still over a year away. Plenty of time to rewrite and refocus this article. :) Resolute 16:42, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

The Canadiens needs the main article, the History of article and many seasons articles filled out, I think, to get to FA status proper again. I have been entering the seasons, and it is up to 1926 only. The 100th season is why I was entering the season data, and I will get to entering more seasons RSN. Alaney2k (talk) 16:56, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

That being said, sub articles don't have to be up to FA level (or even exist) for the main article itself to get FA. The only page that really has to be overly worried about is the main article. The Flames are a good example as its missing many of those things, or rather was when it was promoted I think. -Djsasso (talk) 16:58, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

I never understood the validity of moving stuff out to sub-articles to circumvent the FA standards. There ought to be references for the stuff in the subs. Anyway, I wanted to point out that the annversary of the first game of the Canadiens is in January 2010 (game one was vs. Cobalt, so I doubt that will be the opposition for any outdoor game). Alaney2k (talk) 17:02, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

I guess what I was concerned about were red links to season articles. We can link to NHL season articles I guess. Alaney2k (talk) 17:03, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

I never thought about the red links, yes articles would need to be created for those you are correct, I would just tend to create those as needed, but thats just personal work flow. We haven't really moved information to sub articles to circumvent FA standards. You move them to sub articles because the main article gets too big. Remember pages are shootting for around the 60k size mark. As for the outdoor game, according to the news today it looks like they are aiming to have an outdoor game this December 4th vs the Rangers. They are just in talks with the city to make it official. -Djsasso (talk) 17:08, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

That being said, TSN just reported that the team denies a date has been set. -Djsasso (talk) 17:11, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

This December would only be the -99th- anniversary of their founding, so I don't understand that date. Alaney2k (talk) 17:21, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

It's the official kick off day of their anniversary year though from what I have read. But anyways all rumours and speculation at this point I would guess. -Djsasso (talk) 17:37, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

That was neat to see a picture I took on the front page. Congrats on getting the Flames article featured and on the front page. -- JamesTeterenko (talk) 22:04, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

ahh, I was wondering if this would lure you out of retirement, heh. Thanks, and it is a good picture, even if a couple of people at Calgarypuck think it is Kipper's bad mask. ;o) Resolute 22:38, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Congrats on the TFA, folks. GoodDay (talk) 22:40, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Nice to see a quality hockey article on the front page. Congrats Resolute, I know you've been striving to reach this milestone for a while. Kaiser matias (talk) 05:13, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! Comically, we've now attracted an edit warrior attempting to enforce his opinion of image policy by any and all means necessary. This would be comical if it wasn't so sad. Resolute 14:54, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Yeah ... with all the WP:POINT he's throwing around - and I note he does this a fair bit - I'm about ready to set up a RfC.  RGTraynor  14:58, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

I thought about an ANI post on him, but decided against as it may seem retalitory at this point, and honestly, he's running out of avenues to be disruptive. I'm almost curious as to where he will go next with this. Resolute 15:00, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Posting to Jimbo's user talk page? Going to the media? Thing is, he's certainly being disruptive, he's certainly acting in bad faith, and these aren't the only images he's targeting, but has he yet committed ANI-worthy violations? It'll come to that, of course ... let's face it, how many times do the edit warriors who know for a certain fact that they're right and all the rest of the world is wrong ever, ever just meekly sit down and shut up when consensus is against them?  RGTraynor  15:16, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Looks like he went to Rfc earlier this year, so this isn't the first time there has been an issue with him. -Djsasso (talk) 20:09, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Make that twice. -Djsasso (talk) 21:59, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

diacritics

It seems to me that the note on the project page about the use of diacritics goes well beyond the intention of the compromise between participants in the diacritics debate, which was only about players' names. Shouldn't it be modified to clearly apply only to players' names? One editor has removed diacritics from the name of the town a player comes from, and is quoting this note as justification. Surely that wasn't the intention of the agreed compromise? Colonies Chris (talk) 16:46, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

