Hello, I am after some serious advice!! Basically, I have created a wikipedia page for a newly formed professional ice hockey team based out of Bristol, England. The wiki link is Bristol Pitbulls now sadly, I am being threatened with deletion as apparently, my page is not showing that 'the team has received significant coverage in independant reliable sources' Not entirely sure how I go about doing this!! Especially seeing as it is a new team!!?? I have included external links to the reputable coverage from the Bristol Evening Post (local newspaper) and the other links are directly to the Bristol Pitbulls webpage.
I do not want the team to suffer, because a lot of people are looking forward to the creation of this page, and I really want to do my bit to expand the name, and correct me if i'm wrong, but isn't that what Wikipedia is about??!! Providing information on limitless subject matters, broadening horizons? How can I do this with the threat of my page (which I worked hard on, by the way) being deleted?!? Please help me so that I can keep the page live, and spread the Pitbulls word!! Thanks in advance -Jimmy Villa (talk) 13:59, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
Based on your comments, I would suspect you are affiliated with the team in some way? If so, please keep in mind Wikipedia's policies on editors with a conflict of interest. That does not preclude one from writing about a topic, but does mean they need to ensure they are maintaining a neutral point of view.
As to the article itself, each of your references points to the team's website itself, which likely leads to the concerns over notability. Wikipedia actually isn't intended to be an encyclopedia of everything, only what it defines as notable. In the simplest terms, that means subjects which have significant coverage in reliable sources, namely newspapers, books, magazines, major media outlets, etc. Your best bet is to use the news stories from the Bristol papers (and other major papers, if stories have been written about them) for the majority of your references. It is not required that these stories actually be online, so if you have a paper copy of such coverage, be sure to provide the publication name, author, date, story title, page, etc. (see Wikipedia:Citing sources)
I personally would consider the team itself notable (though the players themselves likely would not be considered notable given the amateur nature of the league), and showing that there has been coverage independent of the team's own website will strengthen your claim. Especially if the team earns "non-trivial" coverage outside of the Bristol area. Hope this helps, Resolute14:15, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
RESOLUTE, Very kind, thank you for your guidance. As you may have twigged early doors, I am a total rookie with the Wikipedia set up!!! It took me a week to perfect the page!! My affiliation to the club is merely as spectator, and I can assure you that whilst I am a fan, a neutral point of view is held at all times!! The problem I am finding is that as the team is SO new, the amount of coverage generally is limited to the local newspaper and the official team page. The team is also included on the English National Ice Hockey League offical website (used in my external links section) but other than that, they arent noted anywhere just yet? Tell me.......would I be better off removing the references from the website altogether, so as to cause less disturbance? I would make that sacrifice just so that I may keep the page. I'd rather a page of just plain text with no links than risk the validity of the page having it linked up to the website. I'd really value your views. Thanks again for your help so far -Jimmy Villa (talk) 14:37, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
The team, since it is professional, seems to be notable enough for the ice hockey project. There is another site at wikia.com for ice hockey that may be a better spot for your work on the team, because our project would only want an article on the team, not all of the game results.
As for the deletion threat, well, the note on the Pitbulls page is just that, a note. It actually is a kinder, gentler way than you may think. It is stating something that is obvious to me, who's not new here, but probably seems pretty officious. There are procedures for deleting the article, and they have not been started. If you link to the newspaper, etc. you are safe ground. Take a look at our project page for our notes on how to do a page like you've done. They might help. Alaney2k (talk) 15:03, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
ALANEY2K, I checked out wikia.com, and whilst it looks good, I think it is aimed at the USA & Canada, as the English page isnt even active. I understand that you would only want an article. Maybe if I was to trim it down to show a sort of overall view of the season so far, so that it wasnt listing the individual fixtures, merely the season overal record? I looked at your help guide, and this seemed to be how that was laid out? Essentially, I want to get as much info in as possible whilst offending as few people as possible, if you see?! In starting my article, I looked at the layout of pages for teams such as the Nottingham Panthers for example, who seem to have received compliments for their efforts. I think I know what I need to do. If I make the amendments, will you guys be in a position to 'sign it off' so to speak? -Jimmy Villa (talk) 15:27, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
Well ... Wikipedia really doesn't have editors who can "sign off" on edits; it's a consensus-run encyclopedia with no editor having authority over another in terms of content. That being said, we've got a core of a couple dozen editors who've been with the hockey WikiProject for years, and if collectively we see no problems with your revisions, you're in good shape. RGTraynor 19:11, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
Yeah, we don't sign off, we just nitpick the article to death until you cry uncle. Hmm, come to think of it, I think we do that even if we -like- the article. :-) Alaney2k (talk) 20:16, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
Initially, I thought that the team, being in the third tier of British hockey (ECHL-level, perhaps?), I figured it wouldn't work. However, most teams in the league seem to have articles, and as one of the higher-level teams in the UK, I'd say it should be fine, providing some alternate sources can be found. It also doesn't hurt that I'm an inclusionist. Besides, if an article exists on a local Junior B team (Victoria Cougars (VIJHL), no undefeated Kerry Park Islanders, but still), then the Britsol Pitbulls are safe. Kaiser matias (talk) 01:02, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
Players In The Minor League System
I figured I'd ask here before I go ahead and create the page(s). I am curious whether it would be a good idea to put together a list of each NHL team's "pipeline" for lack of a better word. What I mean is to have a list that shows where each player is playing and whatnot. It could include everyone the team holds rights to or it could be simply players who are not on an NHL/AHL/ECHL/CHL affiliate's roster. What I'd propose is that this list could be added to the respective team's roster template or simply go below it as a sort of footnote on the teams' pages. What does everyone else think? Shootmaster 44 (talk) 07:04, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
I am not really sure that would be necessary and might be undue weight if on the main franchise page, we already link to the farm teams, theoretically the farm teams should have rosters on them in a perfect world which would accomplish this. -DJSasso (talk) 11:35, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
I'm thinking a separate page with just a link. What I was thinking is draft picks who are in Junior/Europe/NCAA and therefore not in the Minors as it were. Shootmaster 44 (talk) 03:53, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
Except that playes are traded sometimes between being drafted and making the nhl. I think he wants a depth chart basically of the players in each teams system. -DJSasso (talk) 04:18, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
Yeah basically I was thinking a page where people interested in say Geordie Wudrick and where he is can find out. It doesn't have to include players in the NHL/AHL/ECHL but basically another roster-type template that shows this. If consensus is this is a bad or unencyclopedic idea, no worries that's why I asked here before I bothered to spend the time making it. Shootmaster 44 (talk) 04:26, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
(ec) I understand that, but between that and the rosters on the team pages, there really is nothing else needed. If they aren't in a professional league, very few are sufficiently notable, and a list of unnotable individuals is probably even more inappropriate then articles about those unnotable individuals. I do have one such list in my sandbox, however. Grsz1104:29, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
My own take on this is that it'd be an enormous undertaking requiring at least weekly (and in some cases daily) updates during the hockey season. If it's considered that important, then let's post the depth chart links from the Toronto Star on individual team pages. Here's Boston's, for example. RGTraynor 06:23, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
That does seem to address what I was getting at. I am a bit of a roster geek, since I tend to update rosters daily. So that part wouldn't bother me for the Kings, but my interest wouldn't be as far reaching as all the teams. I suppose, before we undertake this we should really be updating the season articles of all 30 teams. Shootmaster 44 (talk) 04:06, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
