Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ice Hockey/Archive40

Peer Review set up for Jordan Schroeder

I set up a peer review for Jordan Schroeder. Hoping to have it become a FA by the time he makes his (anticipated) Canucks debut in October. Any help would be great. Kaiser matias (talk) 22:19, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Off hand, I think it is unlikely you could pass a FAC simply on the basis of the inherent instability of the article given he will possibly be starting his NHL career next season. We went through the same issue with Tavares. I'll make a note to try and review it this weekend though. Resolute 15:58, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Windsor Spitfires 2009-10 season

I redirected this to Windsor Spitfires but it was moved back. Is there any point? There are no OHL team season articles, and it's not titled right. RandySavageFTW (talk) 21:01, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

If someone did all the work to do a well formatted season article, why do you want to delete it? I don't get it.--Львівське (talk) 21:22, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Read the last sentence. And a lot of people put hard work into articles that get deleted. RandySavageFTW (talk) 21:27, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Mostly because we tread a very thin line in not violating WP:NOTSTATS with season pages. In order to keep the people at bay that try to delete all our season pages (and those of other sports) We mostly stick to league season articles at levels below the NHL. In the past we have deleted junior season pages a number of times. -DJSasso (talk) 21:28, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

RECENTISM, that's why. GoodDay (talk) 21:30, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

It's hard enough getting enough interested editors to turn the NHL team articles into something more than a stats dump. As much as I love junior hockey, I'm not seeing it as very likely that we can maintain 60 junior team articles - never mind opening the door to every minor pro team. This might be something worth porting to the Ice hockey Wikia though. Also, we should invite the article creator into the discussion. Resolute 22:27, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

As long as I continue to update them, I don't see what you care if there's an article on there or not about it? Is there a limited amount of Wikipedia articles and I'm taking up one of the precious articles? Leave it be Thetoast84

You've created a domino effect, now 59 other CHL season articles need to be created. (hyuk hyuk)--Львівське (talk) 04:25, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

The issue is not that there's a certain number of articles we can have, it's an issue of notability and veracity. Most of the Spitfires players, and most players in the CHL, are not notable enough to warrant their own page. Granted the team is certainly notable enough, but as Djsasso pointed out, we're close to WP:NOTSTATS, and if we start including a page for each junior team for each season, where does it end? We do the professional teams, and that seems to be a good compromise. I'm not a deletionist, but even I have a hard time justifying the existence of this page. Anthony (talk) 13:26, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Right now, there is no article, only stats. So it can be proposed for AFD for that reason only. ʘ alaney2k ʘ (talk) 15:04, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

I have proposed it for deletion here ʘ alaney2k ʘ (talk) 18:25, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

I don't know that we only do season articles for NHL teams. Several college hockey teams have season articles. Powers ^T 15:25, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

We've tried to blow those out of the water in the past, but because other NCAA sports have them they end up getting kept. -DJSasso (talk) 15:33, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Well, I'm guilty of creating 2009–10 RIT Tigers men's ice hockey season, but I only did so because I saw other college hockey season articles. (Now, of course, there have been a number of articles on the Tigers' season due to their Frozen Four run, so I think the season meets the GNG, but I didn't know at the time that that would happen.) Powers ^T 16:41, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

New NHL Award

Well, the GMs may not be able to agree on how to get rid of headshots, but they have no problem giving themselves awards. There is now a "GM of the Year Award" [1] and I'm not sure what to do about it. According to the article, it will be awarded during the final; not the NHL awards, which indicates that they don't consider it one of the official NHL Awards. But should a page be created for it? I guess it depends on whether this will be turned into a real award (knowing the NHL, it will probably become known as the Bettman Trophy) or if it's just some one year thing. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 20:38, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

My expectation is that it is to be an annual award. I'd create an article on it once a winner is named. Resolute 20:53, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

My understanding has been that it would carry the same weight as the Jack Adams. It should get its own article once it's out, for sure. Whether it's gets to the status of the other awards or is like the Bud Light Plus Minus award or the Messier Leadership and Valour Trophy de Frito Lay, is the question.--Львівське (talk) 20:56, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

We would do what we have done for other awards with less than 5 winners (ie new awards). We redirect the page to the list of nhl awards. -DJSasso (talk) 21:21, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

WP current stance on naming conventions?

Last time I checked, diacritics and legal spelling trumped common use english spelling, so just wondering where we stand on this topic, and if names should be transliterated under origin countries standards, or if we follow common use for some players and not for others? --Львівське (talk) 17:25, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

As long as the language only uses diacritics on English language characters, such as Nicklas Bäckström, that is good. (However, you must create a redirect from the name without diacritics, in this case Nicklas Backstrom.) If the special letters or characters are not used in standard English then a translation is to be used. See WP:Naming conventions (use English), specifically the section on modified letters. JohnnyPolo24 (talk) 17:57, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Well there are some cases, like Sandis Ozolinsh (Sandis Ozoliņš) or Oleg Znarok (Oļegs Znaroks) where the spelling itself changes to suit the mother tongue vs. English common use spelling, so just wanted clarification on that.--Львівське (talk) 18:33, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Well someone just went in to 2010 Stanley Cup playoffs and changed the player names with diacritics. The official policy seems to be different than what you are suggesting:

* All player pages: Should have diacritics applied (where required).

* All North American hockey pages: Should have player names without diacritics.

* All non-North American hockey pages: Should have diacritics applied (where required).

So which is it? --Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:13, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

The change was [[Johan Franzén]] to [[Johan Franzén|Johan Franzen]] and [[Nicklas Lidström]] to [[Nicklas Lidström|Nicklas Lidstrom]]. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:15, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

2010 Stanley Cup playoffs is an NHL page which is based in North America. So it falls under the "* All North American hockey pages: Should have player names without diacritics." I believe his question is more pertaining to the first bullet. What to name actual player pages. -DJSasso (talk) 19:16, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

But the discussion above indicates that "As long as the language only uses diacritics on English language characters, such as Nicklas Bäckström, that is good.". I tend to agree, oddly enough, that it is good. It's also the way we've approached it in the soccer articles. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:27, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

simple enough with swedish names where you only see accents and umlauts, but in the balkan or slavic countries, things get wacky and unintelligible to english readers. --Львівське (talk) 19:29, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Template:Icehockey-stub Icon Picture

I changed the picture on this stub template from a picture of a ring to a picture of a stick and puck with the reasoning of increasing the legibility of the image a little bit. Is this acceptable? (old template | new template) Jecowa (talk) 08:25, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

I just noticed that the ice rink picture is used on a lot more stub templates than I originally noticed. Do we like the new puck and stick icon or should they stay as the ice rink icon? ( vs. ) Jecowa (talk) 08:42, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

I have no preference. But there are a very large number of stubs that will need to be changed that I can think of off the top of my head. Probably 50 or so. (the list you link to is out of date) -DJSasso (talk) 12:29, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

I agree the rink diagram is not particularly iconic or legible at 40px. I daresay, thought, that {{Icehockey-venue-stub}} ought to remain as-is. =) Powers ^T 13:54, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

I suggested a new picture, as the rink picture looks like a bandaid at that size. 76.126.21.16 (talk) 22:26, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Czechs & Slovaks born in Czechoslovakia

Has it been decided that Slovakian players born in Czechoslovakia, shall have their birth country as Slovakia or Slovak republic in their Infoboxes? and Czech players born in Czechoslovakia, shall have their birth country as Czechoslovakia in their infoboxex? -If not- we've a problem. GoodDay (talk) 14:11, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

No, the country at the time of their birth is always listed. So if they were born in Czechoslovakia you list Czechoslovakia. It will soon be time to have people born in the seperate "new" countries. But anyone born before the split is always Czechoslovakia. -DJSasso (talk) 14:17, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

I've notice most (if not all) former & current players born in what's now Slovakia, have Slovakia or Slovak republic in their Infoboxes. I reckon it would be too difficult to keep them correct (as there's so many). GoodDay (talk) 14:19, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

It happens all the time with Russia etc as well. Just fix them when you see them. -DJSasso (talk) 14:23, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Corrections completed, phew. GoodDay (talk) 14:34, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, fix it when you see it, that's what I do. It is an annoying problem.--Львівське (talk) 14:36, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

January 1, 1993. Thats an easy one compared to the Soviet collapse. ccwaters (talk) 00:28, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

WP:HOCKEY/PPF#NOTE

An ongoing RFC on the future of WP:ATHLETE, seen here, seems to be trending towards attempting to re-start dicsussion at WP:Notability (athletes) with the idea that projects would set guidelines for articles within their scope. A subcurrent of this discussion is the belief that there are too many athlete bios, and some editors are seeking to set higher bars so as to allow for the deletion of thousands of articles. Given it is inevitible that we will be asked to confirm our standards, I figured now was a good time to sort it out.

Our current guidelines are at WP:HOCKEY/PPF#NOTE. I think they can be simplified. Changes I propose from the current guideline is marked in bold or struck out:

Ice hockey players shall be considered notable for purposes of the hockey project's scope if they fulfill one or more of the following: and if they otherwise fulfill the requirements of WP:V

• Played one or more games in an existing or defunct top professional league such as the National Hockey League, World Hockey Association, Elitserien, SM-liiga, or Kontinental Hockey League;
• Played one or more games in a defunct league generally considered to have been a "major" professional league, such as the World Hockey Association, the National Hockey Association, the Czechoslovak Extraliga, the Pacific Coast Hockey Association and suchlike;
• Played one or more games in an amateur league considered, through lack of a professional league, the highest level of competition extant, such as the 19th century Amateur Hockey Association or the Soviet League;
• Played five or more seasons, and at least 100 games, in a fully professional minor league such as the American Hockey League, the International Hockey League, the ECHL, the Mestis, the HockeyAllsvenskan or other such league;
• Achieved preeminent honors (all-time top ten career scorer, league or playoff MVP, any major award given, first team all-star, All-American) in a lower minor league such as the Central Hockey League or the United Hockey League, in a major junior league such as the Ontario Hockey Association or the Western Hockey League or in a major collegiate hockey league (Note: merely playing in a major junior league or major collegiate hockey is not enough to satisfy inclusion requirements);
• Was a first-round draft pick in the NHL Entry Draft;
• Played on a national Olympic team;
• Are Honoured Members of the Hockey Hall of Fame;
• Or otherwise meets Wikipedia's general notability criteria as set out at WP:GNG

Thoughts? Resolute 01:52, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Just to clarify, 100 games in the Italian league or some other such low level league would count? Also, for Olympics, this opens the doors to all players from the Kazakhstani womens team, right?--Львівське (talk) 02:30, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Like the changes, but have one comment. What is the rational behind striking the defunct league guidline? In most cases (NHA, Czechoslovakia, USSR) the league is simply a successor to a current league; it could be inferred that had the current league been in existence at that time, those players would probably be in them. I would also think that since those players are from an era where source material is limited, if someone is able to create a referenced article on those players, all the more power to them. Of course though, I am an inclusionist, and believe in a very liberal interpretation of WP:NOTPAPER. Just makes it even more depressing to see these discussions to delete thousands of articles. Kaiser matias (talk) 03:52, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

I just combined it with the existing leagues. No need for two lines that effectively say the same thing. And Lvisvske, yes and yes. Though if all that can be said in either case is a name, birthplace and some stats, a list article would be preferable. My hope is that our standards will be as inclusionary as possible, but the overall discussion has been dominated by exclusionists. Resolute 03:55, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

I see what you did there. Simple confusion on my part. And after having looked through that discussion, I am quite surprised at how many people want do delete articles simply because they don't currently have much information. Kaiser matias (talk) 04:43, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

And remember Lvivske, these guidelines don't mean you can't create an article on them if they don't meet them. Just that its presumed that people at that level have sources. As long as someone meets GNG they can have an article even if they are below these standards. All women from the Kazakhstani womens team already have the door open for them with WP:ATHLETE since they play at the top level of their amateur sport so nothing changes in that respect. Oh and I support the cleanup Resolute. I don't know that we need to add the last line though since that will be the case for the entire page. But can't hurt to add it for now. Kaiser, I don't actually think the end result will end up with any (many) articles deleted atleast not for hockey because almost anyone can be sourced right down to the CHL if you look hard enough. There will be the initial attempt by deletionists to go on hardcore deletion spree, but if we pay attention we can source most anybody that meets the current WP:ATHLETE so I doubt this will result in many deleted articles. -DJSasso (talk) 11:18, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

The last line is mostly just to undermine those that would go "Delete - only played 3 years and 74 pro games" despite the fact the player has four articles written about him in three major papers. Basically, the same clause that ends everybody's job description: "...and all other duties as required." Resolute 15:50, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, I knew what you were getting at. -DJSasso (talk) 15:51, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

I have added some of my thoughts to the list using Bold and Strike through. Dolovis (talk) 16:51, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Here are Dolovis changes. It was hard to distinguish between what Resolutes proposed changes and yours were with them mixed together. feel free to edit what I have here if I didn't capture what you wanted clearly.