No it's not. City names are still to have diacritics. Though there are still some people who disagree heavily with that fact. Diacritics in city names are already goverened by a wiki wide policy. The note actually specifically mentions player names and is on the player format page. -Djsasso (talk) 16:52, 10 September 2008 (UTC) Whoops looks like we have it on the main page now. -Djsasso (talk) 17:01, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

If it was done on a player's page, I'd agree with you. Heck, the grounding behind the anti-diacritical position is that players' names aren't commonly rendered in English using diacriticals. That position doesn't readily hold water for hometowns in non-English speaking countries, where with a few exceptions an English-language variant of the names aren't known to a preponderance of users. What's the page in question?  RGTraynor  16:53, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Template:Buffalo Sabres roster Town names should only be changed if there is an actual english translation for them. For example Munich is a translation of München. Removing diacritics is not a translation. Most cities in non-english countries as mentioned by RG, either don't have a translation or its not widely known by that name. The argument behind the players names losing them is that the NHL doesn't put them on the back of jerseys which of course doesn't hold up for city names. -Djsasso (talk) 16:57, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

And, happily, DJ just tightened up the language on the policy, which I think all sides can agree was our intent.  RGTraynor  17:11, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Yeah I think most people would agree this was what we were trying to get across. -Djsasso (talk) 17:15, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the rapid response. Colonies Chris (talk) 17:17, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Our project is nothing if not organized and fast. Someone mentioned on one of the Wikiproject proposal pages that we were one of the most organized projects out there. -Djsasso (talk) 17:20, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

It doesn't hurt to have twenty or so capable, knowledgeable editors willing to defer to one another's expertise and with a spirit of compromise. Heh, Chris, let me ask this: can you tell which sides of the diacritics issue some of us take?  RGTraynor  19:40, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Yeah you would never know that RG and I are on completely different sides of the arguement when it comes to player names. I also can't believe its been about a year since our last major blow up about them. I would say the compromise is working. -Djsasso (talk) 21:49, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Note: I've stuck to my self-imposed gag order. GoodDay (talk) 19:51, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

NHLSeasonTOC

I've added a year parameter to the NHLSeasonTOC template. This is to omit the 'Draft picks' link for the seasons prior to 1963. Another one I think we should control is the 'Farm teams' link. I think we could use whatever year farm teams were started, or we could use an option to the template to hide it. I suggest the year, because I am already using it, but I don't know if that is a good solution. Is there a good year to use as a starting point? Alaney2k (talk) 23:00, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Haven't farm teams in one form or another always been around? I mean they may not have been called farm teams but they basically were. In the O6 era it was "sponsored teams". Before that it was probably the same idea, local teams that were at a lower level that they pulled players off of. -Djsasso (talk) 21:27, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Official farm teams existed as early as the 1920s; the Springfield Indians were founded as a Rangers' farm team in 1926, and the Boston Cubs in the CanAm started in 1930 as the Bruins' farm team.  RGTraynor  03:05, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Brian Heaton has died

[6] Kingsville native and goalie equipment revolutionary Brian Heaton has died. You can thank him for Heaton and Brian's goalie equipment... as well as many major innovations in which goalie equipment is made and thought of. DMighton (talk) 22:34, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

DEL Category

I'm inquiring about Category:Deutsche Eishockey Liga players. Should all the players in the category be moved to team categories rather than the league? Raphie (talk) 15:43, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

If you know the teams they belong on yes. In general players are in the league category if we don't have all their team categories created yet. -Djsasso (talk) 15:46, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Seems like a good idea to me. Resolute 15:47, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Right then I'll get started then. Thanks gang. Raphie (talk) 15:48, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

I see Djsasso has started working on A so I'll start from B. Raphie (talk) 15:56, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

No No I was just testing something go ahead and start on A. Becarefull on the naming so you don't duplicate. For example. Cologne Sharks are the Kölner Haie. -Djsasso (talk) 15:58, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes I am aware of that and all, I'll load up the DEL wiki page to assist me anyway just in case. No problem I'll work from the top, last thing I wanted was more than one person working on the same and causing edit conflicts. And by all means anyone can assist if you wish to do so :) Raphie (talk) 16:04, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