This might not be the right place for this, but I thought it worth mentioning (but that it isnt a big enough deal to make an entire section for it.) This sentence on the AHL Bridgeport Soundtigers page, "The team will continue to serve as a center for developing NHL caliber talent until their current lease ends after the 2020–2021 season." sounds like it is already decided that in 2021 the soundtigers will no longer develop NHL caliber talent. I do not believe that is the case. I am not sure how to rephrase it so that it doesnt sound like there is a predetermined end to this. TheMetalChick (talk) 15:10, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
As I'll be continuing to edit hockey articles & post on their respective talkpages, it's best to inform my conferees the following. A hopping IP stalker (multiple IP accounts) has continued & threatened (on my userpage) to continue reverting me. So, if you're wondering why a post of mine has suddenly been deleted, you'll know why. GoodDay (talk) 21:03, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
Will you slowly fade out? I don't know how we can follow you around too. Maybe we could have a 'bot' to stalk you too, to undo the undos that are committed on your edits. (Of course, if I undo you, that undo would have to stand) Maybe we just need a follow bot on you anyway. :-) Alaney2k (talk) 21:09, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
The recent letter from Jimmy Wales got me thinking, not only about the future of WP, but the future of the WikiProjects that I am in as well. Where do you guys want to take the project in the future? Five years seems like a long time, but maybe it wouldn’t be a bad idea to get that vision and work back from it. Where do you want to take the project in five years? Howabout one year, six months, three months, ten years? Concentrate on a certain area or strengthen general polices to unify the project overall? I think it has been pretty well established that WP in general has slowed down with the quantity of articles, and that likely holds true for sports as well, so now it’s time to start on the quality. blackngold2920:39, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
I've always found the hockey project to be the best run wikiproject I have seen on here. And I have had a number of non-hockey editors mention that as well. I personally think we shouldn't change a thing when it comes to how we do things. We are a loosely connected bunch of editors who go out and each do what we do best and we come out with loads of good articles because of it. I find too many of the other projects try to do the planning and have strict guides and the like but I think that stifles alot. Where would I like to see usin 5 years is exactly where we are now, just with more quality articles. -DJSasso (talk) 20:43, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
I have to agree with DJSasso. I regularily read the Wikipedia Signpost, and they often have interviews from various projects. Most of them mention some type of collaberation on projects, and little individual editing. I believe that we are the exact opposite of that: a mostly autonomous group of people who go about on their own thing, and only really meet up when we need to, like working on various guidlines and dealing with big events (trade deadline, entry draft, July 1, etc). Other than that, we seem to just go about doing whatever we want, and it has worked magnificently. I recently looked into it, and we have one of the higher percentage of FA/GA articles out of the total articles covered by us. If we continue doing what we do, and let everyone do what they want with minimal interference, we will continue to be one of the best run projects out there. Kaiser matias (talk) 23:41, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
Agreed. I'm always mistrustful of the impetus for collective projects; we work on the articles we feel like, doing the edits we want to make. No overarching "plan" is necessary. I'll continue to do my own thing, you all will continue to do yours. It's all good. RGTraynor 03:08, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
When you are taking about over the next few years, I think we need to update the 'to-do' list more often. And here is what I would put on it. More quality (at least GA) articles on hall of fame members (rather than current prospect or stars(not that I am against articles on current players)). I see that Howie Morenz is on its third FA try. I would love to see about getting more pictures, but I've no idea where to go about it. There are so many player stubs. These are not new concerns, I'm sure, but I think these things would take the project to the next level. Maybe we could get input from hockey writers in the media as to what they think about the hockey coverage. I'd like to think that we are not competition for them. Alaney2k (talk) 14:41, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
I'd like to delete from all hockey articles, diacritics. PS: This is just my statement folks, I'm not looking for arguments. GoodDay (talk) 14:56, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
Did you really feel the need to state that? Did you think anyone in the project doesn't already know this? Must you keep bringing it up at every opportunity you get. Stop acting like a child who hasn't gotten his way. -DJSasso (talk) 15:53, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
See I personally would like to keep away from a To-do list or trying to make people focus on the older players etc. Its those sorts of things that I think will lead to the opposite result from the one they are intended to achieve. People should edit what they want to edit which means they will be more productive and get more articles up to high quality if they are editing what they like to edit rather than what they have to edit. As for not being competition for hockey writers, I actually hope we are, competition breeds better product. The more they have to work for readers attention the better their writing will be. -DJSasso (talk) 15:53, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
Given how often hockey writers have referenced our work, I don't think we are competition, but rather a source for them. Just a little reminder that we need to ensure the accuracy of our writing. Resolute16:05, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
I think it may be useful to think about ways to encourage more readers to become editors, or to help make existing editors even more productive. A more actively maintained to-do list might be one way to encourage more readers to be editors. Regarding productivity, it might be useful to capture some of the consensus that has been arrived at in guideline articles that are linked to from the main project page. Any more ideas on either of these goals? Isaac Lin (talk) 16:16, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
If you want to call the to-do list something else, fine. But I think there is need of some mechanism other than the talk page to let editors know what we could focus on going forward. Make a list of 'Hall of Fame Player Articles Needing Attention' and attach it to the project page? Similarly, a 'List of Topics Needing Attention?' I don't mean it in any way to discourage anyone, just pointing out where we could try to focus on in the future. I think it would add to the overall reputation of quality for this project. If there is one. :-) Alaney2k (talk) 17:42, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
It can't hurt you are right. I just meant lets not put too much effort into trying to come up with bureaucratic ways to get us to do things we are already basically doing. But anyone is more than welcome to change that to do list at the topic, its not locked or anything. :) Though one might say everything below feature needs attention. ;) -DJSasso (talk) 18:52, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
I can see a general area to concentrate on working. Sure it's up to people what they want to do, but if we concentrate on Hall of Famers or general hockey terms or (if we know what they are) the highest trafficked-hockey related articles, people will probably be able to find something interesting within those groups to work on. I've worked on "Article of focus" projects in other WikiProjects which one article is picked and everybody jumps in and starts writing; sometimes it works extremely well, but other times it doesn't. It's difficult to pull off with larger projects like this one, so it seems that such specific collaboration is what we're trying to avoid. On a semi-related note, if anyone wants a boring, but easy task we can start going through these. It doesn't really mean anything to rate them all persay, but it's nice to have an accurate look at how far along the quality scale everything is. blackngold2919:51, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
Yes, I have been wanting to assess those for awhile. A number of years back Kaiser was good enough to go through them all (I think it was him anyways) and get them all up to snuff but a few months back I went and found a few hundred articles that had never been tagged and thus filled that category right back up. We do have a collaboration page as part of the project I think as well...I haven't been to it in forever but I know it exists somewhere. -DJSasso (talk) 03:10, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
Yes that was me who assessed all 5000 articles under our project at the time. It was an easy distraction from doing my coursework at school. But getting back on topic, I have thought on occasion that it would probably be a good idea to work on the "core" articles (ice hockey, NHL, various other terms, etc). The only problem with that is, I suspect, no one is really interested in working on such a dull and uninteresting topic. Otherwise, I'll say it again, what we do now seems to work pretty well. There is really no need to complicate things with a series of set rules and guidelines, outside of what is necessary (diacritics decisions and the like). Like the saying goes, if it ain't broke, don't fix it. Kaiser matias (talk) 19:31, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