• Change "5 years" to "2 years" and change "and" to "or" in second bullet.
• Add Central Hockey League & International Hockey League to fourth bullet.
• Change "major league award" to "professional league award" in fifth bullet.
• Change "lower minor league" to "minor pro league" in fifth bullet.
• Change "the Hockey" to "a notable" to: "Are Honoured Members of any notable Hall of Fame such as the Hockey Hall of Fame" in eigth bullet
• Add line of "Played in a World Cup (or equally significant) tournament"

-DJSasso (talk) 17:17, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Any my reponse to your changes... The first one, we are trying to determine at what point someone is likely to have sources about them. 5 years is a clear red line point and at that point they probably have sources, a second year player in a minor league is not as likely. The reason we have the word and is that a person could play 2 games in 5 seperate instances and never play a significant portion of a season which is what we are trying to capture in that line. For your changing major league award to professional league award, I think you misunderstood the point of that line perhaps, it is trying to say that if you are in a 4th tier pro league such as the International Hockey League or the Central Hockey League or in a junior league such as the Western Hockey League or the Ontario Hockey League you should be someone who won a major award. As for the changing hockey hall of fame to notable hall of fame. I don't have a big opinion on this but using that wording opens up an issue of what is considered notable, which is probably why hockey hall of fame is the best way to say it. And your last change I would probably modify along with the Olympic line we have and just say something like "Played on a National team at the Olympics, World Championships or other major senior international tournament". -DJSasso (talk) 17:23, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

I think his change of "major league award" to "professional league award" was the result of confusing wording on my part. I meant a major award handed out by a league (i.e.: MVP, top coach, top rookie, etc) rather than an award handed out by a major league (the NHL, KHL, etc.). I've reworded my suggestion appropriately. Resolute 17:33, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

As said in this discussion, I believe the criteria at WP:HOCKEY/PPF#NOTE could be a slightly bit more inclusive. I think play on a national team at the World Championships and the Canada/World Cup (rather than only the Olympics), and membership in the IIHF Hall of Fame as well as the HHOF reflects a very acceptable notability, especially for players from other nations who have reached a very high level of play in their own national context. Place Clichy (talk) 09:37, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Here is the discussion where they were originally created. -DJSasso (talk) 17:34, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

I like the use of "any notable Hall of Fame such as The Hockey Hall of Fame". Notability of such HoF will be determined in the same way all notability is determined - by wiki-consensus. A Blue Line would be a strong indication of notability. As for time spent on a minor league team, any professional hockey player who can spend 100 games (two seasons) in the minor leagues is notable. It is no easy feat to achieve becoming a full-time professional hockey player, and any person who does so has most certainly generated press and awards along the way. In virtually all cases the information can be verified by hockeydb.com, in addition to other reliable source such as newspapers. Dolovis (talk) 19:56, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm not opposed to that change myself, but ultimately, the final line about meetin GNG will cover any such situation of a notable player with <5 yrs pro or 100 games. The most important thing is that there has to be something to write about in each bio beyond a sub-stub that just says "John Doe played for team x, y and z." Resolute 22:10, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

What about players who never played in the Olympics, but did compete in the World Championships/World Cup/Canada Cup/Summit Series? Should we include only those that played in Division I of the WC's or are all divisions ok? It may go without saying, but are WHA first round picks also notable? Granted, they likely would have also been first round NHL picks, but there may be some differences. Thanks! Patken4 (talk) 23:24, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Based on what Dolovis has said, I think it would probably be in our interests to include in the HHOF section members of the IIHF Hall of Fame. Most of the members already have articles, so its mostly just a cosmetic addition if anything. Kaiser matias (talk) 00:13, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

I would also include the United States Hockey Hall of Fame, Finnish Hockey Hall of Fame, Russian/Soviet Hockey Hall of Fame, etc. Patken4 (talk) 00:21, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Based on the outcome of various AfDs, I believe all divisions are considered OK, and the guidelines should be modified to reflect that. Powers ^T 11:59, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Something else to consider. What professional, national leagues are considered "major" and what professional, national leagues are considered "minor"? For instance, are the KHL and Austrian Hockey League both considered "major"? Looking at how the Football/soccer project does it, they list out what leagues are considered fully professional and which are not at WP:FPL. Should we have something similar for which leagues a player only needs to compete in one game to be notable and which a player needs meet the 5 years, 100 games threshold to be notable? Thanks! Patken4 (talk) 16:44, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Oops, forgot to drop the "major" from the defunct league line. I'd say restrict to top level leagues for any given nation or region. "Major" is really just a North American convention anyway. Resolute 17:24, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Revised

Ok, so based on arguments above, how about this:

• Played one or more games in an existing or defunct top professional league such as the National Hockey League, World Hockey Association, Elitserien, SM-liiga, or Kontinental Hockey League;
• Played one or more games in an amateur league considered, through lack of a professional league, the highest level of competition extant, such as the 19th century Amateur Hockey Association or the Soviet League;
• Played at least 100 games in a fully professional minor league such as the American Hockey League, the International Hockey League, the ECHL, the Mestis, the HockeyAllsvenskan or other such league;
• Achieved preeminent honors (all-time top ten career scorer, won a major award given by the league, first team all-star, All-American) in a lower minor league such as the Central Hockey League or the United Hockey League, in a major junior league such as the Ontario Hockey Association or the Western Hockey League or in a major collegiate hockey league (Note: merely playing in a major junior league or major collegiate hockey is not enough to satisfy inclusion requirements);
• Was a first-round draft pick in the NHL Entry Draft;
• Played on a senior national team (such as at the Olympic Games or World Championship);
• Is an honoured member of a national or regional Hall of Fame;
• Or otherwise meets the notability criteria as set out at WP:GNG

Would this seem to reflect the consensus of editors exprssed above? Resolute 18:00, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

I think this could be condensed a bit. For instance, it seems anyone playing in the Spanish Super League is considered notable through the second bullet (assuming it is amateur or semi-professional). Should we list what leagues we consider notable and which are not? Thanks! Patken4 (talk) 18:45, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes, let's clearly state what league's count.--Львівське (talk) 19:09, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm of the thought that a game in the AHL should count. It's a full pro league but eh whatever...the bureaucracy that goes on within wiki is sometimes mind numbing.Triggerbit (talk) 02:22, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

With 68 member countries in the IIHF, it would make a lot of leagues to mention here if we wanted to state them all. Plus it would take us a very long time to agree on the relative notability of each league. (DEL better than Vysshaya Liga anyone? GET-ligaen better than ECHL?) I'm quite satisfied with the proposed version as it sums up what I wanted it to show: same as before for league play, extension to every IIHF-sanctioned senior event for national team play. I would only condense a bit the first 3 bullets, I believe there is still some redundancy there. Place Clichy (talk) 18:04, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Once we start picking and choosing which leagues we support, the issue becomes clouded under POV. Regardless of what league a player is in, Wikipedia's core policies still have to be met, and among them is WP:NOTSTATS. There has to be something written about the players to really merit an article. Ultimately, that is the purpose of my final line for players that are not in the NHL. I just created an article on Mitch Wahl, who has all of ten professional games in his career, because he meets WP:GNG. The rest of the lines presume the player meets GNG because of the level they have reached, and in most cases, that would be restricted to the world's top leagues. I'd say its best not to assume at all, however, and determine the "value" of a league towards the notability of its players on a case by case basis based on the sources you can find for the players. Resolute 21:04, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Given Resolute's explanation, I agree with the new criteria. Patken4 (talk) 22:15, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Since there has been no big objections in nearly two weeks I have updated the wording with this revised edition. -DJSasso (talk) 18:37, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Phoenix Coyotes bankruptcy split

I have proposed that we create a new article on just the bankruptcy. This will lessen the amount of text on the subject in the NHL and Coyotes' season articles. The discussion is at Talk:Phoenix Coyotes#Bankruptcy split. ʘ alaney2k ʘ (talk) 14:46, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

I'd say just go right ahead and do it. That article is an absolute mess right now... I was going to do it myself at some point but simply didn't want to wade into it. Resolute 14:50, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Ok, I've done the split. Take a look. There are still some missing or incomplete cites and probably more details that should be covered, but it actually seems pretty comprehensive already. ʘ alaney2k ʘ (talk) 02:47, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

HAve to say, I'm impressed with the article. I would think that with minimal work, it could probably even go for a Good Article nomination, or with more effort, possibly a FA nom. Kaiser matias (talk) 21:50, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, I kinda took on a challenge from DJ to get it there too, lol. And looks good, Alaney. Definitely helps balance the Coyotes' main article better. Resolute 22:09, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

I think there is plenty of work to get it to an FA. I understood you were busy. I was following the news story from before the bankruptcy filing, so I'll probably just keep on working on it. There is a lot to process. ʘ alaney2k ʘ (talk) 00:59, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

By all means. I'm kind of in a down cycle for editing at the moment (mostly just maintenance and vandal fighting rather than writing), so if you want to take the lead, that'd be great! If it helps, I had already begun organizing some articles and concepts at my second sandbox. Resolute 01:04, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Looks like there is a whole new chapter on this saga about to begin. Hopefully it does go the way all the papers and pundits seem to think it is with Thompson buying them for Winnipeg. -DJSasso (talk) 16:07, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

I wish it would hurry the hell up already... I've been holding off on updating and trying again for FA on History of the National Hockey League (1992–present) specifically because of this case. That said, I can't see the NHL wanting anything to do with Ice Edge. The league, Glendale and Winnipeg are all stuck between a rock and a hard place right now. Resolute 16:15, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Apparently the NHL backs Ice Edge but only if the city covers the loses which isn't going to happen. I read one article that seemed pretty certain that the team was headed to Winnipeg for Thompson with the Moose headed to Thunder Bay after being sold to Ice Edge which based on this article and articles I read last summer was the actual goal of Ice Edge. (ie get an AHL team for Thunder Bay). The head of ice edge started this all because he wanted to bring pro hockey back to Thunder Bay which is his hometown. It eventual grew to include going after an NHL team but originally they just wanted an AHL team. -DJSasso (talk) 16:19, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Putting the cart before the horse

I was thinking earlier on the situation that would be created if the Coyotes moved back to Winnipeg and how we would want to handle it. It strikes me that if the Jets franchise returned home as the Jets, that simply continuing the Winnipeg history on the existing article might make the most sense - similar to how I've treated the Swift Current Broncos. Or would it be better to have Winnipeg Jets (1972-1996) for the first time around, and Winnipeg Jets for the new incarnation? If they end up using a different name for the team that would muddy things further, but given the NHL currently owns both the Coyotes franchise and the Jets trademark, I'd expect they would be sold as a package. Thoughts? Resolute 18:02, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

I'd make it a single article. No need to disjoint the history as long as its linear. --Львівське (talk) 18:13, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

I would return to updating the Winnipeg Jets article. And leave the Phoenix article as a seperate entity. Basically a more in detail version of the history section that involved Phoenix. Since this is the same franchise it would be somewhat unique and I think it would be appropriate to continue the Jets article. If it got a new name I might say start a 3rd article, but I think we all know they will go back to the name Jets if they return to Winnipeg. -DJSasso (talk) 18:22, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Unreferenced Biographies of Living Persons

The WikiProject Unreferenced Biographies of Living Persons (UBLPs) aims to reduce the number of unreferenced biographical articles to under 30,000 by June 1, primarily by enabling WikiProjects to easily identify UBLP articles in their project's scope. There were over 52,000 unreferenced BLPs in January 2010 and this has been reduced to 35,715 as of May 1. A bot is now running daily to compile a list of all articles that are in both Category:All unreferenced BLPs and have been tagged by a WikiProject. Note that the bot does NOT place unreferenced tags or assign articles to projects - this has been done by others previously - it just compiles a list.