What about the Nurnberg/Sinupret Ice Tigers, would creating a category for Nurnberg result in a duplicate? Raphie (talk) 16:18, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Nevermind I see you already done that, mucho gracias. Raphie (talk) 16:29, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Yeah I was looking for incorrectly categorized players and it seems the Sinupret cat is full of them so I am just cleaning it up. -Djsasso (talk) 16:34, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Almost done, just another 23 files to go, was hoping to do it all tonight but time and fatigue has beaten me (5:14 am over here in UK). Nevermind, always tomorrow. Raphie (talk) 04:14, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

No rush, you are doing a great job! Always good to see editors focusing on Euro based articles. -Djsasso (talk) 04:16, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Well that's a problem I'm trying to work on, with me being European and all. I hope to create many European player bios in the near future and expand it a little bit. Loads of european leagues, but not enough european players. Raphie (talk) 04:18, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

That's it all done! I'll look at other league categories lacking team catergories (Austria, Italy, Switzerland etc) and not make a start on Wikipedia, but rather on pen to paper and see what I can come up with. Raphie (talk) 15:00, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Some of the leagues may not need seperating yet, if there is only 10 players in say the Italian league on wikipedia they probably don't need to be split into teams yet as you might end up with only one person per category. (I just picked league at random I know this one probably should be). -Djsasso (talk) 15:25, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Well we currently have about 90 files in Italy which would mean possibly going ahead with that one, but there are only 9 in the Slovak Extraliga, so to do that one right now would be close to pointless. If I created more players that play or have played in Slovakia and say we get to like 60 or so then it would be possible to split them then. Raphie (talk) 15:45, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Yup that's my point, I just picked Italy at random, hadn't looked how many articles it had. -Djsasso (talk) 15:54, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Some team categories already exist but aren't in the league catergories. I'm gonna make a start with Serie A. Raphie (talk) 16:19, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

A new women's hockey record

Check this out: [7]... Slovakia defeated Bulgaria 82-0 and outshot them 139-0 in an Olympic women's hockey qualifier for Vancouver 2010. I don't know for sure, but this has to be some kind of record! DMighton (talk) 23:21, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

"The margin of victory is a record for a women's International Ice Hockey Federation-sanctioned event." Is there somewhere we can post this amazing massacre? DMighton (talk) 23:22, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Time to create a new article: International ice hockey records. — Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 23:58, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Need to create Bulgaria national women's ice hockey team or Slovakia national women's ice hockey team to note it there. Seems there are a lot of redlinks at Template:IIHF among the national women's teams. --Bamsefar75 (talk) 01:10, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Probably... but that is mind-blowing. I forget the men's record... but it was pretty ridiculous too. DMighton (talk) 00:10, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

This says that Bulgaria's goaltender Liubomira Shosheva had enough of it at 18.35 in the third period, with the score 79–0 to Slovakia. Kamelia Drazheva replaced her in goal, and she shut out Slovakia for 9 seconds! --Krm500 (talk) 00:18, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

On average, Slovakia scored a goal every 44 seconds! How humiliating that must have been; even Slovakia should have been embarrassed. — Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 00:35, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

IIHF agrees it is a record for sanctioned games [8] and notes it didnt beat the non-sanctioned record from 1998. --Bamsefar75 (talk) 01:04, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

I am guessing the South Korea/Thailand men's score is the all-time record sanctioned or unsanctioned... damn. DMighton (talk) 01:15, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

• Heh, I remember back when Northeastern University was a women's hockey powerhouse and Harvard decidedly wasn't, the Lady Huskies beat Harvard 12-1 ... and had 110 shots. I thought then, and haven't changed my mind, that the poor Harvard goal must have been greater than Jacques Plante, Clint Benedict, Ken Dryden and Patrick Roy combined to face 110 shots and let only twelve in.  RGTraynor  02:01, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Holy cow, I get bored after putting video games on easy and scoring 15 goals in the first period... The men's score was mentioned, but not given; could it possibly be higher thanthat? Blackngold29 16:27, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