The article on the NHL is on my long term list of things to do, but I generally work on articles as the urge to do so strikes me... obviously with a pretty good Calgary bias. ;) I've contemplated trying to get something silly like Penalty (ice hockey) up to GA status for the hell of it, though good RSes would be challenging. Overall, the NHL and ice hockey articles are in good shape, though they can be better. Looking at Wikipedia:WikiProject Ice Hockey/Popular pages, I think we are doing a fairly good job of keeping the articles people are looking for most in good shape. Of the top 50 viewed articles for last month, not many are rated stub or start class. And of those that are, quite a few have only minimal direct relevence to hockey. Resolute20:06, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
Well I just knocked the Category:Unassessed Ice Hockey articles from about 1500 articles down to 850 over the last few weeks. Mostly it was the easy ones that were already marked with stub templates. So the rest will take me alot longer to go through by hand since I can't automate any of it. So if anyone wants to help that would rock. Its not a very fun task lol. -DJSasso (talk) 16:08, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
Need suggestions for columns/info for a list
Making a list like this one but for those of Ukrainian descent since the research interests me. What qualifiers should I use? I figure include only those from the NHL or KHL (USSR/RSL). Right now I figure I'll use NAME/POS/ETHNICITY/NATIONALITY/REF....anything else? I figure scrap the "debut" column or notes. Should I include an NHL draft position column as well? Thoughts? --Львівське (talk) 03:39, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
I am actually surprised that asian one still exists. There is a group of people who have been on a tear having those sorts of pages deleted because its felt that people shouldn't be categorized/listed by an intersection of their job and their ethnicity. -DJSasso (talk) 12:50, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
Well as long as the black one exists, I'm making this list in some way shape or form. Just want to make sure it's done as legitimately as possible.--Львівське (talk) 18:52, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
Nationality and race are different things you know. ie its notable to be black and playing hockey. Its not notable to be Ukrainian and playing hockey. ie you could be notable only for being a black professional hockey player beyond just the normal pro notability. you wouldn't be soley notable just because you were ukrainian and playing hockey beyond the notability found just from being a pro. -DJSasso (talk) 18:26, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
I don't see the different. Why is "race" allowed? How is someone notable for being a quarter or half black? Pigment makes someone notable now? Maybe notable to black people...and if ethnicity+profession isn't allowed, then explain all the Jewish+profession categories on here...--Львівське (talk) 18:43, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
Take a swing by Cfd and you will see the jewish thing is huge debate. Jewish is considered both a race, a religion and an ethnicity. And of course that is argued by a great many people. Personally I think the list of black hockey players needs to be cleaned up because of the quarter or half black people on the list. But listing everyone with even the slightest Ukrainian descent is pushing it. I would say the same thing about any country so please don't think it has anything to do with Ukrainians specifically. Its simply not notable, and you would be forced to make POV calls as to who should be listed on the list and who should not. ie deciding what leagues to include and what leagues not to include. And if you didn't make those calls the list would become massive as anyone who ever was Ukrainian or descended from one would have to be on the list making it rediculously large. Which is where you will notice the difference between 30 or so black players on a list vs tens if not hundreds of thousands of ukrainians who have played hockey. -DJSasso (talk) 18:54, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
The big thing to remember, is that Canadians for example can have 4 or more different descents. What do you source their descent from, how far back do you go before you say its too distant. In the end I think players most people would identify as Canadian would out number people considered Ukrainian in popular culture because you are using the word descent which ties the list to anscestry. -DJSasso (talk) 19:02, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
To quote the late Bugs Bunny, "What's all the hubub, bub?" If it's sourced, what's the problem? Either way....can you suggest how this list should be sorted out? Even if I drop the Ukrainian-Canadians, a list of all professional Uke players would still be good for the Ice Hockey in Ukraine article I plan to work on.--Львівське (talk) 19:57, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
Well I'm making a list of just Ukrainian born players, what fields should I use or what qualifiers? Just pro? Does USSR league count as "pro"? Include columns for draft position?
As for the Ukrainian-Canadian one goes, who should qualify? I have some guys on the list who won stuff like "Ukrainian sportsman of the year" awards and whatnot, and others who I have refs where they say they are Ukrainian, and others that are secondary sources, just wondering what the line should be on who makes the cut, so that it's "list of Ukrainian-Canadians" and not the subjective "list of players of (full or partial) Ukrainian descent"--Львівське (talk) 05:48, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
...I seem to be getting into a bit of bellicosity with this other editor, who believes that the fact that Rangers fans will taunt "Marty" and Devils fans will taunt "Henrik" after their teams score is more inclusion-worthy in Wikipedia than the 1975 Islanders 3–0 comeback, because it's a sign of a "stronger rivalry". I also believe this editor is personally motivated since no else has bothered doing anything to the section for months, and while I'm being accused of WP:OWN, I'm not sure that applies here (first-time offender?). So, anyone willing to do a bit of mediating, it'd be much appreciated. Thanks. –ConkblockCity (talk) 00:56, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
P.S.: If "3 subsections" or whatever are too much for that by comparison with the other subsectionless "more important" rivalries...those could frankly use some subsectional organizing. imho. –ConkblockCity (talk) 01:03, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
Well, you could always report the user (in this case, User:Commandr Cody) to a suitable noticeboard to be blocked for neutral point-of-view infringements. He needs to realize that Isles vs. Pens is historically significant, per the talk page linked by you, and that you are the one in the right. Adam Graves does not a rivalry make. I figured I'd reply here instead of going to the talk page and get myself more involved. I am curious whether it would be a good idea to report him and use Twinkle to revert him at the same time. What I mean is to have his edits reverted as mere vandalism, report him, and warn him on his talk page. What do you think? Thanks for coming by. -- ISLANDERS2706:32, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
I think I'd like to put the section back now. :) While I do appreciate the support and you can certainly vouch for the importance of everything, (Technically it is bigger than "Potvin Sucks", right?!!) I'm not sure if you're enough of an unbiased observer by yourself. :) But if doing all that stuff might really be effective, I suppose I don't want to argue... ;) (though I've never head of Twinkle, myself). Actually, please do go over there, and feel free to give another argument in addition to mine; why not?? –ConkblockCity (talk) 19:37, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
I have to be honest, I have heard of the rivalry he is talking about and not of the one you are talking about. I assume you have actual sources talking about the rivalry itself correct? Because that is the threshold for what we include on the rivalry pages. Actual books or major articles being written on the subject. A one time comeback does not make a rivalry, what makes a rivalry is the intensity of its fans each time they play. -DJSasso (talk) 13:05, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
Well, I'm not sure what you've heard of, because there is no Rangers-Pens rivalry, and especially not compared to the utter loathing the other three AD teams have for NYR. There's really nothing to speak about. Pens-Isles, on the other hand, holds some rather major events for not only both franchises, but for NHL history as well. (No, perhaps the 1975 Islanders alone wouldn't be enough, but you have three decades of events here. David V---- is certainly no Adam Graves for Pens fans, and Isles fans have kind of been staring at 1993 for a whle and wondering if they wouldn't trade it for a couple of rounds in the last 16 seasons.) If there is such a thing as a 'friendly rivalry', then surely a historical one with much angst and triumph for both teams and fans is more worth noting, especially compared with chanting "Marty" and "Henrik". Again, no one else has had a problem with the section, let alone even edited it, including this editor, until I suddenly deleted this person's section. –ConkblockCity (talk) 19:24, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