Your Project's list can be found at Wikipedia:WikiProject Ice Hockey/Unreferenced BLPs. Currently you have approximately 161 articles to be referenced - this is down from a peak (since March) of 220, so well done! Other project lists can be found at User:DASHBot/Wikiprojects/Templates and User:DASHBot/Wikiprojects.

Your assistance in reviewing and referencing these articles is greatly appreciated. If you have any questions, please don't hestitate to ask either at WT:URBLP or at my talk page. Thanks, The-Pope (talk) 17:43, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Heh they certainly don't want us to forget. Their last message about this just archived yesterday. -DJSasso (talk) 19:43, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

It's going to be an ongoing thing too. Most of the articles now are EIHL players and sportscasters... But there are hundreds of NHL player articles that simply haven't been tagged yet. Resolute 20:01, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Oh I know, I just thought the timing was amusing. That literally the day their last notice was removed they were back. -DJSasso (talk) 20:32, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

I had a go at Petri Ylönen and Real Paiement. I was surprised to a coach as famous as Petr Vorobiev in the list and with such a simple article, however I don't really have time or energy to expand it right now.

I saw plenty of articles with hockeydb or eurohockey links but with the unreferenced tag. What would be the project position on this? Do we consider them good enough sources to move these articles out of the list? Place Clichy (talk) 15:00, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

hockeydb has been vetted via the FAC process in the past, but if you were to move that up to use as an inline source, definitely replaced the BLP unreferenced template with {{blprefimprove}}. Resolute 15:09, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Notre Dame Hounds

A user altered the Notre Dame Hounds Jr. A team article to be a shared article with the Midget AAA team. He is now proposing that the article basically be expanded to cover all teams associated with the Notre Dame school. There are quite a few teams that have played out of this school... a Jr. A team, a Jr. B team, and a series of minor hockey teams at least. Normally we don't allow for articles for Midget clubs... so, I'd like to ask for a consensus on what should happen here. Personally, I think that the Jr. A team should be separate from the Jr. B team, which should be separate from the Midget team... they have varied histories... are from different leagues... and have their own separate accomplishments. Since minor isn't considered notable, I think their championships on the Telus Cup page should be enough... thoughts? DMighton (talk) 02:20, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

A thought, should info on the Midget AAA team be in the athletics section of Athol Murray College of Notre Dame maybe? DMighton (talk) 02:25, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

The Hounds are a special case as the Junior A team is part of the school program. This is an instance where I can support the idea of using this article to discuss the organization's hockey program as a whole. I'm certainly biased, but given the midget Hounds are contenders at the Mac's Tourney every year, I find them rather notable. Resolute 02:35, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

I am not sure if this is a question of notability or whether they should share the Jr. A article or the school article. They certainly are a special situation... but I don't think the two teams should be thrown together... I feel they will be confused. DMighton (talk) 02:45, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

It would require a rewrite, that is for sure. If the article is about the ND Hounds organization as a whole, then sections discussing the Jr A and midget teams would become less confusing. Resolute 03:09, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

There was also a Jr. B team that won the Athol Murray Trophy and competed in the 1980 edition of what would become the Keystone Cup... finished in 3rd. Although, I'm not sure if this would set a good precedent... there are a lot of Midget teams, some are very dominant (but not necessarily Telus Cup champions), that have the same name as Jr. teams... DMighton (talk) 03:14, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't think it would set a precedent at all, personally. Junior teams are independent of minor hockey systems, so the Red Deer Optimist Rebels program would not join with the Red Deer Rebels WHL article. The Notre Dame Hounds are unique in that all teams are part of the ND organization. In a rewrite, the article would not be about a team, but the single organization that runs them. In all other cases, there would be at least two articles - one for the junior team, and another for the city's minor hockey system (if notable) as the two are separate. Resolute 03:20, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

The Jr A teams are separate from the minor hockey teams. Almost every SJHL team (Yorkton Terriers, Melville Millionaires, etc. have minor hockey teams that share the same names, but they do not have pages on their own. The Notre Dame Hounds article should remain for the Jr A team, and the rest of the teams should be covered under the school's article. A Midget AAA team, is pushing it, even if they are consistently competitive at a high level, there are consistently competitive girl's Midget AA teams as well, but they are hardly noteworthy on a larger scale. The Jr A Hounds are under the same system, but they are not a high school team, this year's team had 1989 birthdates on it. Canada Hky (talk) 22:37, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

In most cases you are right. The Notre Dame situation is unique though in that the Jr. A team is part of the larger Hounds organization. Resolute 18:51, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

But its not one of the school teams. If it was just about having a page for the Notre Dame Hounds, then fine. But the school is notable, and the Jr A team is notable - and they are two separate entities. Seems more like the St. Michael's Buzzers, where there is a team nominally associated with the school, but the school is a separate entity. Canada Hky (talk) 23:32, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

I am still thinking the Jr. A team should have its own page and that the minor hockey system have its own special section on the school's page. It doesn't take away from the Midget team in the slightest... it's a fully school team. But, the Hounds are only affiliated with the School... I think implying they are part of a minor hockey system or basically a high school hockey team really hurts their credibility. We would never mix the Majors, Buzzers, and the St. Mike's High School team... nor would we mix the Villanova Knights with their high school team. DMighton (talk) 15:36, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Merge/Delete?

I came across a couple of articles that appear to be for the same individual, there is a page for Archie Wilder and Arch Wilder, both are short stub articles. In a situation Like this should there be a merge or should one of these pages be outright deleted?
some page related info:

Arch Wilder page links to Archie Wilder Hockey DB page as well as Arch Wilder Hockey-Reference page.
Archie Wilder page has a link to a dead page at Legends of Hockey
both list the birth date as April 30, 1917 vs. Hockey DB's listing of May 30, 1917.

Not sure how to handle this situation, thanks--Mo Rock...Monstrous (talk) 18:22, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Red Wings list him as Arch: http://redwings.nhl.com/club/player.htm?id=8449472 ccwaters (talk) 18:33, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Merge complete. The target is Arch Wilder, since NHL.com, Legends of Hockey, and Hockey-Reference.com all use Arch. Neither of the pages should be deleted; a redirect is the solution. — Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 18:51, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Cool, Thanks for letting me know--Mo Rock...Monstrous (talk) 18:57, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Template policy

Since TonyTheTiger decided to canvas every other sports wikiproject and ignored the one that disagrees with him. I just wanted to point out Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Sports#Template policy discussion to everyone. -DJSasso (talk) 11:32, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

I was never a fan of Frosted Flakes. --Львівське (talk) 13:46, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Man, I never even noticed until 93JC pointed it out that Tony transcluded a subpage of his talk page to host that discussion. What a shady way to try and prevent those likely to oppose his "policy" from participating. Its nice that he was so kind as to exclude us from this "global policy" he wants to create for now, but I doubt anyone is ignorant of what he would do next if he managed to reach a consensus within his little circle of like minded individuals. Resolute 16:40, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Yeah I mentioned that he did that earlier up on the page. He claims he did it to keep the history of the discussion uncluttered from other topics which is utter bullcrap (especially when that talk page is usually pretty dead). He did it so people would hopefully miss his one edit adding the transclusion and none of the subsequent edits. The only highly active editor he invited from our project was Alaney who not surprisingly somewhat supported his opinion last time he brought it up. Alaney doesn't edit alot of sports articles other than hockey. So if it wasn't a case of him thinking it will not affect hockey editors like he claims or he wouldn't have invited Alaney. So its rediculously obvious he was canvassing support votes. -DJSasso (talk) 16:53, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Forum shopping. ccwaters (talk) 18:14, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Wow thats sly no matter how you dice it.. got to give Tony credit, he's really on a crusade. Triggerbit (talk) 18:42, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Things are never dull, around here (Wikipedia). GoodDay (talk) 21:52, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

This is nothing compared to Jimmy Wales' latest abuse of his admin tools. I wonder how much closer to completion the 'pedia would be if so much time wasn't spent wasted dealing with cleaning up after other people's personal crusades? Resolute 23:43, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

I assume ya mean the clamping down on sex images. GoodDay (talk) 15:11, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

"Won't somebody please think of the children?" —Krm500 ^{(Communicate!)} 20:07, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Marc87

Just a heads up that Marc87 is back to adding old style Olympic country codes and unsourced middle names to articles. Dbrodbeck (talk) 16:56, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

• Marc87 (talk · contribs · count · logs · page moves · block log). — MrDolomite • Talk 17:03, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

A site you have to pay to use shouldn't be used a source. RandySavageFTW (talk) 18:16, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

He never really stopped. -DJSasso (talk) 19:10, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Indeed DJ. I revert when I see them (I watch quite a few player pages) but... I will leave him a note on his talk page I guess. Dbrodbeck (talk) 20:05, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

I used to watch his edits and change them all to the way that was agreed a little while ago but last time I tried to run awb through his edits fixing all the things he did against standard I got yelled at too much so I gave up and let him have free reign. -DJSasso (talk) 21:56, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

I think he could become a valuable editor, his edits are not in malice after all. If he just could start listening to other editors opinions... —Krm500 ^{(Communicate!)} 22:09, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

He's been getting told for a year or more, there is a point where not listening becomes malice. -DJSasso (talk) 22:42, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Patients is a virtue & Marc87 has tried my virtue. IMHO, a block would do nicely, in getting his attention. GoodDay (talk) 23:17, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Agreed, I'm getting sick of his edits. I also agree that a site that you have to pay for and is un-citable / we can't fact check shouldn't be allowed. When I see his olympic code / anti-WP:BIO edits I revert the ones I watch plus others in his history that I notice are hockey players. He should be blocked to send a message, this won't end, he won't reply to us.--Львівське (talk) 06:21, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

You guys are fussing over too much when it comes to middle names. I can't double-check some newspaper cites but I don't complain when I see one. As a member of SIHR, I can access their web site. I believe there are other SIHR members on Wikipedia. I think there may be mistakes in the SIHR database, but as a whole I would consider it reliable. Heck, the IIHF considers them reliable. Just because you can readily access the nhl.com web site doesn't make it more reliable than one open to membership. As people readily claim when we are talking about player names of European origin. There are lots of private databases, such as Lexis/Nexus, and innumerable journal web sites for scholarly research that are open to the general public but require paying. I think the issue is 'uncited' middle names, not unsourced. ʘ alaney2k ʘ (talk) 15:04, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

I left him a note, to no avail. I am not as concerned with the middle names as I am with the archaic abbreviations. Dbrodbeck (talk) 15:53, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Espn.go.com lists middle names for hockey players if you want to verify middle names. ʘ alaney2k ʘ (talk) 15:25, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

The main frustration behind all this is Marc87's snubbing of others. GoodDay (talk) 15:32, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