I believe it was 92-1 but I might have the losing teams score wrong. -Djsasso (talk) 16:32, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

92-0 South Korea over Thailand I believe. DMighton (talk) 17:27, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

TfD nomination of Template:NHLPrimaryColor

Template:NHLPrimaryColor 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. -- Suntag ☼ 17:58, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

These are all already listed on our project deletion page. -Djsasso (talk) 17:59, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

The history of captains

I would like to write a prose introduction for the List of current NHL captains and alternate captains in an attempt to end the confusion that that page has become, especially in the off-season. If anyone would like to help, I welcome you with open arms. As for my main goal, I think the intro would benefit from a brief history of the concept of the captain and alternates. Currently the captain article has no info on the origin; and I think that article would certainly benefit from the info as well. I know very little on the topic, is there anyone who could help me out? If we can get a good start, then perhaps after the season begins we can go ahead with an Featured list nomination—but as for the short term, I just would like to end the changes and reverts that seem to go on quite a bit. Thank you. Blackngold29 01:38, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Mostly, all of that should be put in Captain (ice hockey). However, a prose section is definitely needed in the list of current captains article. Any mention of the history of captaincy should be a brief summary, with Captain (ice hockey) being the main article. — Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 01:47, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree, the problem is: The Captain (ice hockey) article has no info on the origin of captains. If somebody could find this info I think both that article and the list would benefit. Blackngold29 01:54, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Roster Guidelines

What constitutes an official roster for a team? Yesterday when the LA Kings released their training camp roster, I went and updated the Template as it is officially their roster. All those players (and their numbers) were deleted from said template. (The format was also changed, which I don't like but apparently I have no say in that matter as it was discussed above) I would say that since the Kings either have to assign or release all players in camp that the training camp roster is their official roster. Especially, since they have released a training camp guide on their website that lists all these players as members of the LA Kings. Shootmaster 44 (talk) 07:39, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Hello Shootmaster 44. Training camp rosters are different from official rosters. With respect to the players you added in, most of them would wind up in the AHL by the start of the season, meaning we would have to delete almost half the roster. An official roster contains players called up to the actual team to play an NHL game, traning camp just gives the minor players a chance to impress the coaches and try to earn a spot in tne team for the upcoming season. Raphie (talk) 13:04, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

They could be hidden instead of deleted. That said, if we were to follow the Kings website as closely as possible RFA's Patrick O'Sullivan and Brad Richardson would not be listed. --Flyer47 (talk) 15:39, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

We could hide them, but that would still mean typing in a good deal of players that will never play. I don't generally do too much roster work so you can do what you want, but it just seems like a lot of time that could be spent on other needed things. Blackngold29 15:44, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Since the Kings do a lot of yo-yoing with players in the last few years, many of those players are likely to see the light of day in LA. Plus, since I already added them to the roster all it takes is adding the hidden lines when they are sent to Manchester etc. However, if consensus is that training camp rosters, even if sent out by the team, are not official rosters then I will leave the issue alone. But the way I've always looked at it is the NHL season begins as of the first day of training camp. Ergo, that roster is no longer the offseason roster, but the current roster. But again since consensus seems to be no to this issue, I will leave it be. Shootmaster 44 (talk) 06:51, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Most of us, except a few people that are hardcore into rosters don't touch rosters until the season is officially underway. Because of too many edit wars from drive by editors. Technically speaking the team has no official roster until Day 1. I personally don't like any rosters on team pages until the season starts as they cause too many issues. A training camp roster is not a team roster, it is a roster of people at the training camp. The team roster is not announced until the team is selected. -Djsasso (talk) 16:03, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Personally, what I go by is: if a player played a game in the NHL the previous season, he should be on the offseason roster. Thricecube (talk) 18:42, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree with that. Alaney2k (talk) 00:16, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Frame around roster template