Sorry I thought he was talking about the devils-rangers rivalry based on your comment above about marty and henrik. Meh...I wouldn't include Pens-Isles or Rangers-Pens. Again the rivalry itself has to be written about, not events that happened during any given season. The actual rivalry has to be talked about. Sort of like the Battle of Alberta which has had books written about it. Or the Rangers-Devils rivalry which has had many news articles written about it. -DJSasso (talk) 19:31, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
My Tales from the Pittsburgh Penguins book talks about the anguish and aftereffects of each of the three Islanders losses; that's where I got Mr. DeBartolo offering to refund tickets; I suppose it's my fault for not citing it. Ask any Isles fan or any Pens fan and they will tell you that the three series are REALLY IMPORTANT to each team. I'm pretty sure the Islanders not having won a playoff series since 1993 is brought up in the news quite frequently these days. (And every time a team is down 3–0 we hear about the 1975 Islanders, and Penguins fans inevitably cringe.) –ConkblockCity (talk) 19:51, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
Actually, I'm not even sure the Buds and Habs have impacted each other as notably as the Isles and Pens. (It's not like Toronto almost just might have prevented Montreal from drafting Lemieux's birthmate. That goalie kid. I think he was pretty good.) The history that gets talked about and the impact it's had are definitely worth a mention, especially in an article that's so bloated and full of triviality. –ConkblockCity (talk) 20:02, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
I'm not too keen on these 'rivalry articles'. We used to have 'rivalary sections' on the NHL team articles, but have since deleted them. GoodDay (talk) 20:08, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
Nevertheless, the page is there and the section about actual hockey history has coexisted quite peacefully up to now. I don't think one bitter editor should be allowed to hold sway. Though, actually, if I restore the section, and it's deleted again, I believe that's 3 deletes vs. 2 restores....though I think we may be going over the 24-hr limit now. (Does that count for anything?) –ConkblockCity (talk) 20:13, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
To be honest I thought we had already deleted these pages, I know we had deleted the overall list of nhl rivalries page. -DJSasso (talk) 16:03, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
As far as the Pens in this I see two sections with a total of one citation. Said citation is a link to attendance figures from 2005 which, not only doesn't really support the sentence that it is in, it has nothing to do with a rivalry whatsoever. In order for this article to legitly exist it needs RSs which specifically reference the "rivalry". Division teams play each other many times in a season, it's a given that there's going to be somewhat of a 'rivalry', but that goes for every team in the league, why is the Atlantic Division any different? Pure WP:OR. blackngold2918:15, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
it's a given that there's going to be somewhat of a 'rivalry', but that goes for every team in the league / Not so; it's pretty obvious there's a world of difference and emotion between Rangers-Islanders and Devils-Islanders; there's nothing especially different about the Atlantic Division except for perhaps a few more than other divisions, physical distance + Philly breeding hatred easily; but I'm sure any Central Division fan would say the Blues-Red Wings-Blackhawks triangle is as equally vicious as anything the AD's got to offer; since no one wants the rivalries on the team pages but they are pretty good bits of social (and in some cases, hockey) history in their own way, I disagree and think they should be kept, especially since I never meant for this to become a deletion discussion in the first place. –ConkblockCity (talk) 15:34, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
I have no problem with their existance if the articles include RSs about the rivalries; which only one of them currently has. And if there are no RSs it leads me to wonder how real these rivalries actually are. It's not the concept, it's the lack of sources that I object to. blackngold2916:43, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
Delete: Category:Canadian expatriate ice hockey people in the United States
Unless someone can explain how this is a good category? This is a joke. Every single Canadian playing for the 24 US teams ever in their career gets put here? What's the point?--Львівське (talk) 00:57, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
Fits the category tree though. I'm not a fan of this entire tree, but I doubt very much that it will pass a CfD. Resolute04:38, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
I tried very hard to get rid of this tree awhile back when the creator was first doing it and had a heck of a time having anyone agree with me. And Resolute is right, probably won't pass CFD. -DJSasso (talk) 15:13, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
I was curious if there is any articles on the Three Star Awards somewhere. What I mean is not the nightly three stars, but the player of the week awards. I created this page List of 2009-10 NHL Three Star Awards, but I couldn't find anything to link it to. If there isn't one created, should it either end up in the NHL Awards list or should it have a stand alone page? Shootmaster 44 (talk) 06:17, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
This guy was drafted twice by the Devils. Once in 1996, and again in 1998 because he didn't sign a contract. How would we put this in the infobox? RandySavageFTW (talk) 20:16, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
On an unrelated matter on his page, I noticed that his teams have been broken into AHL and NHL clubs. This would ordinarily be fine with me, except in the prose it mentions him playing for the AHL clubs as affiliates of the NHL clubs. Should the AHL clubs be removed when he was simply playing with the farm team? Generally, that's how I've dealt with NHLers. But I've never understood exactly what to do with the former_clubs field on the infobox when a player goes to Europe (or signs a deal in a league where previously he played as a prospect), as readers familiar with the KHL or whatever league may not realize that playing with the Albany River Rats happened because he was a member of the New Jersey Devils. So one covers the other, so to speak. Shootmaster 44 (talk) 08:04, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
Thanks DJ. I just added his current KHL team and that he played in Jokerit to the infobox. I add the AHL teams regardless because it's a pro league, no need to complicate it, IMO. RandySavageFTW (talk) 10:07, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
Technically its only supposed to be the clubs in the same league he is currently playing it, ie if he is in the NHL then NHL clubs, the AHL then AHL teams, KHL then KHL teams.. And when they are retired its supposed to the top level clubs...but no one really follows that anymore so the former teams fields are a mess. -DJSasso (talk) 12:49, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
Shootmaster, use your best judgement for including AHL teams in the infobox. For some players, it would make sense; for others, it would not. If the player's career is mostly in the minor professional circuit, then include the teams. If the player has had a decent career in top-level leagues, omit the AHL and other minor pro leagues. Djsasso, I believe it was discussed a while ago that the "former_teams" field was for any (top-level) former team, regardless of whether or not those teams are in the player's current league. The template documentation no longer mentions the rule you mention. — Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 15:15, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
Yeah I thought there was a discussion to stop doing it but I couldn't find it, which is why I said it isn't really done anymore. I believe I am the one who removed it off the template documentation. Personally I don't like to see AHL teams if the player has played a significant time in the NHL. ie a couple years. The infobox being for just a summary, whereas the rest of the article can get right into depth with all the other teams.-DJSasso (talk) 15:30, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
What would be expansion mean to the KHL? Because frankly, I haven't heard of this in my whole life yet. Whats it about can you explain it to me? (User:panicpack121) (User talk:panicpack121) 22 October, 2009 23:50
I'm not sure what you are asking... perhaps it is what would expansion mean? First of, the KHL is a young league, so naturally it has not been around for most of your life:P. Since its creation, and before it, they have been talking about expanding. This season there is a new team in the KHL, but one fell off. Or maybe two new and two fell off? At any rate, their goal is to increase the number of teams. Currently there is only one team in the far east - so they would probably like to get more in order to reduce some travel costs. I am not sure if the Yuzhno-Sakhalinsk is big enough to have a team though. A more logical place would be Irkutsk and Krasnoyarsk. (LAz17 (talk) 12:15, 23 October 2009 (UTC)).
doesn't explain how it would work in the khl, just that they are getting an arena and Ryst is going to move there. Seems more like a major league addition than KHL.--Львівське (talk) 18:13, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
I included that, but lvivske decided that I should not write former soviet union, and instead put this sakhalinsk thing from asia under eastern europe. I disagree with what he did there. Lithuania should be under eastern, not northern europe. But he moved that into northern. (LAz17 (talk) 22:54, 23 October 2009 (UTC)).