As opposed to just 'stubborn'? ;-) It's not the way to go about editing here, that's for sure. I have no problem with removing unsourced data. ʘ alaney2k ʘ (talk) 15:37, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Category:1972 Team Canada players & Category:1972 Team USSR players

FYI, Category:1972 Team Canada players has been nominated for deletion. 70.29.208.247 (talk) 10:39, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

FYI, Category:1972 Team USSR players has also been nominated. 70.29.208.247 (talk) 04:04, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

The discussion for the Team Canada players has included an editor (me) stating that a navbox/template would be a better alternative than a category; such as this: User:PKT/Template:1972 Team Canada Summit Series Roster. Other editors have responded, stating that such a template is against the policy of WP:HOCKEY. Confirm or deny? PKT(alk) 12:51, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

We despise them. Cheers! —Krm500 ^{(Communicate!)} 14:23, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

As DJ and I noted on the CfD, as a project we've rejected templates such as that. Personally, I find them to be little more than template clutter and despise the mess of low value links that the bottom of baseball and football articles have become. A player is not notable for or defined by his teammates at any given time. In this case, they are remembered for playing in the Summit Series, but that link will already exist in the article body of most player articles, and also in the lead in many cases. There is no reason to add low value links that add no navigational benefit to the end of the article. And in the case of templates such as this, we end up checking consensus every year given it is inevitible that someone creates a template for SC champions, and it is inevitible that one of us throws it up at TfD. They've been deleted every time: This TfD includes links to four others. This one too. We've also just been through this debate, yet again, about a month ago. Resolute 14:59, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

OK, thanks for the links. We will have to agree to disagree.......PKT(alk) 16:17, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Welcome. And we're getting used to agreeing to disagree. ;) Personally, I'd love to take a poleaxe to those team templates that other sport projects use, but out of respect for the local consensus they've established, I likewise simply agree to disagree. Resolute 18:18, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

On a somewhat related note, I've nominated {{Pittsburgh Penguins staff}} for deletion here. Schmloof (talk) 17:26, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

And while we're speaking of nominating overbroad categories for deletion ...

I just nominated Category:Canadian expatriate ice hockey people in the United States for deletion; this looks like a laundry list of any Canadian hockey player who ever lived in the US, which would wind up being "damn near all of them."  RGTraynor  02:05, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

seconded...i hate those expatriate lists, pointless--Львівське (talk) 02:15, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Well... 1/2 - 3/4 of NHL players are Canadian, extending that down to lower levels, where even more Canadians abound... Yeah, I'd say just about every Canadian pro player will end up in it. 70.29.208.247 (talk) 04:20, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Oh I have wanted these gone since Mayumashu started creating them a year or two ago. But thought I was the only one. -DJSasso (talk) 11:52, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

No, you sure aren't. Watching him overcategorize everything is getting absolutely fucking annoying. Resolute 13:29, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Yeah he gets rediculous. And then it becomes practically impossible to undo his work because he interweaves it so much and makes too many categories. And the best part is every time someone tries to delete one of his categories he points to other categories that exist as reasons they should stay, but almost always those were created by him too. He really needs to talk with people before randomly deciding to create a whole new tree. -DJSasso (talk) 13:35, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Such categories need to be deleted; "release the Kraken". GoodDay (talk) 13:46, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Thinking about this further. Maybe we should create a task force for categorization and start trying to cleanup the mess of categorization that has occurred mostly from his catetgories but not only him and start going through our structure to streamline it and clean it up a bit. This is however, very gnomish work and probably pretty boring for most people. -DJSasso (talk) 14:11, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

I shudder to think as to how many of those categories exist. Is there any out there for Red-headed players? GoodDay (talk) 14:16, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Sounds like a job for you... lol! I tried to revert the ridiculous addition of three expat categories to the Theoren Fleury article and he responded by dropping four more in. Just not worth the effort. Resolute 14:18, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Lol..yeah I remove them whenever I encounter him adding them. But its boring even for me to do, he moves too fast I can't keep up. -DJSasso (talk) 14:19, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Who's the fellow with the category fetish, anyways? GoodDay (talk) 14:22, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Mayumashu or however you spell it. The worst, is when he adds ethnicity or decent categories to players based purely on what their last name is. I had that argument with him once and he thought it was ok to do that because it was likely if they had an English last name that they were of English decent. Which is rediculous especially of Canadians because many people changed their last name when immigrating here. -DJSasso (talk) 14:24, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Is there any possible way to force the guy to seek WP:HOCKEY's consent for his category creations? GoodDay (talk) 14:26, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Not really. We don't own the categories, just like we don't own the articles. WP:BOLD allows him to create whatever he thinks is usefull. Its up to us to get consensus to delete them. -DJSasso (talk) 14:29, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

I left him a message, asking him to seek our approval first before creating NHL related categories. GoodDay (talk) 14:33, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

GoodDay, with an attitude like yours, I can see why this project is perceived by some as the "hockey mafia". As a whole, the "mafia" epithet is misplaced; but with you making requests like that on behalf of this project, the mafia comparison is perfect (even if you didn't say "I am requesting this on behalf of WP Hockey, that part is implicit). I recommend you rescind your original request. No one needs approval to create articles or categories on Wikipedia. — Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 15:42, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

I have to agree. We don't own the articles or categories. I wish he would stop overcategorizing articles so badly, but if he wants to, he can. Likewise, we can subsequently clean it up or XfD it and see where consensus lies. Resolute 16:11, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

We can, however, revert them. Hence the R portion of WP:BRD. If he's continuing to be reverted, it's pretty good evidence that consensus to have those categories does not exist. --Smashville^talk 16:24, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Of course, I was taking the R part in this case to be CFD. But a simple revert is effective too. -DJSasso (talk) 16:27, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Very well, let'em categorize freely. GoodDay (talk) 21:36, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

I had a look at Theo Fleury and i think mayumashu might just have ethnicity covered there.. love the category: people from Cree descent.. Triggerbit (talk) 18:29, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

The category war there is getting comical. Mayu notes he is an Anglophone, then Bearcat comes along and decides he's francophone. This is why I absolutely hate these category trees - Articles are mostly added simply because the editor is guessing at what attributes fit. Resolute 19:29, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

I am actually in another discussion on another page where Mayu is getting in trouble for guessing descent based on a picture. And then he admits again that he sometimes guesses based on last name. Yet he calls my suggestion to actually use archived birth certificates etc original research. -DJSasso (talk) 19:35, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

I suggest that certain editors should stop, what may be viewed as, harassing User:Mayumashu. At least Mayumashu is making an effort to add content to the ice hockey project. I do not understand why some editors go to so much wasted effort to jump all over another editor who is trying to make good faith edits. That same energy would be better placed towards improving actual articles within the project. If you don't think the article meets Wikipedia's guidelines for inclusion, then follow the lead of User:RGTraynor and, nominate it for deletion. Dolovis (talk) 22:43, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Actually the whole point is that he is not adding content to the hockey project and is making it harder for those of us who do edit in the hockey project. All he does is create more and more complex webs of categories that make pages more cluttered and making navigation harder. -DJSasso (talk) 23:33, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

• Heck, DJ, if you know of any more cats you think are suspect that this guy's created, nominate them and let us know.  RGTraynor  22:45, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

And ... I've just added Category:American expatriate ice hockey people in Canada to the nonsense. About twenty names in that cat, the only thing distinguishing them is that they once played for Canadian teams. Ludicrous.  RGTraynor  23:05, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

New format for coaching records

As far as I'm aware, there is no standard set for showing the coaching record for coaches. I've seen several different ways, most of them rather bad, and felt that there should be something similar to what we use for players. So I just went ahead and did such a thing, basing it off of the playing statistics summary. An example can be found at Art Ross#Coaching record. Any commentary about it would be good. Kaiser matias (talk) 21:34, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

I think the format you have created is excellent. It keeps the consistency of the articles, especially for player/coaches such as Art Ross. I definitely support it. – Nurmsook! ^talk... 02:29, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Looks good to me. I had done them differently in the past, but I like that look. -DJSasso (talk) 10:27, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

I like it. The squished-together coaching table that seems to be the most common standard has always bothered me. Nice work! — Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 16:15, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Yea, looks good, but with a slight reservation for including team result in stats tables. I can see the use for coaches, but I'm not too fond off having them in player stats tables which have started to pop up among international stats. Thoughts? —Krm500 ^{(Communicate!)} 22:14, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Federal Hockey League

I have a stupid little disagreement at Federal Hockey League. Anyone care to step in? ccwaters (talk) 00:59, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Comments requested at Template:NHLBracket

Myself and another editor are having a bit of a difference of opinion on Template talk:NHLBracket#Team order in the third round that may be helped by some other people giving their two cents. —Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 03:47, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Articles for playoffs

I think a good project to undertake would be the creation of the Stanley Cup playoffs articles, since most NHL seasons currently do not have those, except the last two or three decades or so, and then several more sprinkled around. Jmj713 (talk) 12:38, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Proposed move of banner template

See Template talk:Ice hockey#Requested move. –xeno^talk 13:02, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Infobox for players

After much heated debate, the infobox was changed to include the name at the top of the infobox. For most players this does not mean any kind of change. However for any player who has a bracketed disambiguator like (ice hockey) you will have to set the "name=" parameter in the infobox to their proper name ie "name=Joe Smith". This is similar to what we have to do when using the hockeydb template for such players. -DJSasso (talk) 11:28, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

I'd just as soon the people who demanded this change did the work themselves, but good to know. I'll keep that in mind for future articles. Resolute 14:22, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

no longer will i have to question if the infobox relates to the article.. Triggerbit (talk) 15:20, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

I just gave up arguing with them so implemented the change...personally I think its rediculous to have it added. Especially when we start following the caption guidelines that require us to add the name in a caption below each picture in the infoboxes. -DJSasso (talk) 16:14, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Meh, this change should wipe out the need for a caption. The player's name alone is all that is needed as a caption in 99% of infobox images. Resolute 16:40, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Yeah probably. But you know someone will come along and "insist" we have it. -DJSasso (talk) 16:42, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

It would be interesting to see how many users would support the name if the guideline with a clear caption was followed (i.e. "Summary of ice hockey player NAME's career" or something similar). They quickly disregards it or steers the discussion elsewhere when others point it out. This is just about them pushing their own personal preferences and forcing us into line, not about following web standards and guidelines which they are using as a smoke screen. I'd rather make our infobox look absolutely ridiculous following the real standards then to let them have their way with their personal agenda. —Krm500 ^{(Communicate!)} 12:53, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Heritage Classic

FYI, there is a request to merge the 2003 Heritage Classic into NHL Winter Classic. See Talk:NHL Winter Classic.