Would anyone be in favor of removing the frame around the roster template, removing the title bar at the top, and replacing it with a simple Tnavbar-header? It would end up looking like this:

Updated September 5, 2008.[9][10]

#	Nat	Player	Pos	S/G	Age	Acquired	Place of Birth

This would be added to each team's roster template page (similar to how it was before) and wouldn't require a separate template page for minor league/junior teams (such as what I did for the Philadelphia Phantoms or User:Hucz did for the Kelowna Rockets. --Flyer47 (talk) 18:40, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Please remove it, I think the coloured frame looks tacky. This proposal looks much cleaner. --Krm500 (talk) 19:01, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

I like it with the frame, actually. This type of thing, in my opinion, adds to the general appearance of these articles, in a positive way. - Rjd0060 (talk) 19:15, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

May I also add that I would prefer if goaltenders, defensemen, and forwards were separated like we used to do. Here's an example of how it would look. --Krm500 (talk) 19:25, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Personally, I am indifferent towards the frame. I think it looks good either way. As far as separating positions goes, I would prefer that as well. At the very least, make the default sort position followed by jersey number. Alphabetically is just awakward looking. Resolute 19:54, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

I'd agree with this too – nice to separate the positions. - Rjd0060 (talk) 20:39, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Why? There is absolutely no difference between Forwards and Defensemen and the difference between Skaters and Goaltenders is insignificant. --Flyer47 (talk) 20:46, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

There is no difference? Really?....... - Rjd0060 (talk) 20:53, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Goodness. There is no difference between Forwards and Defensemen and the difference between Skaters and Goaltenders is insignificant (Shot and Glove)... as they are presented on Krm500's alternative. --Flyer47 (talk) 21:28, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Remember that people who don't know of hockey will read these pages too, it makes it easier to them if positions are separated. Also since the table gets quite long a simple breaker like position makes it easier to read. --Krm500 (talk) 21:08, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Where were these insightful comments September 3-6? A 23 player roster is not very long. --Flyer47 (talk) 21:28, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Look at the previous discussion again, three user were in favour of keeping the separators. --Krm500 (talk) 00:09, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

And the separation between postions would make the template even longer. To sort by position, it's easy enough to hit the sorting button at the top of the colum. -- bmitchelf•T•F 23:54, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

The NHL separates by position on the team's roster pages. I agree it looks better and more easily informative that way. ConkblockCity (talk) 23:40, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

I am in favour of separating the rosters by position. I have never seen any hockey team list their players in any table format without the separations. Shootmaster 44 (talk) 06:53, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Coaches, refs, etc.

There's been a recent flap in AfD over the college football Wikiproject's house criteria when it comes to coaches. Despite recent changes in WP:ATHLETE to explicitly remove coaches from the "competitors" criteria, WP:CFB essentially declared anyone who'd ever coached a game at any level of college football (even down to NAIA and Bible academies) "notable."

We don't have explicit guidelines for coaches, referees or administrators ourselves, and it strikes me that we should, because sooner or later this'll come up. So ... here's a first shot at it; feel free to tear it apart.  RGTraynor  14:26, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Notability criteria for ice hockey coaches, referees and administrators:

Non-playing hockey personnel are not inherently notable unless they meet the general notability criteria of WP:BIO or one of the following:

• Are Honoured Members of the Hockey Hall of Fame;
• Have won a significant professional award for their post, such as the Jack Adams Award, the Kalevi Numminen trophy or the Ken McKenzie Award;
• Are within the top five career leaders for games coached, games won, games lost or games officiated for a major professional or top level minor professional or amateur league;
• Have been the head coach or general manager of a Stanley Cup championship team, a World Championship team, or an Olympic medal-winning team;
• Otherwise qualify as a player under the notability criteria for hockey players.