It's more northeastern so either term is correct, but I'd say Eastern Europe because all you hear is Eastern/Western Europe not Northern/Southern Europe. Just my $.02.--Giants27(c|s) 02:07, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
You're correct, for some reason I thought Europe was divided into E/W not E/W/N/S. In that case, Lithuania should be listed as Northern Europe not Eastern.--Giants27(Contribs|WP:CFL) 16:54, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
I disagree. Traditionally Lithaunia is considered to be in Eastern Europe. It was part of the Soviet Union, which was Eastern Europe. The CIA world factbook still lists it as such. The link you provided for making northern europe makes no sense... it puts countries such as ireland in northern europe - ireland should be west, not north. Serbia is an eastern european nation - it is listed as southern - wha?? Slovenia southern too - I don't think so. What is your reason for putting the team from Asia into Eastern Europe? (LAz17 (talk) 05:12, 25 October 2009 (UTC)).
What does the Soviet Union have to do with Eastern Europe? Majority of its territory was in Asia...and Serbia is definitely Southern Europe, the Serb language is considered South Slavic, it borders Albania and Macedonia...its so close to Greece, and Greece is the bottom of Europe, cant get much more south!--Львівське (talk) 05:29, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
It depends on what usage we use. If one wants to make it seem that the KHL is doing oh so much, then it would make sense to put lithuania in northern europe. However, in terms of economic development and such stuff, then most definitely the country should be labeled as eastern - as it is more similar in just about every way with eastern europe - economic development, culture, language, etc... to go back to serbia... it is as much eastern europe as bulgaria is. I do not look at slavs as southern european. But like your link showed, lithuania could be considered eastern europe. So, I think the overwhelming consensus here is to put it in eastern europe. Why did you put Yuzhno-Sakhalinsk into eastern europe?? (LAz17 (talk) 01:13, 26 October 2009 (UTC)).
I added a logo for Belarusian Extraliga , but now I am confused - is the logo of the belarussian ice hockey federation, or is the logo of the extraliga, or both? I don't quite get it on their site. Some help please? (LAz17 (talk) 05:43, 22 October 2009 (UTC)).
What does the 18 mean??? It says okriti championat belorusiyi... okriti means discover? The year is in the logo - 08-09... does it change every year? Surely there is another logo? (LAz17 (talk) 06:11, 22 October 2009 (UTC)).
I am guessing that this 17 and 18 refer to which season the league is in? Yet on the Belarusian Extraliga page it says that the league was founded in 2006. Should it be changed to 1992? (LAz17 (talk) 06:23, 22 October 2009 (UTC)).
The one I posted says 2009-10 and 18 with the text being open championship of belarus. This doesn't count for the "league" itself, but for the national championship (which would go to the best team, regardless of league, since 1992)--Львівське (talk) 06:25, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
I guess there is none? The skater logo looks like it could work, but how can it be taken out of the season stuff. I dunno. (LAz17 (talk) 01:21, 26 October 2009 (UTC)).
Less there be any confusion, I've removed the North Stars from the Wild template & vise versa. Those are 'NHL franchise' Templates, not city templates. GoodDay (talk) 17:51, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
I may not recall my history correctly, but consensus has been against these types of templates in the past has it not? Grsz1102:04, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
Yup, as far as I know. Not sure if other sports have actually deleted them, but if I remember right this project has and I would support deletion. blackngold2902:19, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
Just speedy delete them because as Kaiser matias mentioned, this has been discussed numerous times and consensus clearly says that these templates are not needed.--Giants27(c|s) 03:51, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
The category should be as you state. The article is Lady Byng Trophy, the category should follow the same name. Besides, I doubt Lady Byng would have been pleased to know she's being passed around between hockey players. ;) This will have to go to WP:CfD, however. Resolute23:56, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
Should have just redirected it to the roster template and remove from any pages. That is what I do when they show up every few months. -DJSasso (talk) 03:49, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
Extra 3 games with other conference
Since each NHL team plays 18 games with the other conference, and there are 15 conference teams, most of us know that 3 of those teams are played both home and away. I think that the 3 Canadian teams from Eastern conference are matched to play the 3 teams Canadian teams from the Western Conference in this manner every year. What about the 12 U.S.-based teams from each conference? Are there some match-ups that are repeated yearly (ie both home & away games) or is it totally random? I have noticed that for the U.S. teams it is not a 4-year cycle playing against the U.S. teams in the other conference as I know of at least one team that is playing the same team both home and away in back to back seasons. Whatever the system, maybe someone could expand the season structure article.Juve2000 (talk) 05:12, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
Interesting note on this is that Florida and Chicago won't play against each other in North America this year, as they had two Premiere games in Helsinki. BleuDXXXIV (talk) 09:09, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
There was some ruling in those drafts which I don't remember. It was about unsigned, drafted players. An example is Tomi Kallio, drafted by Avalanche in 1995, unsigned for following four years and then claimed by Thrashers in 1999 Expansion Draft. Does anyone remember how long was the period as existing team could keep all drafted players protected? BleuDXXXIV (talk) 09:16, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
I believe what you are referring to so the rule that any player drafted not signed after two years can go back in the draft. I believe this also applied to the expansion drafts. There is also a point at which unsigned players become free agents but I do not recall the amount of time on that. These were not specific rules to the expansion drafts. I don't recall a specific rule for the expansion drafts, perhaps someone else can chime in. -DJSasso (talk) 12:25, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
I'd like to see more expansion. People always say the product is watered down now, but they forget there are more and more places producing hockey players now. I think its actually less watered down now than it was in the 80's prior to the last spat of expansion. And waaaay better than the 70s. -DJSasso (talk) 14:01, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
30 teams is enough (actually, 21 was enough). The ratio for have & have-nots is too big now. From 1979-80 to 1990-91, each season 5 teams missed the playoffs; since 2000-01, it's 14 teams. We won't even go into playoff expansion (Stanley Cup Finals in July??) GoodDay (talk) 14:20, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
Most people actually believe too many teams make the playoffs right now. I think there is no gap between haves and have nots...we are at almost total parity. But this isn't a message board so I will end on that note. -DJSasso (talk) 15:08, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
The two-year rule applied to drafted players playing in North America. At the time, a team held the rights to a European based player indefinitely. As such, Colorado would still have had the rights to Kallio four years later. Some teams in the early 80s used this rule to draft Soviet players, just in case. Sergei Makarov was drafted by the Flames in 1983, as one example. Resolute14:27, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
The Euro rule was still in effect in 98 and 2000? I thought that rule went bye bye prior to that? I admit I am slightly ignorant on that aspect. Either way a team had to protect players in the expansion draft an I am thinking someone not signed for 4 years probably would have been left unprotected. -DJSasso (talk) 15:09, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
I'm fairly certian the Euro rule was in effect until the end of the last CBA, and the lockout. If I'm remembering correctly, it was removed as part of the new CBA for whatever reason. Kaiser matias (talk) 23:02, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
Yes. The four year rule was for American college players. European players had their rights held indefinitely up until the last CBA. Resolute20:56, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
Most of the team articles list NHL alumni, and most have categories as well. I think that would be enough. Just listing every person drafted would include a lot of non-notable players. Grsz1120:50, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
Yeah, the Frolunda example is the first that came to mind. I used that as the starting point for a list I made on the Sokil Kyiv page, here. I didn't make the list its own page since it wasn't very long.--Львівське (talk) 22:19, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
It would be easy to do for the WHL teams at least - NHL draft picks by team is standard in the media guide. Resolute22:56, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
Personally this kind of information I would leave on team pages, until the team pages got too big. And then split them off to their own lists. -DJSasso (talk) 00:56, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
Lists of ice hockey players of black/Latino/Asian/Middle Eastern descent
I just want to bring up my issue with these articles. Mostly, it's that they are racially based, and not based on ethnicity or nationality (two more tangible qualities).
Latino could mean a lot of things...maybe be in line with the definition of Hispanic and Latino Americans? I think there's potential for this since there is a commonality and ethnic unity of this group.