76.66.193.224 (talk) 07:55, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

List of games between NHL and non-NHL teams

I think a while back there was a discussion about creating a comprehensive historical listing of all games played by NHL teams against non-NHL teams, but it never went anywhere. With the announcement that there will be six exhibition games prior to the start of next season's Premiere games, and the popularity of the Premiere games themselves, in addition to the Victoria Cup, I'm hoping we could create such a list (which could also be expanded to include NHL games in non-NHL locations). Such games have always interested me, but I was surprised to learn, for example, of the "Friendship Tour '90" which I never knew about. This stuff has to be on here, and it's a shame it isn't. I know it's a big but under-researched topic, but we have smart people working on hockey articles here. I know there are some resources readily available (such as this: http://www.greatesthockeylegends.com/2007/09/nhl-overseas-history.html) but I'm not sure how complete any of them are. Jmj713 (talk) 21:56, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

There were also NHL vs. WHA exhibition games if memory serves. Dbrodbeck (talk) 22:33, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

There was, and if you go back in history, it gets very complicated. There was, of course, the Stanley Cup Finals that pit the NHL against the PCHA and WCHL, but in the years the NHL teams traveled west, they paid for their trips by barnstorming across the country and playing exhibition games. The Calgary Tigers, for instance, faced the old Ottawa Senators in 1921 as they went west for the SCF. They also played the Toronto St. Pats twice before 1922-23 season. I've little doubt the other teams in the western leagues had similar exhibitions, which will be difficult to identify. It might make an interesting list, but prolly not complete. Resolute 03:31, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

There is also this: http://www.iihf.com/home-of-hockey/club-events/victoria-cup/nhl-euro-record.html which seems a lot more comprehensive. There was this cool Bruins-Rangers European tour in 1959 which is totally unknown: http://www.nhl.com/ice/news.htm?id=499539 http://www.iihf.com/home-of-hockey/news/news-singleview/article/rangers-no-strangers.html http://www.icehockeyuk.co.uk/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=122&catid=43 I think this would be a great article to create, especially if it's not just a dry listing of games. I don't know how possible it would be to have boxscores, but at least some description should be added. Jmj713 (talk) 13:26, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Didn't Gretzky go on tour with team filled with NHLers in the 90's, playing against European teams? —Krm500 ^{(Communicate!)} 23:35, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

That was during the 1994-95 (Oct-Jan) NHL lockout. GoodDay (talk) 23:26, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

RQ Move: Sergei Gaiduchenko >> Sergei Gayduchenko

Someone started a discussion on a page move, there was zero consensus, but a non-involved user decided to move it to Gaiduchenko and now it's stuck there. Gayduchenko seems to have more sources, and is the proper translit, so can one of you guys move it to the more correct name please? Thanks --Львівське (talk) 17:40, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Done, though this is not the spelling you were battling the user over previously... Resolute 20:02, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, I opted for birth-name transliteration in lieu of popular conensus, but if they wanna harp on the russian name being the title, so be it, at least do it right. Thanks for the help Res' --Львівське (talk) 20:33, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

KHL team names

Can anyone help me sort out what the proper team names are? Alot of them are done in the clubname_city format, but the teams themselves a lot of the time are just HC_clubname or just the club name, with the city name in brackets as a disambig. Example, Avtomobilist. Anyone want to discuss this before I start making some page moves that I'll end up flip flopping on? :-P --Львівське (talk) 13:37, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

The KHL used to have an english page did it not? If it still does I would say copy over exactly what they have on the english version of their page. -DJSasso (talk) 13:41, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Used to, but that was the old site. I figured it might be best to go on a team-by-team basis on what they prefer individually, since there is zero consistency on English sites.--Львівське (talk) 13:52, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Are there any major oganizing bodies that would have a list of names. Say the IIHF or NHL. Pick one and then use what they use so that while there is still a little POV doing it that way, atleast we are consistent with one source across all names. -DJSasso (talk) 13:58, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

The NHL lists statistics for most former NHL players now playing in the KHL. That could be our guideline, but I would be hesitant to use it. Just look at Jaromir Jagr's page and you'll see why: "Avangard Omsk Region". I've never heard them called that, only "Avangard Omsk", and maybe the more informal "Avangard". — Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 03:24, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

I'd say keep using the format team_name city_name, as we have always done. The trend seen at the KHL site to use team name without city name seems a bit ridiculous when you see the number of teams which include the city name in their logo: Dynamo Moscow, Vityaz "Moscow Oblast", SKA Saint-Petersburg, Torpedo Nijni-Novgorod, Dinamo Minsk, the two Metallurgs, and the initial in the case of Sibir Novosibirsk. Add HC in front rather than HK (and not in brackets) if it is part of the team name (only HC MVD in this case) or to differentiate it from sections in other sports of the same club (e.g. HC Spartak Moscow and FC Spartak Moscow). That way we could have some consistency and be closer the most frequent use, at least for article titles. In the body of articles or in charts, there is obviously more freedom to do what feels right in the case of any particular context. Place Clichy (talk) 09:53, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

The way I'm seeing it, EVERY team has HC as a suffix. HC MVD was the only one where it HAD to be used every time, because MVD alone is the police, so they had to disambiguate. It seems to me that the club name is the most important as its always in quotations or <<>>'s and the city is more times than not omitted or in parenthesis. They seem to do it like football, ie. Arsenal FC or simply Arsenal, not "Arsenal London". Also, we can't go by the logos since I find they are different than the official branding (sokil kyiv's logo says HC Sokil, but their official branding is always name_city and never HC)--Львівське (talk) 13:59, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

I think that Arsenal is not the best example, as there are too many football teams in London for one to be called London FC. The general case for any sport is not that several teams share the same city. The only equivalent cases in the KHL would be for suburban Moscow teams such as HC MVD or Atlant, although Vityaz has made sure to use "Vityaz Podolsk" as soon as they moved in this city. Place Clichy (talk) 18:33, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

We use KHL and not CHL, so why should it be HC instead of HK? —Krm500 ^{(Communicate!)} 12:56, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Well, besides what sasso said below, but XK in Russian is transliterated as KH K in english, so HC makes much more sense (hockey club vs. khokkey klub)--Львівське (talk) 13:51, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

We use KHL because that is how the KHL itself branded itself on its english website which no longer exists. I don't know that a team has officially branded itself with HK. -DJSasso (talk) 13:06, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Site exists, en.khl.ru--Львівське (talk) 14:25, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

In that case I would use the names as found on http://en.khl.ru/clubs/. -DJSasso (talk) 14:28, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

If the KHL intends us to believe that their clubs are called just "Spartak" and "Dynamo", whereas they have always been called Spartak Moscow or Dynamo Moscow, I don't think we should follow suit. (BTW I don't even think they inted that) For the record, "Dynamo" can just as well refer to the Dynamos of Minsk, Berlin, Bucharest, and Spartak Prague or Sofia, not to mention the other sports sections of these clubs. Place Clichy (talk) 18:33, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Which would be club name, no city, no HC. --Львівське (talk) 15:04, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Forgot about them being cyrillic lol. I need some coffee. —Krm500 ^{(Communicate!)} 14:18, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

HC is preferable to HK imho because it stands for Hockey Club, which is the translation of Хоккейный клуб, and about every European club in Europe using a version of this expression in their name has HC in the English version of their name. (See Category:Ice hockey teams in Switzerland or Category:Ice hockey teams in Sweden for a few examples.) We use KHL because the KHL branded itself KHL in order to differentiate itself from the CHL. Likewise, the Colonial Hockey League made itself know as the CoHL. We still call it the Continental Hockey league in English right? As well, we translate CCCP as USSR, not SSSR, right? The choice between translation or transliteration has to be determined by the presence of a widely-used translated English version of the term available. That would bring us to say HC rather than HK, USSR rather than SSSR, but still Ak Bars or Spartak for clubs that are never, ever, called Snow Leopards or Spartacus. (or KGB, which is a transliteration, rather than its little-known translation) Place Clichy (talk) 18:33, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

So has there been a decision on UHC or OHK Dynamo Moscow yet? players are starting to get signed..OHK seems prevalent everywhere. thanks to the DEL i have no idea if teams are supposed to be spelt in mixed english or not Triggerbit (talk) 20:06, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Another discussion to change more of our infobox

More changes have been proposed for the infobox at Template talk:Infobox ice hockey player#Further cleanup work. -DJSasso (talk) 13:58, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

as a lay person this is starting to annoy me.. these two users proposed infobox changes attaining to "emerging wiki standards" is a facade to appease their own aesthetic preferences imo...the fact that they are non contributing ice hockey users shouldn't be as easily dismissed as previously mentioned in the name debate (still not a fan)..when it comes down to it only the users around here are doing the work to maintain the guidelines and that shouldn't be discounted as biased or whatever..eh anyway as someone who cant keep up wit the lingo and reasoning in the debate, i hope dj and resolute can retain the usability! ..btw <br /> is just fine as it is.. Triggerbit (talk) 18:00, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

This one is just a tempest in a teapot, really. On the balance, the coding changes (once a couple bugs are fixed) will see no real change in the template but will increase the efficiency of the code. The only issue, really, is stylistic. The only question is whether they will do the work to ensure the new template can offer the style we've settled on or not. What bugs me is the attitude of "I'm going to take something away and leave it to you to go beg for its return". That is the entirely wrong way to try and get me on board with something. Resolute 00:59, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, that is my issue as well. If you want to change something you need to do it so that the current functionality is still there. Andy seems to get into this issue alot, the ANI and VP pages are filled with people upset that he adds something which in the end results in a worse experience for the reader. Usually in regards to adding microformats. Which are barely used by anyone in the real world. -DJSasso (talk) 15:46, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

When Wikipedia comes crashing down upon itself, it's failure will be at the hands of the zealots. Unfortunately, a site this big with so many factions and opinions breeds a great many of them. Resolute 19:48, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

If you (collectively) wish to deride me and my actions (or others'), then please have the courtesy to do it where the relevant discussion is already taking place; or at least post a pointer there. As it is, your description here and in #Infobox for players above are false; and in some cases constitute personal attacks. Also WP:OWN applies here as much as elsewhere on Wikipedia. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 15:46, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

I love how you constantly spout off about people making personal attacks, and yet you keep calling people liars by saying what they have said is false. -DJSasso (talk) 16:01, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Resolute, consider this a warning for repeated aspersions of bad faith and indiscriminate name-calling. Keep it civil or don't comment on others at all, and I mean that. DJSasso, {{infobox ice hockey player}} is not "your" infobox, nor is it "my" infobox or anyone else's. Arguments should be based on what's best for the project as a whole, not on property rights. Triggerbit, the changes are being proposed piecemeal precisely because it's best to get involvement at each stage of the process rather than making huge changes all at once. This particular set of changes results in almost no change to the output of the template, and I'd very much like to be done with it and move onto something more productive myself. Anyway, I'd encourage anyone who has specific questions about the changes involved or why they're being proposed to let me know and I'll try to help out. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 16:45, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

I never claimed it was my infobox. Stop trying lay ownership issues on anyone who disagrees with you. When I said our above. I mean the one our project uses which is a purely legitimate use of the word. Perhaps instead of constantly being condescending and unwilling to work with people you might actually try to work with people instead of just saying you want to work with them and then ignore everything they have to say. -DJSasso (talk) 16:49, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Accusations of casting aspersions is rich coming from you, Chris, especially given your own history of failing to AGF as I cautioned you about not too long ago. I suggested on the template talk page that you should create a new discussion here on your proposed changes so as to better engage the hockey editors so as to help resolve things. But, by all means, be combative. Who knows? Maybe that will work too... Resolute 18:02, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

This isn't getting us anywhere, much like it didn't get us anywhere the last ten times this broke down into personal bickering. I would like to think that I've at least tried to stay above it, and will continue to do so by disengaging until others have had their input. I would encourage everyone else who has previously been involved in this discussion to do the same. If no new commentary is forthcoming then I'll take this to RfC or other wikiprojects as with the last time. For the record, I would like to remind people that Andy doesn't speak for me even though we may have the same opinions of various technical matters. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 18:43, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

So you are saying you will forum shop until you get your way? Why not instead of staying silent actually try to work with us to find ways to incorporate the grouping we use in some fashion or another. It doesn't necessarily have to be blue lines. But if you want to come to a desired outcome usually you work together to establish a mutual agreement. You don't just stay silent and then go elsewhere to try and force your preferred version on them. -DJSasso (talk) 18:47, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