***********************

Only thing I really would say is that I think any NHL (or other top league like SEL etc) level coach should be ok because really, head coach in a top level league pretty much means they are at the top of their profession and are likely to have verifiable reliable sources about them. Though I suppose that probably falls under the last point you have there. -Djsasso (talk) 14:45, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. Anyone who has coached a top level league is notable. If for no other reason than you can guarantee they pass WP:N itself. Such coaches are virtually guaranteed to be the subject of multiple, non trivial stories. Ditto GMs. Can't say the same about referees and linesmen though. Resolute 14:53, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Except that WP:ATHLETE doesn't currently agree; declaring that coaches at any level are de jure notable bypasses that. If they do have verifiable, reliable sources about them, then they can be sourced and added. If none are found, there shouldn't be an article.  RGTraynor  15:54, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't necessarily agree with that, we do it for players all the time. Alot of the players who meet WP:ATHLETE are in the same situation as the coaches. -Djsasso (talk) 15:56, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

We do it for players all the time because WP:ATHLETE explicitly says so.  RGTraynor  16:12, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

It said it about coaches too, until a single person removed the line without discussion, and wp:athlete actually says competitor not player. I would argue a coach is a competitor, just in a different way than a player. -Djsasso (talk) 16:14, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Djsasso: NHL and other top-level league are considered notable. I would like to add that coaches of national teams at the top level (World Cup / Olympics) should also be OK. — Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 19:12, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

I'd argue not. A coach "competes" not one whit more than the equipment manager or the general manager, both of whom you can argue equally contribute to the material success of the team, and none of whom advance the puck in a game so much as a foot.  RGTraynor  19:19, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

You mean besides deciding which player is on the ice when? Or which players are taking the shoot out, or which player is in net. All of which are crucial to the strategy part of the game. Yes there is the physical competition of the game but there is all the strategic competition involved in the game. Too few people remember that a coach can make or break a good team. The word competitor does not limit to physical competition. You don't have to advance the puck in the game to make a difference in the game. For example a certain coach decided not to put Wayne Gretzky in the shoot out at the Olympics and Canada lost. I would wager a bet Gretzky would have scored had he been on the ice for the shootout and won Canada the Gold Medal. So a coach directly influenced the game. -Djsasso (talk) 19:23, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

In the end, however, WP:ATHLETE is only a special-case guideline—WP:PEOPLE is the top guideline for people. Have a look and decide if you think any top-level coach would not pass the criteria: "A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has been the subject of published secondary source material which is reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject." — Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 19:44, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Yup, you are totally correct. I can't imagine a single NHL head coach that hasn't met that criteria since there is going to be an article in the local paper atleast saying they hired a new coach, the local tv news is also going to have a story saying a new coach was hired, likely the national news on TSN etc will say a new coach was hired....and so on and so forth. It would be impossible for a NHL level coach to not meet those criteria. I can't say for sure the same with other leagues but I wouldn't doubt it. The same can't be said for an equipment trainer. -Djsasso (talk) 20:06, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Exactly. I think this one is a no-brainer. We can almost directly apply the notability standards we use for players on coaches. Any coach in the NHL or any top professional league worldwide, and then award winners or top-5 record holders and whatnot for lower leagues. The gerneral notability standards can easily be passed on these people. – Nurmsook! ^talk... 20:23, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

I have to agree with the others and say that being a head coach in the NHL or other top level league is notable. For AHL, ECHL, etc, you have to achieve the notability requirements listed above or be notable in another way. GM's and referees are a little different, though GM's would more than likely meet WP:PEOPLE. For referees, could we implement some sort of game threshold? Maybe 500 or 1,000 games officiated? Patken4 (talk) 21:32, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

For ref's I seem to remember at some point we said they had to be in the hall of fame or otherwise meet WP:PEOPLE. But I wouldn't know where to begin looking for such a decision. I could be making it up haha. -Djsasso (talk) 21:33, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

I think this was our prior discussion on refs and linesmen. Patken4 (talk) 01:23, 16 September 2008 (UTC)