Asian? Like the continent? Well Oriental and Indian, but not the rest of central or western Asia? How is this even a real qualifier? I don't understand how what the orient and India have to do with one another, or why they are lumped together as "Asian"? How about native indians? They came from eAsia, does that make Jordin Tootoo asian? Why not Russians in Asia? Kazakhstan? etc.
black players? Now I understand why some would find this list interesting, but are they "black" if they are half or a quarter removed? In the UK, Indians are considered black. I think this section should be made a little more encyclopedic.
Finally, Middle Eastern? So Justin Abdelkader is Middle Eastern because his grandfather was from Jordan? Max Birbraer is a Russian Jew but since he moved to Israel that makes him Middle Eastern? I think this section, like Asian, needs to be more specific. How about a list for players of documented Arab descent?
I've never been a huge fan of lists like this, but the concept that a black hockey player is notable for being black is established - I can think of at least two books on the subject. Not sure how well it would go though to keep that one and "deal with" the rest. Resolute23:01, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
There is no singular "asian" ethnic group, that's the thing. I have no problem with Latino, just the terminology, most lists on the subject use "Hispanic and Latino Americans". Perhaps there should be an intro statement making clear what is being listed as well. --Львівське (talk) 01:32, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
The Asian list include all Asian ethnicity, not just one. Africans and Latinos also. Latinos can be translated to Central Americans, but the definition "Central American" isn't widely used. A better lead for all these lists would be nice. -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]]01:37, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
What Asian ethnicity? It's a continent. The list deliberately excludes Russians, Kazakhs, etc., you can't just cherry pick what "asians" are "asian enough". I can understand relevancy of oriental players, like that goalie for LA, richard park, etc, but since when did half or quarter removed players become notable as well? Since when did east/south asia become this mutual entity separate from the rest of asia?--Львівське (talk) 01:49, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
Russians are usually considered to be White, though Russia is still part of Asia, so I agree with what you are saying. What do you want to do about this? -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]]01:53, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
Well Asia is a continent, it has nothing to do with being white or not. "Asian" is an ambiguous term. Just like "European", there is more ethnic connection between a Swede and an Albanian than a Japanese and Pakistani.
Perhaps split Asian into East Asian and Indian? East Asian is a tough one too, lots of ambiguity... As well, I think Middle Eastern should be Arab, since the countries listed (Lebanon, Tunisian, etc.) are all ethnic Arabs. The Middle East itself extends into Africa and is, like Asia, an ambiguous term.
For all of these, do you include mixed descent or just those directly from or from parents of those countries? What is the cut off?--Львівське (talk) 02:22, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
(outdent) I'm pretty much opposed to the whole lot. While I will concede that the black article is the most likely to actually be turned into something productive (like Resolute said, theres at least two books on the subject, one of which I own), the rest are far to subjective. Like Lvivske said, the Asisan list is so problematic. After all, people like Nabokov and Antropov could be included, simply because they were born in the continent of Asia. Likewise, aside from being on the same continent, there is little similarity between Indians and East Asians, so why include them in the same list. That all said, I believe these have gone through AfD before, and the outcome was to keep them. If someone wants to get rid of them, go ahead. Otherwise, I don't really care; I don't usually encounter these articles, and when I do I just cringe and continue. Kaiser matias (talk) 05:49, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
Yup this is pretty much my take on it as well. The black list has prooved notability through books and many news articles. The others I would rather just see deleted. -DJSasso (talk) 14:56, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
I cringe myself, especially given the farcical (but widely practiced) premise that a drop of black blood makes you black; Barack Obama and Tiger Woods have at least as much white blood as black but keep being pigeonholed as black, which bugs me ... RGTraynor 21:10, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
I propose that we make a template related to ice hockey and include equipment, terminology, trophies, personnel, minor ice rinks, etc. and all that stuff (excluding the major leagues and associations) so that navigation is improved. Any ideas? I'll start one at my sandbox if it's approved. -- ISLANDERS2706:36, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
I would oppose this. Navboxes are only supposed to have links on them that are directly related to each other, not indirectly as would be the case in this situation, as well WP:EMBED suggests that only links that would already be found on a compeleted version of the article the navbox is going to be used on would be included in a navbox, everything hockey related would not be found on every other hockey article. Secondly we technically already have a system for this which is the Category system. -DJSasso (talk) 13:26, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
Agreed. The idea is noble, but unwieldly. A template for trophies would be ridiculously large when you get down to the fact that there are NHL, AHL, ECHL, CHL, WHL, OHL, QMJHL, Junior A, Junior B and other current and defunct leagues in North America alone. Nevermind all of Europe. I'm not convinced that this would aid navigation. ResoluteLest We Forget19:08, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
Split of NHL season article
(Just something that's been on my mind lately while I update the NHL standings ...) What if we create an article titled something like 2009-10 NHL standings, and it has the divisional, conference and league standings. I would propose that we remove the divisional standings from the NHL season article, leaving only the conference one. The standings take up a big part of the article, but we should have more text instead of listings in the article. I'd like to have more summary of the season in the season article, rather than tables. Also, I'd like to have a place where we have the league standings in one table for comparison. Maybe this is just a 'fork' of the season article, so I wonder what you guys think ... Alaney2k (talk) 16:05, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
I don't see an issue with the current format. Given they are templates, the size impact on the article itself is limited. There is no harm in having both the standings and a lot of prose on the same article. We could, possibly, collapse the standings like we do the game logs on team season articles, once the season ends. ResoluteLest We Forget17:36, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
I think collapsing the divisional standings table is a good solution. Then the data is available if readers want to see it, but the tables don't overwhelm the page. I've seen similar collapsing in football articles about rivalry games; the results-by-year table is collapsed, with summary information in the prose or infobox. —C.Fred (talk) 17:53, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
Do you think a table of the overall league standings is a useful addition? I was thinking it might tip the article too much toward stats, and that it was best to split the article. Alaney2k (talk) 18:29, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
My two cents, but I prefer conference standings to divisional standings, because it gives you a clearer picture. Jmj713 (talk) 18:55, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
I prefer that once the season is over, but during the season I prefer it split by division, because I find it clearer and easier to follow the race for the top seed in the division, which is in my opinion hard to do when you have to search through all the teams in the conference for the teams. -DJSasso (talk) 19:03, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
Hockey Draft Central
Is hockeydraftcentral.com considered a reliable source? And hockeydb is, correct? Are there any other sources for draft orders? Grsz1117:25, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
Hockeydraftcentral is not, that I am aware. Hockeydb generally is, but every time I take an article to FAC, I have to re-prove it's value. We could go to newspaper archives if it is necessary to gain more reliable sources for that, as well. ResoluteLest We Forget17:38, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
Hockeydratcentral is generally not considered reliable. Hockeydb is because it issues a bibliography. Newspapers are the only other source I am aware of. -DJSasso (talk) 17:51, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
HockeyDraftCentral hasn't been updated for years. I think I was the bloke, who introduced it as an 'reliable source', on Wikipedia. GoodDay (talk) 23:19, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
Probably all players on HockeyDraftCentral, except Chelios drafted in 1981, are retired by now. I think that the exhaustive format of the site combined with players still being active made it stop updating at the 1985 draft. Given the stats of the Chelios link, the site might be up to date as of the 2005–06 season. --Bamsefar75 (talk) 17:01, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
It's probably pretty lame to argue over. But another editor insists on changing the order of which Canada/USA is listed on the infobox on the NHL page without discussion citing consensus when the order had been the same for the last 5 or so years without a problem, I have managed to get him to start a discussion on the situation instead of harassing me on my talk page or revert warring. So please come and give your opinions either way so this rediculousness can end sooner rather than later. -DJSasso (talk) 21:42, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
Maxim was working toward that one for some time. Been a while since our project had a TFA. And hopefully another in just over a month, too. Resolute00:11, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
A couple of the images in this article have been nominated for deletion over at the Commons because they are not public domain. Someone may want to consider uploading the images locally here on Wikipedia under a fair use rationale, otherwise the article is going to lose two of its best photographs. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 13:42, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
I agree. Time does not appear to be verifiable enough on remote articles, but still it should be fixed. That's about it. -- ISLANDERS2706:36, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
Just to let everyone know that this article has also been nominated at WP:FL. I don't think having these kind of articles is good for Wikipedia and this WikiProject, because of the fact that these articles can be merged into the full version of draft picks by teams articles, but ehh... -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]]07:54, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