What I said was that I would go through the same process of gradual escalation / input-seeking as with the title debate, which I believe was resolved amicably (by yourself, no less). I don't expect to be accused of acting in bad faith by you again. Anyway, we're done here. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 18:54, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Correct, I did end it and made the change, because someone finally made an arguement for why we should have it beyond "That's how everyone does it so you have to do it." In otherwords people worked with us instead of tried to force us. All I am asking for here is why don't you try and see if there aren't ways you can solve the one issue we have instead of gradual escalation. Both me and Resolute were clearly willing to work with you at the beginning of the discussion on the template talk page prior to Andy's jumping in and basically going straight back to the "its this way or else" method of change. You catch alot more flies with honey than vinegar. You just happened to stumple upon a project that often has very strong views on both ends of the spectrum but have learned how to work together and through debate we almost always come to an agreed upon solution. We aren't a bunch to just accept things as is. You need to back up your position and give the benefits. You clearly spelled out the benefits of most of your changes and thats why I and Resolute have had no problem with it. You haven't really explained why something as simple as allowing for lines to group information is not remotely an option. This is what I and I am sure others would love to see a reason for. -DJSasso (talk) 18:59, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Sub-headings for team lists in infobox

The issue of the correct use of sub-headings for team lists in {{Infobox ice hockey player}} is being discussed at Template talk:Infobox ice hockey player#Sub-headings for teams. Comments welcome. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 15:23, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Current roster templates

Any specific reason hockey teams do not have them while other sports do? It would help with navigation between players on a team. DandyDan2007 (talk) 21:59, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Could also add Stanley Cup championship teams as well to that. DandyDan2007 (talk) 22:02, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

We do have them. GoodDay (talk) 22:14, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

We chose not to have them (navboxes I assume that you are referring to) because they clutter the articles and a player is not defined by other who played for the same team at a certain point. There have been plenty of discussions about it here and there is an overwhelming consensus about it among our editors. —Krm500 ^{(Communicate!)} 23:12, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Basically a number of policies say you shouldn't have them for such things, our project as well as a few other sports have chosen to still follow that standard. Some other north american sports choose to use them anyways. Basically it comes down to they clutter up the page and overwhelm the reader with alot of low value links. -DJSasso (talk) 23:52, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Yup. For me at least, such templates are of no value and only clutter articles with irrelevant links. I am quite happy that hockey editors have settled on the consensus that we don't use those templates. Personally, I wish other sports would follow suit, but c'est la vie. Resolute 00:53, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Mostly because something like this happens.

navbox overload

As can be seen, it looks ridiculous and ultimately becomes a detriment to the article. Kaiser matias (talk) 00:57, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

There is a solution to this: {{navboxes}}, a wrapper template which collapses the whole lot. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 22:12, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

That does not solve the problem of burying useful links in useful templates under a large mountain of irrelevant links. Navboxes should not replace or duplicate article content, and that is precicely what that embarrassing mess of templates on Derek Jeter's article does. Resolute 22:23, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Oh dear: that really is excessive. Looks like the problem is more that most of those templates shouldn't exist at all rather than that they need to be better presented. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 23:15, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

You will find very little disagreement here, lol! The image you threw into the show/hide box is all of Jeter's templates expanded. I look at those templates, and I find it is useful to know that Jeter won the World Series in 2009 and was the 1996 AL ROY. It is not useful to know on Jeter's article that Phil Hughes was also a Yankee in 2009 and that Herb Score won the ROY in 1955. Succession boxes highlight the important information (that he won the award) while stripping away the irrelevancy of who else won. That is why we've routinely deleted roster and award templates (even championship rosters - their POV nature notwithstanding). It's also why TonyTheTiger took to calling us the "Hockey Mafia". I'd like it if the baseball project cleaned up that mess, but it is a futile fight. Resolute 23:23, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

I need clarification: Weren't we discussing current roster templates? GoodDay (talk) 22:24, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Several users replying seem to have gotten the impression that the roster templates being discussed are the roster navboxes depicted in the image above. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 23:01, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Yup. The OP was talking about something like this: {{Toronto Blue Jays roster navbox}}. Resolute 23:03, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

We don't need any current team roster navigation boxes. We've got the current team roster templates on the 30 NHL team articles. GoodDay (talk) 13:24, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Copyedit of Hod Stuart

If anyone is interested, I wouldn't mind having the Hod Stuart article copyedited. I'm planning on sending it to FAC in the next few days, and a final look over by somebody familiar with hockey before it gets picked apart there would be nice. Kaiser matias (talk) 00:59, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Trying to FA the entire 1945 HHOF class, eh? I'll try to review/copyedit it sometime today. Resolute 15:09, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

That is the long-term plan. Kind of just started happening, and now its at a point where I might as well finish it off. Should be done within a few months, I'd wager. Kaiser matias (talk) 17:43, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Bob Wilson disambig

OK, so scanning through our to-do list, I found Bob Wilson (hockey announcer), which I tried to move to Bob Wilson (ice hockey), but couldn't, since (ice hockey) is actually a redirect to List of players who played only one game in the NHL, where there's another Bob Wilson who doesn't have his own article whatsoever, but may possibly even be (hockey announcer), since he would be 24 during his only game, so I don't know what to do except take a break. –Schmloof (talk · contribs) 05:48, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Upon checking Bob Wilson career statistics at The Internet Hockey Database, I can safely assume they are not the same person, but I would like input on how to name the articles. Thanks. –Schmloof (talk · contribs) 06:37, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

(ice hockey b. year) like usual for both of them. And then change the redirect of (ice hockey) to redirect to the bob wilson disambig page. -DJSasso (talk) 10:33, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Infobox design, part three

Ok, moving past the stupidity of the thread above, Chris is trying to push for some code optimization on the infobox template (explanation is here) The optimized code leaves the template virtually the same, with the lone exception of removing the blue dividing lines as the {{Infobox}} meta-template does not support this. The simple question is whether there is an issue with this update. Examples of current and updated look are here. Please check them out and comment. Resolute 18:23, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm content eitherway. GoodDay (talk) 18:29, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

I like the lines, easier to find a section. Not sure what the issues would be, other than preference. Canada Hky (talk) 18:50, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

The issue is that they're not supported in the new code design for technical reasons. The coloured headers style used in {{infobox NBA Player}} / {{infobox tennis biography}} / {{infobox football biography 2}} is, however, and I'd be happy to propose a version which uses that style of separator. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 18:56, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps mock up a version for us on the test cases page? Unless its alot of coding to do so. This is what I was hoping you would do. Actually see if there aren't other options besides all or none. -DJSasso (talk) 19:02, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Easily done, though it won't be tonight (as I'm taking a rest from this particular issue right now). I'll ping this thread when the new test cases are up. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 22:08, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Personally, I would rather not use the coloured headers. If we do away with the lines, I'd rather just leave it as the current mockup looks. It's cleaner, simpler, and is closer in style to many other infoboxes. The NBA/NFL style is just fugly. Resolute 19:05, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Probably my opinion as well, but can't hurt to have all the examples on the table. -DJSasso (talk) 19:07, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

I always thought that other sports infoboxes look gaudy, and it seems a little bit tacky to have team colours splashed on what should be an information source, to say nothing of not accurately representing players who have represented multiple teams, and clashing when the infobox picture doesn't match the team. Neutral and unassuming dividers would be my preference. Canada Hky (talk) 19:08, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

If we kept the dividers the neutral blue/grey we use for the current lines or in our stats tables perhaps that would make them seem less gaudy. -DJSasso (talk) 19:11, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Maybe, but I doubt it given retired players on those infoboxes tend to use neutral greys (i.e.: Wilt Chamberlain). It just strikes me as unnecessary bloat. Resolute 19:21, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

I would go for either keeping something similar to what is used now, which looks rather good and clean, or removing them. Like everyone else, I find most other infoboxes with colours hideous looking. Kaiser matias (talk) 19:23, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Yeah I would go with #1 preference keep, #2 preference none. (but I know Chris knows that.) -DJSasso (talk) 19:24, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

yeah i prefer lines, then nothing...i'm predicting next there's going to be a debate about including years played in the infoxbox..beast from da east will come out in full force! Triggerbit (talk) 19:40, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

I like the lines, I can live without them but then I would also like to see some effort for actually trying to implement them into infobox before they are dismissed. I just don't like how that Andy fellow is acting with all this, and if possible I'd like to see the names removed since they make the infobox look tacky, serve no valid purpouse other then microformat which can easily be implemented without the names displayed, and does not conform to established web nor newspaper standards. —Krm500 ^{(Communicate!)} 19:44, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

I slightly prefer the version without the dividing lines; the divisions are clear enough without them and so a tiny bit of visual clutter is avoided. Isaac Lin (talk) 19:46, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Not sure if you noticed, and excuse me if you have, but the lines are grouping together multiple lines. Removing the lines has removed the groupings so you can't really see the divisions anymore when you remove them. You only see space between each line rather than divisions between each group. (ie currently born/died is grouped together. height/weight, current team/former teams, draft/career status) -DJSasso (talk) 19:49, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

My preference would be to decrease the spacing between related items rather than using horizontal lines to separate groups (and in fact the current version does have spacing differences). Given the conciseness of the infobox, less decoration seems sufficient. Isaac Lin (talk) 20:11, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

New version, with headers

Okay: I've updated the sandbox with a new version which uses coloured headers rather than borders to separate the different sections. This closely matches the layout used in almost all other sportsperson biography infobox templates. A comparison of old and new is available at the test cases page. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 09:32, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

• Yeah, that is most definitely my least favourite design. Simpler is better. Resolute 15:17, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
• The new one is much better; and much more closely aligned with the rest of Wikipedia, which is good. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 15:22, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
• As long as the number of headers is kept to a minimum (they should be fewer than the number of horizontal lines in the existing infobox), then I think having headings is a reasonable approach. Isaac Lin (talk) 15:33, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
• I don't think headers are required to explain the infobox, that's why the lines are there. It's redundant to read a header with draft information with a sub heading of NHL draft directly below. Triggerbit (talk) 18:29, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
• I like this version much better than the current! Much more simpler to read, than with all those lines in between. I like that it is divided into a personal and a professional section. The draft section is probably unneeded, but it doesn't hurt if it's the only extra. lil2mas (talk) 21:02, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
• I've added the line-less, pre-blue-header version proposed earlier to the test cases page. My favourite is the one with blue lines, but as I understand, they are not to be used for technical reasons, right? I don't like the headers because a) their meanings are pretty obvious and they add very little value for the space they take up; b) as stated before, the draft info seems too small to have its own section; c) "professional info". What about amateurs? and d) they take away from the honour of being in the hall of fame. The HoF thing is a lot less noticable, and I can't imagine a way of emphasizing it in this style without becoming too gaudy with many colors. Therefore, I support the line-less over the headers (but I prefer the lines). –Schmloof (talk · contribs) 23:44, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Correct the version with the lines can't be done currently because the template he wants to use can't support them. However, as far as I know there is no technical reason why it can't be added to the template. I started trying to fiddle with the infobox code in my sandbox to try and optimize the code to how he proposes without having to use the infobox template itself, so that we could keep the lines. But I haven't had the time to really give it a good go of it. -DJSasso (talk) 12:34, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
• I don't really find the headers to add that much to the infobox. It also seems that they make the box larger, which is a little annoying. So I'll stand by what I've said before: I'd go with the original with the lines, then the one without the lines. Kaiser matias (talk) 23:58, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
• I think the one with headers look tacky, keep the old one and remove the names preferably. If it ain't broken... —Krm500 ^{(Communicate!)} 13:57, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
• My preference in order is lines, nothing, and then boxes. If we can't have the thin lines, fine - but the coloured boxes don't add anything except space. Canada Hky (talk) 16:46, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Also, I prefer the draft information the way it was before, with year, position and team being displayed under one heading, having two sections (for year, position and team) just seems like a way to justify the heading. Canada Hky (talk) 16:48, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Name

Ok, I still want to get rid of it but until that happens can someone please at least move it outside of the infobox (like the basketball infobox) so it doesn't look utterly ridiculous and only looks quite ridiculous? —Krm500 ^{(Communicate!)} 00:17, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Oh god no. It looks horrible outside the box floating in the middle of nowhere. It looks a million times better in the box with the information its talking about. Personally I would rather not have it at all, but if we do have it, it should atleast be inside the box with the information its displaying. -DJSasso (talk) 11:29, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

I tend to agree with Krm500 that it looks better as a caption outside the box; on the other hand, that also makes it look more redundant with the article title. Powers ^T 20:33, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Either way its like tits on a bull. Triggerbit (talk) 04:25, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

2010 NHL Entry Draft

Less than three weeks now until the Draft and all the editing and deletions that comes with. It's rather amazing to look at the page hits for the top prospects... Hall and Seguin were both between 20-30k hits for May, and the rest of the top ten NA and Euro skaters are in the 2-4k range. I'm working on expanding articles for the top prospects, but if anyone would like to help, especially for the European players, it would be appreciated. Good chance to show off the quality of our work as these articles will be busy. Resolute 19:29, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Charlotte Checkers page moving

Can some one help move Official AHL Charlotte Checkers back to Charlotte Checkers (2010–) there is a user who has been moving all of the Checkers pages and I didn't notice this one till today and when I tried to revert it I just changed the redirect, and I'm not sure how to actually move it. Also if I'm in the wrong with what the name should be please let me know. I'm not sure on this page but the user has moved the other Checker pages they have been reverted by someone else based on WP:Naming Conventions. Thanks--Mo Rock...Monstrous (talk) 16:41, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Never mind someone got to it already. I'll keep an eye out for any further moves.--Mo Rock...Monstrous (talk) 16:43, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

IIHF World Ranking question and olympic Men's qualification tournament

The current ranking only shows the movements after the 2010 olympic tournament but doesnt list that ranking below in the 2003-2009 table. For example after the 2009 WC Australia was 31st, after the olympic tournament they were demoted to 34th but in the current table for 2010 it says they havent moved from 34. So my question is should the 2010 ranking at february be listed as a seperate column in the 2003-2009 table or should the 2010 february and 2010 rankings be merged so you can see the countries movements from 2009 to 2010? Scraping this question, see below. Salavat (talk) 08:48, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

While im here i have another question regarding the Ice hockey at the 2010 Winter Olympics – Men's qualification tournament. Current explanation says that teams 10 to 30 got to playoff for a qualification spot, however the Preliminary Round consisted of Spain, Bulgaria, Mexico and Turkey who were ranked 36th, 32nd, 37th, and 41st at the time of the tournament, so it really doesnt follow the current definition. Anyone know why or have a source that could explain how these lower ranked teams got in? Salavat (talk) 11:13, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

To answer the second question, a bunch of nations declined the invitation to the qualification tournament, so lower ranked teams were brought in to replace them. I'll see if I can find a source. – Nurmsook! ^talk... 02:51, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Chicago Blackhawks

Which Hawks season should we link to? 2009-10 or 2010-11. See discussion at relevant article talk. GoodDay (talk) 23:04, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Propose update to team pages format

I have made a page with suggestions to the team pages format. I was looking at the NHL pages, and starting working on header changes for the NHL teams to make the articles to conform, but I think we need to discuss how to go forward. The articles carry a lot more information than is discussed in the existing standard which is getting a bit old. I've added the new page at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Ice_Hockey/Proposed_team_pages_format and the talk is at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ice Hockey/Proposed team pages format. The old page is at Wikipedia:WikiProject Ice Hockey/Team pages format. Don't be too hard on my suggestion. ʘ alaney2k ʘ (talk) 00:02, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

IIHF World Ranking format change

Ok scrap my first question from above, ive set up a new table based on the German wikipedias article and would like some responses to whether or not it should replace the old style. I also made a calculations part but i think its pretty shocking so if anyone can add or change that, that would be great. Thanks, Salavat (talk) 08:48, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

I like the new way. Much cleaner and shows where the points are coming from. I also think the historical records need to be revamped somehow, because they're not very clean or easy to navigate. –Schmloof (talk · contribs) 00:53, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the response, i went ahead and changed the format. Ill see if i can come up with any ideas on fixing the historical records. Salavat (talk) 05:43, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

RFC to change NSPORTS to Guideline to replace ATHLETE

An RFC has been started to promote WP:NSPORTS to a guideline to replace WP:ATHLETE now that discussions on its development have pretty much come to a close. See Wikipedia talk:Notability (sports)#RfC: Promote Notability (sports) to a guideline for the discussion. -DJSasso (talk) 11:25, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Where was the discussion on the ice hockey component of this? I would have suggested something season-related, rather than 100 games as a standard for 'near-major' leagues like the AHL or European leagues. I'm not sure whether to support or oppose... ʘ alaney2k ʘ (talk) 16:06, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Its in the archive and on top of that there were numerous warnings that it was ongoing posted to this page with links to the discussions on that page. -DJSasso (talk) 16:49, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

One thing to remember is this doesn't mean pages below this get deleted. It just means below this you can no longer assume that sources exist. You have to proove it. Unlike with ATHLETE which currently allows you to assume sources exist if someone plays one shift in the Central Hockey League. -DJSasso (talk) 16:53, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

How often do things get put into the archive? It looks like the discussion is only just over a month old. I guess I was busy on the Phoenix article. ʘ alaney2k ʘ (talk) 18:46, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

They go into the archive after 3 weeks with no comments. So for that discussion it was up 19 days between first and last comment and then 3 weeks later in the archive. So that is 40 days it was on the talk page. -DJSasso (talk) 18:49, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Are you doing this by hand? The above section 'New format for coaching records' is over three weeks old. ʘ alaney2k ʘ (talk) 19:04, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

No a bot does it based on the last comment in the section. Sometimes a bot will miss some because the signature got messed up by someone. But its always 3 weeks after the last comment. It can also be off by a day or two depending on the bot sometimes doing its run right before a post hits 3 weeks etc. But in general its 3 weeks from the last timestamp, so sometime today or early in the morning that one will be archived. -DJSasso (talk) 19:09, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

The bot also only runs if a page size threshold is surpassed as well, iirc. At any rate, there is no harm in discussing individual changes, but for situations like you suggest Alaney, that is why I threw the final line in - If a player meets GNG, it doesn't matter if they played 12 games in the CoHL, 31 in the QMJHL or two seasons in the Swedish third division. As noted, the rest of the lines simply assume that a player at that level has the coverage so as to be notable. Resolute 00:14, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Blackhawks Parade in Chicago

Is there an article or section somewhere regarding the parade in Chicago yesterday? My understanding is that the turnout was substantial (~2million). Perhaps someone could get some free images of the parade on flickr, or somewhere else? Thanks in advance for the help! ---kilbad (talk) 15:39, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

This would go into the 2010 Stanley Cup Finals article, not a separate article. — Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 04:06, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Ok, someone has helped us find some photos. See Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Chicago#Blackhawks_Parade_in_Chicago. Would you consider helping to add them to an appropriate section? ---kilbad (talk) 12:32, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Honestly, the best article to add that to would be 2009–10_Chicago_Blackhawks_season. I'm suprised no one has expanded it yet. Is there a blackhawks taskforce? BTW: 2 million is a lot, but isn't uncommon for championship parades: it doesn't warrant its own article. ccwaters (talk) 13:00, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

The season articles don't get much work beyond a couple teams that have multiple editors following them. The Blackhawks don't really have any regular editors. Philly and Pittsburgh seem to be the only teams where they get multiple people diligently doing the season articles. A few teams seem to be kept up by a single editor. But most never get updated at all. -DJSasso (talk) 17:41, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

And you have no idea how frustrating it was to keep the Flames article up to date. "Oh yay, another loss. woo! /slitwrists" Resolute 17:48, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Maritime Hockey League

The Maritime Junior A Hockey League has rebranded itself as the "Maritime Hockey League".... there is already a Maritime Hockey League article for a different league. How should the naming convention apply here? DMighton (talk) 05:46, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Hang on, I'll take care of it ...  RGTraynor  15:43, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

League status question

I've come across the article Neil Adams (ice hockey) and I'm not sure whether the EPIHL qualifies as a fully professional minor league. I will try to add some sources to the article, however I want to ensure it meets notability requirements (such as outlined at WP:NSPORTS) first. Jezebel'sPonyo^shhh 19:11, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

If all the players are paid its fully professional, I don't believe players in the EPIHL are but I am not positive. However, that particular player played in the British National League as well which means he meets the current WP:ATHLETE. NSPORTS is still just a proposal. Find sources to make him pass GNG and neither athlete or nsports will matter. -DJSasso (talk) 19:17, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice; I'll see what sources I can dig up. The reason I mentioned NSPORTS is that I find it much more useful in trying to determine notability as it is specific to each sport and contains nuances not available at WP:ATHLETE. It's a useful tool if you're unfamiliar with the structure of the professional/amatuer levels of a particular sport, however I woul defer to WP:ATH prior to taking an article to AfD or PROD. Thanks again for the help, --Jezebel'sPonyo^shhh 19:34, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

EPIHL teams are usually semi-pro, with a handful of pros on each team. Sources for players who have only played at that level are very hard to come by and they do not usually meet the GNG. Oldelpaso (talk) 15:57, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

List of Stanley Cup Finals appearances

Would anyone oppose to this list being merged with List of Stanley Cup champions? The only reason I created the page is because a few years ago I was trying to get the champions page to FL, so I revamped the "appearances" table to make it was shorter and more efficient. A whiny user didn't like this, and so, in order to get rid of him and prevent him from spoiling the FLC, I split it off. In other words, this is content forking. All of the non-table content is copied from the champions list, which would also benefit from having the table in one article rather than two. The "years of appearances" column would be removed to save room, but it doesn't matter because the table is sortable any way. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 02:54, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

I don't see any problem with it. I doubt anyone else really would either. Kaiser matias (talk) 03:02, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

I was one of the whiny users you got rid of, but now I'd be against merging the two articles. In fact, didn't you propose this once before and it never went anywhere? I think it's fine as it is, and the years of appearances column is one of the biggest reason that table exists. Jmj713 (talk) 14:22, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

It's still content forking and "I think it's fine as it is" is simply a WP:ILIKEIT aregument. It largely duplicates content from another page, and everything would be much more useful if merged. As for the appearances column, there's no need to duplicate content from the main table, and users can either sort the table to find the years a team won, or use ctrl-F, or go to that team's page and check the infobox. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 14:46, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Why make the reader do all that work when this information is already available to them in a easy-to-understand format? Jmj713 (talk) 21:19, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Except that we aren't making the reader do all the work. It is very, very easy to press the "sort" button. Besides, let's not forget wikipedia is not a dumping ground for statistics; in other words, that same information is already in the main champions table, so there is no need to organize it different ways. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 21:37, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

If you take away the years column, there's no longer an easy way to see all the years any given team has been in the Finals at a glance, and no easy way to compare that to any other team. I'm totally against that.Jmj713 (talk)

Okay, how about a compromise. What if the tables were kept exactly as they are now but still merged into the main list. Would that be acceptable? -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 16:27, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

I know alaney2k is strongly opposed to a merge, but I wouldn't mind it per se, given the main table and records are unchanged. My concern would be the size of the resulting article. I know some other sports list their final series and overall appearances in the same article, but just looking at some of them, especially the NBA, they seem to be much shorter, I guess because the Stanley Cup's history dates back so far. Jmj713 (talk) 17:02, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

The merged article would be around 80,000 (and could be trimmed if the links were removed). That's big, but not a completely unmanageable size. As for the records, they really don't belong in the champions article. Any real records should go in the main Stanley Cup article, the rest are just unsourced trivia and should be cut. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 17:14, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

I'd hardly call those stats trivia, unsourced or not. I'd love to find citations for those interesting facts, and I know alaney's started doing that already. Jmj713 (talk) 17:31, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