The discussion started on Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Pittsburgh Penguins first-round draft picks/archive1 ought to be brought here. We need consensus (or perhaps just a reaffirmation of existing consensus) for this project with respect to draft articles. Do we want one or two lists for each team? If one, should it be a list of all picks, or first round only, or perhaps something in between, such as all first round plus notable later round picks (i.e. anybody who ended up playing at least one game for the NHL team)? Based on that consensus, we ought to either create second draft list artices for all other teams, or merge the two Penguins lists. — Andrwsc (talk·contribs) 19:32, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
My opinion is that we definately need to list all the draft picks. In my view that isn't even questionable. But thats just an opinion. I can understand why baseball doesn't list all theirs because their draft is rediculously long. We are different however. -DJSasso (talk) 19:38, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
Yes, because this project actually follows WP:EMBED which says any link in a navbox should already be found in an article that the navbox is being placed on. Someone who won the vezina is not likely to be linked on the bio of someone who won it this year. Basically this project frowns on unnecessary navboxes which cause clutter. (and no collapsing them does not remove the clutter). And WP:NAVBOX which says you shouldn't use a navbox for a position or award and that you should use succession boxes for such things instead. Which is what we do for things like the Vezina. -DJSasso (talk) 21:34, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
Yes to quote "links in these sections should have been featured in the article". Of course it means in a perfect/completed version of the article. -DJSasso (talk) 21:54, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
You are quoting policy on a See also section navigational list, which is different from a navbox. I can not think of any navbox that would pass this test. It is irrelevant to my question, IMO.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 22:01, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
Not really, you asked why we don't have them, and I basically gave you a reason. As a project we decided not to use them and to use sucession boxes instead. We as a project have decided to try and limit the number of nav boxes as best we can as they hinder navagation dispite their name. In fact we recently deleted a number of such templates and turned them into succession boxes, in that instance they were draft picks I believe. And your interpretation is that they are different, but a navbox is a navigational list in my opinion, hence the name navbox. Just another form of one. Most well written navboxes do meet this requirement, the unfortunate thing is that there has been a race to make a bigger better flashier navbox all the time which has taken navboxes away from their intended use, and has rendered them mostly useless. Take a look at the image on the right for instance. Any useful navigation of Derek Jeter has been long since lost among the 20 navboxes and a few hundred links. The minor associations overwhelm any important links. -DJSasso (talk) 04:38, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
Honestly, because it is clutter, and imo, offers little to no value in navigation. Not to mention that such templates tend to duplicate actual article content. The list of Vezina Trophy winners belongs on the article, not at the bottom of various articles. ResoluteLest We Forget05:11, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
Cross-namespace redirects are not permitted. And looking bad is not a valid reason to redirect a valid article. At some point, someone will get around to expanding the lists. ResoluteLest We Forget21:37, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
I've fixed dabs before after people have moved stuff but honestly I think whoever moved it should fix them. The tennis article is listed as a stub so it probably isn't as notable anyway. RandySavageFTW (talk) 22:13, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
It's also important to note that at the time, they were known simply as the "1920 Olympic Games", not the "1920 Summer Olympics". The tournament was also held in April (the entire Olympics was spread over four months) which is actually earlier than the World Championships and Stanley Cup finals these days. -- Scorpion042205:55, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
Several Summer Games were supposed to have International Winter Sports Weeks, the 1920 actually did, and so did the 1924 one. The 1924 week was retroactively renamed as the first Winter Olympics. 65.94.252.195 (talk) 06:35, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
As a point of interest Bettman recently said he asked the head Olympic guy if they would consider moving ice hockey back to the summer games so all players could participate, but he told him no because the winter games were dependant on ice hockey ticket sales. -DJSasso (talk) 14:26, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
I just stumbled upon this discussion and thought it might want a wider audience as it could affect numerous articles. I have not formed an opinon yet as I havent really read much of the discussion. But thought with the number of scandinavian editors we have here as well as north american. It couldn't hurt to have more eyes on the situation. -DJSasso (talk) 05:37, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
Starting some table reformatting and cleanup on the Flames season articles, I came back across Mickey Renaud, who's article we deleted about two years ago. I hadn't realized until now that the OHL had created a trophy in his name. I given to believe that if the OHL chose to name a major award for him two years after his passing that lasting notability has been established. Would there be any objections if I undeleted the article and restored it with updates? ResoluteLest We Forget17:21, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
I would say that he would be notable enough. As one of our criteria has been that a junior player had to win an award, I think Renaud having an award is similar, if not more notable, than them. Kaiser matias (talk) 17:42, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
As far as a junior player goes, his biography was rather well developed already when deleted. I can restore it to my sandbox if you wish to see what was already written. ResoluteLest We Forget17:47, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
That's a great bio. With additional text about the retirement of his number and the establishment of the trophy, I support a separate article. Then the trophy article can focus on winners of the trophy (with a section on the establishment of the trophy from the OHL standpoint and not Renaud's bio). —C.Fred (talk) 17:55, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
I vaguely seem to recall having this conversation before, and that the trophy can be notable without the actual person being notable. I think we should just redirect to the trophy article. As I believe that was the outcome of the conversation I seem to recall. I am going to see if I can find it. -DJSasso (talk) 17:59, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
The conversation I am thinking of is Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Ice_Hockey/Archive28#MIckey_Renaud. The conversation mentions a number of cases where a trophy being named after someone does not automatically mean someone gets a individual bio article. An example in the WHL is the Four Broncos Trophy, all of whom its named after do not have articles. Which I would suggest is the most appropriate example being a somewhat similar situation of a junior player dying. -DJSasso (talk) 18:04, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
Damn, how did I miss that conversation back in the day? Though it goes without saying that I prefer separating the two. Either way, the infobox should be removed from the trophy article, as that is not a biographical page. ResoluteLest We Forget18:12, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
There is a difference between a trophy being named after four individuals—the group could be notable, even if the individuals are not. I prefer the separate article option also. However, if we do not split the article, I would favor keeping the infobox lower in the article, where Renaud's biography is covered. —C.Fred (talk) 18:19, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
I should be clear. I have no problem seperating them if that is what people feel is best. Just wanted to point out the other conversation. Personally I have a hard time believing a junior player who was not all that elite of a player meets the notability requirements. However, if we can find reliable sources on stuff other than his death that talk about him specifically and not the trophy then I am 100% behind splitting. -DJSasso (talk) 18:22, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
I would like to see an article on him, IMO having his number retired and a trophy named after him makes him notable, even though those things happen because of his death. —Krm500(Communicate!)18:47, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
I'm not against a separate article, but I do have some reservations about it. I don't think a special case should be made just because an article was well developed. The articles should be separate because the both subjects are notable. Since the last discussion, two potentially notable events have occurred; a trophy was named in his honor and his jersey number was retired. Do either/both of these events make someone notable? For example, Red Tilson doesn't have an article (his article just re-directs to the the award named for him). Is Red Tilson now a notable subject? In addition, Scott Miller has his number retired by the Spitfires but doesn't have an article. Is he also now notable? It would seem to me that either/both of them would also be notable if Mickey Renaud is notable since their claims to notability aren't all that much different. Thanks! Patken4 (talk) 21:21, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
Does Mickey pass either WP:ATHLETE or the GNG? If so, he merits an article. If not, he doesn't. That a trophy was named after him is part of the criteria for neither guideline. Notability isn't inherited or transferrable. RGTraynor 10:42, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
Why would you question the ability of IP editors to suggest deletion? If it occurs on the FFD page, then it is possible, that page is frequently patrolled by admins afterall. 65.94.252.195 (talk) 11:37, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
Off hand, the only image of the three that has a real NFCC claim is the goal celebration, only on the Miracle on Ice article (not the US National team article) and only if the moment the image depicts is described in the article and the image helps convey a message that the text alone can't. The other two I would consider lower value, defeating the minimal use requirements for non-free content. ResoluteLest We Forget16:19, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
A question from someone who doesn't have English as his first language: do you say "hockey match" or "hockey game"? I've seen that NHL playoff articles use expressions like "Game 1". In some contexts, one of them feels a little awkward compared to the other, e.g. "match result" vs. "game result" (more awkward). Or am I just imaging that?