• Strongly Oppose List of Stanley Cup champions is long enough as it is. Leave it split. They are better kept separate on length reasons alone. They fit well in the book separately.ʘ alaney2k ʘ (talk) 15:26, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
  • List of Stanley Cup champions is 68,000 bytes. The appearances page is 16,000 bytes. The trimmed version comes in at around 6,000 bytes, so combined they would be under 75,000. That's a manageable length, there are much bigger and longer pages out there. Besides, having one page is far more useful than having two that say the same thing, which is content forking. The appearances table is the least important section of the article. If a split was going to be made due to length, I would say splitting the Challenge Cup and NHL era champion lists would make more sense (but, again, it's not necessary). Also, no other comparable page (that I could find) splits up the main & appearances tables. For example: List of Super Bowl champions, List of World Series champions, List of NBA champions, List of Grey Cup champions and List of FIFA World Cup finals (all of which are FLs) combine the tables. Why should we be any different? -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 17:19, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
    • You're making the same argument over and over. Is that the best you can do? It's not the byte count, it's the length. Look at it from the book point of view. Better to have two entries in the book table of contents than one. ʘ alaney2k ʘ (talk) 05:32, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
      • Byte count is generally given more consideration than the actual length of the article. It's not a horribly long article, and adding an additional table wouldn't add a lot to it. I put together a quick version of what a merged page would look like here, and it comes in at 71 kb. What is so wrong about that? There are much larger pages in terms of length (List of members of the Hockey Hall of Fame) and size (List of family relations in the NHL), and rather than having everything split up you have it all on one page. My main concern is making the mainspace article as good as possible, so how it looks in book form should be given no consideration here. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 15:01, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

If merged they should be renamed, right? —Krm500 ^{(Communicate!)} 15:36, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

No, it would still be "List of Stanley Cup champions". For those who are wondering what the shortened table would look like, this is the version that I tried shortening to (and the teams with no appearances would probably be moved) -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 17:19, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Why can't you leave well enough alone?Jmj713 (talk) 00:57, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Do you have any real arguments as to why the page should be kept? Besides, I see one very good page (List of Stanley Cup champions) missing a table that most other comparable lists have. It would be much more useful to have both lists in one place, which means users don't have to go between two pages, and it makes it easier to find for newer users (and looking through the talk page, a user commented on this). -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 01:13, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

I support a move, but wouldn't it be better to name it List of Stanley Cup finals or something? —Krm500 ^{(Communicate!)} 01:30, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

If I were to merge anything it would be the post-season droughts and the appearances articles. The topics are similar and make a decent length article. ʘ alaney2k ʘ (talk) 05:49, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

I think List of Stanley Cup Final overtime series winners should be merged into the main list as well, since it already notes game winning goals. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 15:01, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

What about making a series? Start with a 'Stanley Cup Finals' page and have all the various articles grouped like that? Champions, Appearances, maybe a History of, Records/Statistics? Some sort of combination like that would make a good series IMO. ʘ alaney2k ʘ (talk) 15:37, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

But again, what is the point of creating a series when one article suffices? When splits are made due to length, the new article should still meet all the standards of a stand-alone list, and I don't think this one does. As for a Records/Statistics page, I'm kind of surprised that there isn't one already. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 15:46, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

You seem unwilling to see anyone's point of view except your own. Jmj713 (talk) 14:02, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

If you could create a mockup Scorpion this would probably go smoother. I can see the argument for a combined entity. But I would like to see it first. -DJSasso (talk) 17:42, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

User:Scorpion0422/Biggererer page of messin' around. It comes in at 71,000 bytes, which is only 4,000 larger than than the pre-trimmed version of the main list. I could shorten it even more if I removed the links from appearances table. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 17:51, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Works for me. I don't really have a problem with a merge. As long as it stays under 75k. That being said as the list grows its probably going to have to be split again. -DJSasso (talk) 17:54, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Well, it will be a long time before we have to worry about that. Besides, like I said above, a better split might be to have seperate pages for the challenge cup and NHL era winners. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 17:57, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

But the pre-NHL teams are Stanley Cup champions too. Jmj713 (talk) 18:08, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Well, I wasn't seriously proposing it, I meant that it would be worth considering if it came down to it. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 18:22, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

I have trimmed the sample version down to 65,000 bytes. It's now smaller than the List of Stanley Cup champions was before (I shortened the code on that one, and moved the playoff formats list to the NHL playoff article), so I think that solves the size concerns that were brought up. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 18:22, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

In this context, the Finals Appearance table would leave out the pre-1915 teams. ʘ alaney2k ʘ (talk) 18:42, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

But the current appearances article already does. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 18:49, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

One article is called 'List of Stanley Cup champions', and includes challenge era, the other is called 'List of Stanley Cup Final appearances', which does not. So I think it is not appropriate to be included. It's problematic because it leaves out the challenge era appearances, which is problematic on its own. If you put it in, you will be putting an incomplete table into the Champions article. I would then propose a review of its FL status. ʘ alaney2k ʘ (talk) 21:28, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Right, because Stanley Cup Finals and Stanley Cup champions are not the same thing. Jmj713 (talk) 21:35, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Now I think your grasping at straws. If merged it would be called "finals appearances", which would make it just as complete as the current article. There's never been any need or demand for a pre-1915 table due to the complexity of the challenge games. But, if it is that big of an issue, I can try to put one together. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 22:06, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

In fact, there already is one at List of Stanley Cup challenge games#Table of participating teams. If it were copied to the article, would you consider that acceptable? -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 22:11, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

I have started a preliminary copy of what I think the Appearances article could be. It's User:Alaney2k/Stanley Cup Finals in my space. It needs some text on the changes in the series format over the years. This is why I want to keep the finals appearances separately. We could have the article on the challenge games, an article on the Finals, and we have the full Champions list for the whole era. But, the Champions list is too long for any prose, but the Appearances table can fit with prose on the Finals. The three should cover the Stanley Cup series comprehensively. I'm not certain how to proceed on records. There are NHL playoff records, records from the challenge era, and the NHL keeps Finals records as well. ʘ alaney2k ʘ (talk) 22:37, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

That's a very good compromise, actually. We really do need a Stanley Cup Finals article. Jmj713 (talk) 22:57, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

You're forgetting the main reason I wanted to do the merge in the first place: "the champions list would also benefit from having the table in one article rather than two." Having a page for the finals makes sense, but having the appearances list there would basically make it a copy of the main Cup list. Why not make the page for the finals, but still put the appearances page into the main list? -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 23:58, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Ok, so we are making some progress towards consensus. This is good. I am open to varying the locations of the various parts of the information on the Finals, which are spread out disconnectedly. That's what I'd like to solve, but not just in one article. But here are my concerns:

1. Content of the 'Stanley Cup Finals' page, which we can all agree with, should exist. Why is the Appearances table 'bad' there? What other parts/sections have I left out?
2. The Champions page is long. Even if you can fit it today, even Djsasso (who I often disagree with :-) ) pointed out it would likely get split later. So why merge when it would get split later? You addressed this by cutting out some content. I don't think it improved the article.
3. Why not make an all-inclusive Appearances table in the Champions article? The current Appearances table is just Finals. Fits best in the context of the Finals topic. The Champions article is a 'higher-level' topic, that is, it fits best in the context of the Stanley Cup topic. Why put a table on a sub-topic into the Champions list. Should it not be a table ranking all appearances, including, for example, Winnipeg Victorias? That would be the list to put on the Champions article. We -can- have both tables, I think. But I wonder about the length. Should it be an Appearances article with both table?
4. Records. Is it okay to have a start on the Records on the 'Finals' page, to intro another page? Overtime winners the start of the 'Records' page?
5. Unsourced. Both Appearances table would be unsourced. ʘ alaney2k ʘ (talk) 14:52, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

You seem to be coming up with a lot of non-issues to try to justify the non-merging of the articles. It seems like every time I address one of your concerns you immediately come up with some new reason why they can't be merged. I'll address your concerns point by point. 1) With a Finals page, hopefully it can be about the history, the formats, etc. As such, having the appearances there would mean they are out of place. Merging the list into the champions page will make more sense because they fit together much better; the appearances table is essentially a summary of the main table. 2)Your concern about the the champions article growing are premature. Let's not forget: the finals are only held once a year and it would take a long time for the table to grow until it's unmanageable. In other words, it's not something we'll have to worry about any time soon. Besides, with the cuts I made, the merged version will actually come a bit shorter than the old version of the page. 3) Like I said above, the appearances tables are meant to be summaries of the main tables. I don't know why you keep saying the list of finals and list of champions are two completely different entities. They aren't. They all fit into the series about the Stanley Cup. The current series is the main article, history (the anecdotes page), champions, challenge cup, and eventually, the finals. What is wrong with that? You seem to be eager to create a new "finals" topic but you are forgetting that the champions list is already part of a bigger topic. 4) Records belong in the Stanley Cup article or in the Finals article. That's for a different discussion. 5) The appearances table would be covered by the main references. It's a summary of the table, which is completely sourced (besides, the current version of the finals appearances article is unsourced and that doesn't seem to be a concern to you). -- Scorpion0422 II (Talk) 16:17, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry that it is frustrating to you. I'm trying to move forward to consensus, that's what it is. I've proposed something to go forward. Ok, you're against it. No consensus either way? As for sourcing, the Appearances article is not an FL, so why would I be concerned about that? (as of yet I suppose) -You- split the Appearances table in order to make the Champions table an FL. You're the one who has changed their mind. Now, IMO, you just want to jam it back in. I've not changed my mind. The Champions table is good as it is. Just because I've not brought up my concerns before, does not make them invalid. I've been working on other things. I started the vast majority of Stanley Cup Finals articles, and I even have the most edits on the Champions article, so please respect my concerns as those of someone who does care about the topic. I want to do it right. I still think a simple merge would not be right. It completely leaves out a summary/appearances of the teams prior to 1915. Would it be appropriate to have one appearances table in the Champions table, or two, one for challenge period, and one for Finals period? I think two is appropriate, as the format was different. Would two tables make it too long? Yes. I would be against chopping the prose the way you've done, because the list is good as is. It's an FL, would it be improved with a simple merge? IMO, no. I suggest a different path. ʘ alaney2k ʘ (talk) 16:37, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

I've already said that a pre-1915 table will be included, and I even gave you a link to a sample version. Like I said before, length is generally measured in byte size (due to loading times), not the actual length, and its size is manageable. I don't know what you mean by "chopping the prose". What I did was move the list of formats to a more appropriate place (where there was already a slightly less detailed version). The rest of the prose has been untouched (except for the lead, which was actually expanded a bit). I think it would be improved with a "simple merge". The appearances table is a summary (splitting the two is like putting the lead in one article and the body in another), and will make things easier on users because they won't have to navigate between two pages. And, since you brought it up, most of the comparable champions lists include such a table, so by those standards, this one looks incomplete. -- Scorpion0422 II (Talk) 16:45, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Ok, I've taken a look at your latest sample. I did not see the pre-1915 table previously. I still think it is long, but I'm willing to go along with it if we have a Stanley Cup Finals article, and it not be a redirect (thereby not throwing someone into a long list article when looking for an article on the Finals alone). I do see it is under the ballpark of 75k. So you don't think you have to source the summary tables? How should the Stanley Cup Finals page co-exist -- just use the top five of the appearances? I'm not sure if cut and pasting from my personal space article is the correct Wiki way to do it. ʘ alaney2k ʘ (talk) 20:11, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Well, the appearances table is just a summary of the main table, and since the main table is completely sourced, those sources also cover the appearances. Whenever I work on a new article in my user space, I usually just move it directly to the mainspace, that way the history is preserved (I think that's the preferred way, but I'm not sure). -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 00:37, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

I could not just copy over, so I've copied the content over the redirect page that was there. ʘ alaney2k ʘ (talk) 01:03, 16 June 2010 (UTC)