Are the words "match" and "game" totally interchangeable, or is any of them preferred? Or is this an American English-British English issue?
They are interchangeable, however, game is what is mostly used in North America anyways. And you tend to only hear the word match atleast in my opinion when writers, announcers are trying to use different words than the normal so they aren't constantly repeating the same word. -DJSasso (talk) 14:03, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
Pretty sure that it is another translation that got garbled by the Atlantic Ocean. In North America, we always refer to it as "the game". In Europe, it seems to often be referred to as "the match". Resolute15:07, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
Though the game of hockey is a general term which in this case describes the sport itself. So yes LarRan, when talking about a single event both game and match are interchangeable. —Krm500(Communicate!)20:46, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
As we're getting near the Winter Olympics, I've created a bunch of convenience templates, with the purpose of saving both data storage and typing. You can check them here: Category:2010 Winter Olympics ice hockey templates.
So, is it your opinion that those templates/categories that concern matches/games should be renamed? And as soon as anyone gets news on the rosters, please feel free to fill out those templates.
(I'm not ready with all just yet. I also intend to rename the group standings templates.)
Well KRM can best say what is used in Europe, the Canadian in me says yeah, game is better. But I don't know how often match is used in the other countries of the world. Being that this is an international tournament we need to go with the most common to all the countries involved. I always think soccer when I hear match or tennis. -DJSasso (talk) 03:20, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
Well, there are in fact articles that focus on the men's and women's rosters. I admit that I created them myself, but there were already redlinks to them from the main article on the tournament(s), so I guess it was just a matter of time before someone created them. (Previous tournaments also have this kind of articles.) These two articles - as I created them - include the 12 men's and 8 women's roster templates, respectively (which means that they can be kept rather small in size). Each of the templates will be used in two places: in the rosters overall article(s), and the article of the nation's participation in the games. This way these two will never diverge. So if we can find editors from each participating nation (shouldn't be that hard), we'll get nice and reliably sourced info on the rosters, as they are announced. LarRan (talk) 12:10, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
For the time being I'll keep them where they are ("match"). If there's a consensus for "game", then we rename them. LarRan (talk) 12:20, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
I brought this issue up in the past. Basically there is a KHL team template. I was given the go ahead to fix up a bunch of teams by adding the KHL team template. Now recently I ran into this - Kärpät - the template there is just plain hockey template. So, what should I continue with the KHL team template, or should I go to this new thing as seen on Kärpät? (LAz17 (talk) 16:09, 10 November 2009 (UTC)).
I like how the regular hockey team template has a line to separate the logo and the website from the middle content. Also, the hockey name is in the box itself, not over it. Aesthetically that looks well. However, the KHL template has a lot more information, so there are ups and downs to both of them. Personally I think that league should not be placed as high up as is seen on the hockey team template. (LAz17 (talk) 16:14, 10 November 2009 (UTC)).
IMO we should only have one template for all hockey teams world wide, doesn't matter if they play in the NHL, KHL, SEL, NLA, or 3rd division in England. —Krm500(Communicate!)17:00, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
The NHL ones have simply far far more information on them, so I think it would be appropriate to keep them separate. The others though, I think there should be some stuff done to keep them together maybe? (LAz17 (talk) 06:11, 11 November 2009 (UTC)).
The KHL is a variation of the football (eu) ones. The NHL template is mostly like the mlb/nfl ones. No problem with having congruent infoboxes with the other sports projects. I think the KHL one is better, obviously.--Львівське (talk) 07:24, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
Personally I have no problem with ones seperate by league, that way they can be customized to the specific league. I hate templates that have 100's of parameters in every possible configuration because its trying to be everything for everyone. Wikipedia is not paper so there really isn't a huge need to only have one. As long as we keep a basic layout for all of them. -DJSasso (talk) 14:37, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
So in the future should I used for example this template, Kärpät, or this one, HK Partizan? Let me know soon, I want to do some more stuff with teams, but have stopped such edits 'cause of this uncertainty. (LAz17 (talk) 17:32, 11 November 2009 (UTC)).
Can someone answer my question so that I can resume fixing up and making new hockey team pages for the not-so-elite leagues? (LAz17 (talk) 05:09, 12 November 2009 (UTC)).
I have no problem, personally, with using different templates for different leagues, however I believe it would be good to have some uniformity. A quick scout around shows that {{Infobox NHL team}} has a very different look from {{UKIceHockey team}}, which in turn is very different from {{Hockey team}}. Still other articles, such as Newcastle Vipers, use a custom infobox in the article to mimic the NFL team style.
Maybe it would be best to have the specific templates for various leagues, but base them around a common core template which would help ensure consistent styling across all Ice Hockey Team articles. My personal preference would be to use the {{Hockey team}} style, as it is most consistent with the generic look of infoboxes throughout Wikipedia. I'm not a great fan of {{Infobox NHL team}}, as I find the table borders and zebra stripes somewhat intrusive, and {{UKIceHockey team}} is styled as though it were a navbox. Thoughts? AJCham11:31, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
I like the opposite, I wish more of them could be modled after the NHL infobox which looks better and is easier to read. (probably because of what you call zebra striping). -DJSasso (talk) 14:27, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
Wowsers, the guy who took Niedermayer's stick (meant for the little girl), got a triple workover, a 'Bruce Lee/Charles Bronson/Chuck Norris' combination. Should we add this to the Anaheim Ducks article? GoodDay (talk) 16:26, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
If we put in the articles all the incidents where fans and players have had tussles of one sort or another, the Rangers' and Bruins' articles would be twenty screens long apiece. RGTraynor 17:34, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
Is anyone in this project interested in a WolterBot cleanup listing? Although I don't do much work with this project, I find that cleanup listings are useful tools in my editing. I have no idea how to set this up, but I just wanted to bring up the topic. Kithira (talk) 23:07, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
It may well prove useful, actually. I'm not sure how many projects under our scope are currently tagged as needing help. Resolute00:17, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
Recently found out how to subscribe to the cleanup listing, and I have done so. If anyone has objections, please post them here. Kithira (talk) 12:14, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
![[1]](http://hcsokol.kiev.ua/img/Logo/5485339684a65c21d2ed92.jpg){kind=link}
